Connect with us

Politics

Why Trump’s lawsuit against CBS is transparently ridiculous

Published

on

Why Trump’s lawsuit against CBS is transparently ridiculous

In the closing weeks of the 2024 presidential election, no issue has animated Donald Trump more than his obsession with CBS’ “60 Minutes.”

To briefly recap, Vice President Kamala Harris sat down for an interview with the news program in early October; some of her answers were edited for time — a standard practice in broadcast journalism — and the former Republican president has spent nearly every day since pretending that this is some kind of scandal.

Trump has, among other things, called for CBS to lose its broadcasting license, asked for “60 Minutes” to be pulled from the air, labeled the show and the network a “threat to democracy,” described the imaginary controversy as “the single biggest scandal in broadcast history,” and even characterized the non-story as “totally illegal.”

The network has patiently explained that the claims are baseless and that the editing process was routine and fair. Trump’s lawyers nevertheless recently wrote to CBS News, threatening litigation. Evidently, they weren’t kidding. Reuters reported:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump sued CBS on Thursday over an interview of his Democratic rival Kamala Harris aired on its “60 Minutes” news program in early October that the lawsuit alleged was misleading, according to a court filing. The complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas, alleges the network aired two different responses from Harris responding to a question about the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The GOP candidate is seeking — I kid you not — $10 billion in damages.

“Former President Trump’s repeated claims against 60 Minutes are false,” a CBS News spokesperson said. “The lawsuit Trump has brought today against CBS is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it.”

As a legal matter, the idea that CBS News engaged in “election interference” is difficult to take seriously. The former president recently wrote on his online platform that he has “PROOF” to substantiate his bizarre claims, but to date, he hasn’t shared any such evidence.

As a political matter, the Harris campaign has invested quite a bit of time and energy telling voters that Trump is overly fixated, not on problem-solving, but on vengeance and retaliation. The Republican shifting his focus to CBS in the race’s final days seems to reinforce the Democratic framing: Trump has an enemies list, while Harris has a to-do list.

But my favorite part of this story is the fact that the lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas. Why, pray tell, would the former president’s lawyers file the case there? I’m glad you asked.

CBS isn’t located in Texas. Trump doesn’t live in Texas. The Trump campaign isn’t located in Texas. The “60 Minutes” interview with Harris didn’t happen in Texas. Nothing about this story has anything to do with Texas.

But the Republican’s attorneys filed the case there anyway, and The Washington Post ran a report that helped explain the reason: “The long-shot claim was filed in the Northern District of Texas courthouse where Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, a Trump nominee, is the sole judge.”

To be sure, the official explanation for filing the litigation in the Northern District of Texas is that the “60 Minutes” interview was aired by the CBS affiliate in the area, where some Texans presumably saw it.

But there’s no reason to play games here. Trump’s lawyers wanted to get this case in front of a highly controversial Trump-appointed judge, who’s quickly become the go-to jurist for GOP plaintiffs looking for a legal ally on the bench.

It was, for example, Kacsmaryk who took it upon himself to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone last year, relying in large part on highly dubious studies — which have since been retracted. (The ruling was ultimately overturned for procedural reasons.)

When a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a new rule in Texas that would require firearms dealers to run background checks on buyers at gun shows, that was Kacsmaryk, too.

When a conservative group wanted to challenge energy efficiency standards, they figured it’d be a good idea to file the case in Kacsmaryk’s district. When a conservative group wanted to challenge the administration’s protections for LGBTQ+ students, they did the same thing.

It’s as if Trump’s lawyers decided to offer the legal and political world another case study for why reforms are necessary to curtail judge shopping.

Steve Benen

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Politics

Andy Beshear hits Newsom for hosting Bannon on his new podcast

Published

on

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear took a swipe Thursday at a fellow leading Democrat, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, for hosting one of the most prominent figures in the MAGA movement on his new podcast.

Beshear, whose popularity in a heavily Republican state has turned him into a potential presidential candidate, told reporters that Newsom shouldn’t have opened his platform to Steve Bannon, an outspoken advocate of the “America first” agenda of President Donald Trump.

“I think that Governor Newsom bringing on different voices is great, we shouldn’t be afraid to talk and to debate just about anyone,” Beshear said at a Democratic policy retreat in Virginia. “But Steve Bannon espouses hatred and anger, and even at some points violence, and I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform, ever, anywhere.”

