Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Matt Taibbi filed a Trumpian, free speech-chilling lawsuit against me. A judge just threw it out

Published

on

ByJohn Higgins

Matt Taibbi, the left-leaning journalist known for his acerbic writing and contrarian who has become a right-wing pundit cosplaying as a free speech warrior, had his defamation lawsuit against me thrown out of court on Tuesday. But winning was never his goal.

When Taibbi filed the complaint last November against me and Hachette, the publisher of my book, “Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left,” it was a serious cause for concern. I wracked my brain trying to think of what I could have gotten wrong — then I read the sloppily written and argued initial legal complaint. Taibbi and his lawyer, Robert Garson, who represented President Donald Trump in his frivolous lawsuit against journalist Bob Woodward (dismissed by a judge in July 2025), would soon file an amended complaint that targeted some out of context language and presented it as proof that I was making claims I was not. But that argument didn’t stand up to scrutiny, it was the one dismissed this week.

It’s hard to view Taibbi’s defamation suit as anything other than a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP. These are meritless suits aimed at silencing critics.

In “Owned,” I detail how tech billionaires, angry about the state of critical mainstream and independent media, have used their fortunes to try to buy up parts of the business. Those independent journalists who go along with the conservative project often find themselves benefitting, whether from added reach, opportunities to address conferences or contracts.  Taibbi’s journey from upstart expat magazine scribe in Russia to Elon Musk’s mouthpiece for spreading the “Twitter Files,” highly curated internal documents from the company that the billionaire used to push his version of an out of control internal bureaucracy at the social media company prior to his taking it over in 2022, is part of that story.

Unsurprisingly, such a critical look at Taibbi did not go over well. He was far from the only target in the book. Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the NSA leak story in 2014 and has subsequently become a right-wing affiliated commentator, takes up the bulk of the narrative — but Taibbi has proven, thus far, the thinnest-skinned.

It’s hard to view Taibbi’s defamation suit as anything other than a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP. These are meritless suits aimed at silencing critics and have led to anti-SLAPP laws in states such as New York and California. The New York anti-SLAPP law is likely why Taibbi filed his lawsuit in federal court, the Southern District of New York, rather than in state court.

For opponents of free speech like Taibbi, the purpose is not necessarily to win a judgement. These censorious busybodies are willing to endure losses in order to tamp down on the speech of their adversaries, betting that the cost and stress of ongoing litigation will make them think twice rather than continue their attacks. (Trump does it all the timeand he has for decades.) The message being sent to other would-be critics: write truthfully about these litigious anti-speech warriors, and you too could find yourselves in court.

The case is part of an ongoing downfall for Taibbi, who has puffed himself up throughout his career as a noble, contrarian advocate of free speech and free expression — unafraid to take on conventional wisdom in his quest for the truth. His reporting on the financial crisis from 2008 to 2010 broke down the details of macroeconomics for a lay audience who were wondering how the global system was collapsing. A decade ago, as most of the mainstream press embraced Russiagate and went all in on tying Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Taibbi looked for the holes in the story in an admirable attempt to parse out the truth.

In recent years he’s drifted to the right and become fixated on conservative culture war issues. At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Taibbi spread anti-vaccine conspiracies and embraced alternative, untested cures to the diseaseall while embracing the right-wing movement that would eventually become Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s “Make American Healthy Again” coalition. He has been critical of transgender rights activists and often targets New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for his affinity for socialism.

The message being sent to other would-be critics: write truthfully about these litigious anti-speech warriors, and you too could find yourselves in court.

The one-time opponent of state power has become a darling of the Republican Party, often called on to appear as a witness by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, in the House and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in the Senate. He’s chummily”https://x.com/SenTedCruz/status/1633952123628003329″>rubbed shoulders with Sen. Ted CruzR-Texas, who he once described as an “incurable skin condition.” No surprise he used one of Trump’s lawyers to sue me and Hachette.

All of that is his right. But as a public figure, he cannot expect to escape criticism for his ideological shift. Suing one of his most outspoken critics simply shows the ideological emptiness of trying to fit square peg into the round hole of his self-image.

In January, Taibbi penned an essay for The Free Press, the online magazine founded by fellow free speech hypocrite Bari Weisssaying that by suing me, he was in fact standing up for the First Amendment. A blog post I wrote about the suit “set off a wave of jeers from the online left-wing peanut gallery, who claim to think my legal challenge clashes with my avowed commitment to freedom of speech,” Taibbi wrote in what is perhaps an unintentional exposure of the real issue — conservatives prefer to yell than be yelled at, and see the latter as anathema to a free society.

For those of us who value freedom of expression and the American value of standing up to the powerful, it’s a good outcome, the dismissal of Taibbi’s suit this week is a good sign for free speech in the U.S. It shows that a powerful man can’t wield the legal system as a weapon against his critics and be assured a victory. We still live in enough of a free society that you can’t buy a verdict.

But while today’s legal win is a welcome development, I can’t be sure that Taibbi won’t appeal it. He has more than enough money to keep the case going and drag myself and Hachette into court again in order to send a message.

Criticism of the powerful is key to a free society. If people like Taibbi can continue to use the legal system to intimidate and harass their ideological opponents — no matter how they dress it up as a defense of free speech — then they have found a loophole to the First Amendment. It’s up to all of us to refuse to be intimidated, and continue to confront power.

John Higgins

Eoin Higgins is a writer based in New England. His book, “Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left,” is available now.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

False claims and a Comey comparison: Southern Poverty Law Center goes on offense

Published

on

False claims and a Comey comparison: Southern Poverty Law Center goes on offense

The Trump administration’s fraud prosecution against the Southern Poverty Law Center was in an Alabama courtroom for arraignment on Thursday, where the Montgomery-based civil rights group pleaded not guilty. But even ahead of that scheduled court appearance, the group’s defense lawyers had already started playing offense.

In one of its motions ahead of Thursday’s hearing, the center called out what it deemed a “false and unfairly prejudicial statement” made by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Fox News: that the government didn’t have information to suggest the group shared with law enforcement what it learned from informants. The SPLC said that claim was false, writing in its motion that its counsel provided such information to the government.

In responsethe Justice Department effectively acknowledged there was at least some merit to the defense’s point. But the DOJ cited a subsequent statement Blanche made on another Fox News program, where he said over the years the group has “selectively shared information with law enforcement. That’s well-documented and there’s no dispute there.” The DOJ said that follow-up comment sufficed to address the defense allegation, “to the extent that any clarification was needed.”

It added, “The United States of America has no intention of making any false or misleading statements in this case or any other case.”

In a separate motionthe SPLC’s lawyers are seeking disclosure of the grand jury proceedings that led to the group’s indictment. The DOJ accused the group of misleading its donors about what their donations would be used for, while the defense argued the charges represent “a stunning and unremitting departure from Justice Department policy and established law.”

In the grand jury motion, the SPLC called the prosecution “as unprecedented as it is irregular,” saying the DOJ is trying to “criminalize some of the very investigative tools and programs that the SPLC has used for decades to infiltrate and dismantle violent extremist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations — tradecraft that has produced vital intelligence that has been shared with law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

Against that backdrop, the SPLC’s lawyers argued the indictment “suffers from obvious legal infirmities” and that its “particularized irregularities suggest that the grand jury was not merely misled by the government’s presentation of the law, but likely that it was actively weaponized to facilitate such charges.”

Given those alleged irregularities, the defense wants to review the otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

In support of its bid for those materials, the defense cited another one of the Trump DOJ’s political prosecutions: the one against James Comey. The former FBI director was recently charged with threatening Trump’s life in an Instagram post that showed seashells on a beach arranged to make the numbers “86 47.”

In a separate, since-dismissed case against Comey, a judge granted the sort of motion the SPLC made regarding grand jury materials.

“As that court concluded, when the government may have misstated the law to the grand jury and thereby allowed corruption of the probable cause assessment, the defense is entitled to examine what was said and how the law was presented. So too here,” the SPLC’s lawyers wrote, arguing that disclosing the grand jury transcripts “is necessary to avoid injustice and will inform the SPLC’s forthcoming motions, including a potential motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution.”