The criticism of Newsom, who is widely expected to run for president, amounted to what could be an early skirmish in the next Democratic primary. It also reflects divisions within a party trying to find its footing after Trump’s resounding victory.

The California governor recently launched the podcast, which appears to some degree to be an effort to find common ground with an ascendant conservative movement.

In his debut episode, speaking to Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, Newsom drew widespread attention — and criticism — for suggesting that Democrats were wrong to allow transgender athletes to participate in female youth sports. He was also critical of progressives who have called for defunding the police or who use the gender neutral term “Latinx.”

Newsom defended his approach and the Bannon interview in an email statement on Wednesday, saying it is “critically important” to understand Trump’s movement and how it successfully operated in the last campaign.

In the hour-long episode, Bannon repeated the debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen amid a discussion that also covered tariffs and taxes.

“I think we all agreed after the last election that it’s important for Democrats to explore new and unique ways of talking to people,” Newsom said.

A spokesperson for Newsom, who plans to have Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on his next episode, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Beshear’s remarks.

The Kentucky governor, who was a featured speaker at the retreat along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, was not alone in criticizing the Bannon interview.

Former Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who was one of the few Republicans in Congress to challenge Trump, called it an “insane” decision to host Bannon.

“I am in shock at the stupidity of [Newsom] inviting Steve Bannon on his podcast,” Kinzinger said Wednesday. “Many of us on the right sacrificed careers to fight Bannon, and Newsom is trying to make a career and a presidential run by building him up.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Top Illinois Democrat readies a Senate bid — and tells people she has major backing

Published

on

Ambitious Illinois Democrats are dreaming about Sen. Dick Durbin’s exit in 2026. The latest contender: the state’s lieutenant governor.

Juliana Stratton, who first took office in 2019, is quietly positioning herself for a Senate bid if Durbin bows out, calling key Democratic figures to ask for support, according to three people with knowledge of her plans, one of whom spoke with her directly and the other two who spoke with members of her team.

And she and her staff have said that she’s already secured the support of Gov. JB Pritzker, the three people said. They were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations and avoid political retribution. She and her team have made clear she expects Pritzker to be heavily involved financially, those people said.

“Juliana continues to keep an open mind about future opportunities, and if she does decide to pursue higher office, she’d be proud to earn the governor’s support while working to build a broad grassroots coalition,” said a spokesperson for the lieutenant governor, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Pritzker, a high-profile governor and potential 2028 hopeful, is already a prolific Democratic donor and party operator, and his vast personal wealth would be a significant boost to any candidate. His money and endorsement could transform the brewing shadow primary that includes several members of the state’s congressional delegation.

His team declined to discuss an endorsement or financial backing in any potential primary. “We’re not going to engage with hypotheticals for a seat that’s not even open,” said a person close to the governor’s political operation granted anonymity to speak candidly.

The governor hand-picked Stratton, then a state representative, to be his running mate in 2017 and he was a guest of honor last month at a fundraising event for her newly formed federal PAC.

Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton speaks to reporters as Gov. JB Pritzker, to her left, looks on with other state lawmakers in Chicago on Feb. 10, 2025.

Pritzker, a billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotel empire, could support that PAC as well as donate millions to any other super PACs supporting her campaign. That kind of financial support could make Stratton the front-runner in a primary that would essentially guarantee a spot in the Senate in the heavily blue state.

And if a Pritzker-backed candidate wins the race, it could help position him even more firmly as a major Democratic powerbroker, one whose influence could extend beyond Illinois political circles as 2028 approaches.

Durbin has served in the Senate since 1997 and while many Democrats expect the 80-year-old will retire, those close to him say he hasn’t yet decided.

In a brief interview Wednesday, Durbin acknowledged the lieutenant governor was among the Democrats who are preparing for his possible retirement: “She said if I run she’s not going to.”

Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi has been padding his campaign account for years for a possible Senate run. He had amassed $17.1 million by the end of 2024. His fellow Democratic Reps. Lauren Underwood, who flipped a GOP-held district in 2018, and Robin Kelly, the former chair of the Illinois Democratic Party, are also eyeing the seat.

And Illinois Democrats have made a parlor game of wondering what’s next for Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor who just returned from an ambassador stint in Japan. For now, he’s a commentator on BLN.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Be careful about this’: Warnings abound as GOP considers writing off tax cuts

Published

on

‘Be careful about this’: Warnings abound as GOP considers writing off tax cuts

Republicans will discuss the accounting maneuver with President Donald Trump on Thursday…
Read More

Continue Reading

Trending