The DOJ responded that the defense claim is based on “speculation and unsubstantiated allegations” and “is neither particularized nor compelling.” The DOJ called the Comey case “hardly comparable” to this one, writing, among other things, that “misstatements of the law were hardly the only underlying basis for the court’s decision to disclose all grand jury materials” in the Comey case.

The SPLC can file final reply briefs by Tuesday, May 12, before an Alabama judge rules on the false statement and grand jury motions.

Those are not the only pretrial motions the defense will likely file in this case, including the potentially forthcoming vindictive prosecution motion the defense has signaled may come.

Announcing the charges last month, the DOJ said a conviction “will result in the forfeiture of financial gains from the alleged illegal activities.”

According to a whistleblower account obtained by MS NOW, the charges were rushed through despite concerns about the strength of the case.

Earlier in the day last month, when the charges were announced, SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said due to the group’s history of fighting white supremacy and other injustices, it was “unsurprised” to be “targeted” by this administration.

“They have made no secret of who they want to protect and who they want to destroy,” Fair said.

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the SPLC “long ago abandoned civil rights work and turned into a partisan smear machine” and that the group’s “so-called ‘hate map’ has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence.” Patel’s claim followed Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September, which increased conservative pressure against the group that called Kirk’s Turning Point USA organization “a case study of the hard right.”

The SPLC’s reporton the subject called TPUSA “a well-fundedhard-right organization with links to Southern Poverty Law Center-identified hard-right extremists and a tremendous amount of influence in conservative politics.” TPUSA’s main strategy, according to the SPLC, was “sowing and exploiting fear that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights activists.”

This article has been updated to include the SPLC’s plea of not guilty.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Democratic lawmakers launch probe of Trump’s clemency decisions

Published

on

Democratic lawmakers launch probe of Trump’s clemency decisions

Democrats in the House and the Senate are launching an investigation into President Donald Trump’s use of presidential pardon powers amid allegations of bribery.

Two House Democrats from California, Reps. Dave Min and Raul Ruiz, have linked up with Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., in pressing for details about an alleged “pay to play” scheme involving pardons and commutations. The allegations — and Trump’s second-term trend of doling out pardons to convicted criminals who have shown favor to his movement and done business with his family, regardless of whether they showed contrition for their crimes — are a central focus of MS NOW’s new series on Trump’s clemency decisions, “Justice Interrupted.”

The Democratic lawmakers sent letters to 17 people who received pardons or commutations from Trump. The list includes Changpeng Zhao, a billionaire cryptocurrency investor who pleaded guilty to violating money laundering laws — and struck a deal with the Trump family’s crypto firm. Since taking office, the president — whose administration has a hand in regulating the crypto industry — has reportedly seen his family’s wealth balloon by billions of dollarsaided by such investments in the crypto firm, World Liberty Financial.

The letter recipients also include David Gentile, a convicted fraudster whose presidential commutation prevented his victims — that is, thousands of people — from collecting $15.5 million in restitution. Gentile’s commutation is particularly rich given the Trump administration’s supposed focus on prosecuting fraud.

In the letters, the Democratic lawmakers expressed concern about the lost restitution for victims and said their inquiry is designed to “ensure that no President abuses their power to grant executive clemency.”

Here’s the information they’re seeking, laid out in a press release:

● The process by which clemency requests were initiated and considered;

● Whether intermediaries, lobbyists, or advocates were involved;

● Any contacts with Trump administration officials or associates;

● Whether financial contributions or payments were made in connection with clemency efforts; and

● The extent of third-party advocacy supporting the requests.

Trump reportedly said in a recent meeting that he would “pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval [Office]” before he leaves office. In response, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Wall Street Journal that it “should learn to take a joke” — before declaring that the president’s pardon power “is absolute.”

As for the Democratic lawmakers’ investigation, Leavitt denied any impropriety in Trump’s clemency decisions and repeated a previous claim that anyone “spending money to lobby for pardons is foolishly wasting their money.” She added that the administration has a “robust pardon review process.”

Liz Oyer, who served as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney before Trump fired her last year, has been sounding the alarm that the president is making “a mockery” of the pardon system. In an essay for The New York Timesshe wrote that Trump has shown how “unfettered executive power can be used to degrade, corrupt and politicize the justice system.”

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Man who firebombed pro-Israel demonstration in Colorado sentenced to life in prison

Published

on

Man who firebombed pro-Israel demonstration in Colorado sentenced to life in prison

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) — A man was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after pleading guilty Thursday to killing one person and injuring a dozen others in a 2025 firebombing attackon a demonstration in Boulder, Colorado, in support of Israeli hostagesin Gaza.

Mohamed Sabry Soliman looked down at a desk throughout the sentencing. He has meanwhile pleaded not guilty to federal hate crime charges for the attack last June. Prosecutors are weighing whether to seek the death penalty in the federal case, according to his attorneys.

Authorities say Soliman threw two Molotov cocktails at demonstrators at a pedestrian mall in downtown Boulder, a city of 100,000 people northwest of Denver that’s home to the University of Colorado.

Karen Diamond, 82, was injured in the attack and later died. A dozen others were also injured.

Soliman is an Egyptian national who federal authorities say was living in the U.S. illegally.Investigators allege he planned the attack for a year and was driven by a desire “to kill all Zionist people.”

Speaking to the court through an interpreter for nearly half an hour, Soliman offered apologies to the victims and condolences for Diamond’s death. “There are no words that can express my sadness for her passing,” Soliman said.

He said he wasn’t asking for leniency at sentencing for his convictions in state court and wants prosecutors pressing federal hate crime charges against him to seek the death penalty.

“If I went back, I would not have done this as this is not according to the teaching of Islam,” Soliman said. “What I did came out of myself and only myself.”

In a statement read earlier in court by a prosecutor, Diamond’s sons asked that Soliman not be allowed to see his family again “since he is responsible for our mother never seeing her family again.”

Andrew and Ethan Diamond said their mother suffered “indescribable pain” for over three weeks before her death. “In those weeks, we learned the full meaning of the expressions ‘living hell’ and ‘fate worse than death,’” Diamond’s sons said in the statement.

In another statement read by a prosecutor, a physician who was a victim of the attack described the helplessness of seeing Diamond suffering and knowing that she would not survive.

Boulder Mayor Pro Tem Tara Winer said the victims included some of her close friends.

“It was a horrific attack,” Winer said by email this week. “Their lives were changed forever.”

Soliman’s attorneys revealed he would plead guiltyin a Sunday court filing in a related federal case.

Soliman’s federal attorneys have said in court filings that the attack “was profoundly inconsistent” with Soliman’s prior conduct and “came as a total shock to his family.”

At the time of the attack, Soliman had been living with his family in a two-bedroom apartment in Colorado Springs — about 97 miles (156 kilometers) away. He had moved to the U.S. from Kuwait in 2022 with his wife and their five children and worked in a series of low-paying jobs.

The couple divorced in April.

Investigators allege Soliman told them he intended to kill the roughly 20 participants at the weekly demonstration at Boulder’s Pearl Street pedestrian mall. He threw two of more than two dozen Molotov cocktails he had with him while yelling, “Free Palestine!”

Police said he told them he got scared because he had never hurt anyone before.

Federal prosecutors allege the victims were targeted because of their perceived or actual connection to Israel. Soliman’s federal defense lawyers argue he should not have been charged with hate crimes because he was motivated by opposition to Zionism, the political movement to establish and sustain a Jewish state in Israel.

An attack motivated by someone’s political views is not considered a hate crime under federal law.

State prosecutors have identified 29 victims in the attack. Thirteen were physically injured. The others were nearby and considered victims because they could have been hurt. A dog was also injured in the attack, and Soliman was charged with animal cruelty.

Soliman’s wife, Hayam El Gamal, and their children spent 10 months in immigration detention until a federal judge in Texas ordered their releasein April.

An immigration appeals court had dismissed their case to stay in the U.S. and issued a deportation order. But U.S. District Judge Fred Biery in San Antonio allowed their release on the condition that El Gamal and her oldest child, who is 18, wear electronic monitoring.

Soliman’s attorneys seek to block the family’s deportation until a judge determines they won’t need to be present for court proceedings in his federal case.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending