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

2028 Dem veteran? Uncle Sam wants you.

Published

on

In the 15 days since President Donald Trump launched Operation Epic Fury on Iran, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) is approaching nearly a dozen media appearances, offering his often visceral reaction to the conflict.

Gallego, a 46-year-old combat veteran who deployed to Iraq as an infantryman in 2005, has emerged as a blunt, clear voice for the Democratic Party on foreign policy, speaking as someone whose own generation experienced the forever wars.

There he was on BLN’s “The Source with Kaitlin Collins” saying Secretary of State Marco Rubio was doing “CYA” and noting that the “MAGA base is pissed.” There he was sitting down with the AP speaking “as someone who lives with PTSD,” adding “it’s not been an easy week.” And there he was on Derek Thompson’s podcast, speaking about “going town to town searching for insurgents” 21 years ago, “but there was no clear direction of what victory looked like, what the end goal was, what was going to be the after-action report on Iraq.”

Gallego isn’t alone. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a Navy captain who flew combat missions during Operation Desert Storm in 1990, has also racked up a run of high-profile media appearances, as has former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a U.S. Navy Reserve intelligence officer who deployed to Afghanistan. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who served in Afghanistan in the Army’s 82nd Airborne, went on local radio this week to link Americans’ affordability woes to the war.

In a year after many Democrats pined for a metaphorical fighter, the party is now having a conversation with itself about whether it needs a literal fighter — a veteran who can speak with credibility on issues of war and national security.

In an interview with Blue Light News, Gallego spoke of “dodging bullets, IEDs, RPGs, clearing towns and then coming back to the same towns with insurgents” and of “losing friends and still not understanding what the end goal was the whole time.”

“It leaves a mark on you, and you start seeing it happening again, you know, you don’t really think about the politics,” Gallego said. “You think about the people who are going to be potentially dying. And that’s why I think I was not hesitant to speak my mind on that.”

Later this month in San Antonio, Texas, Gallego will join VoteVets Action for its third town hall featuring potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates, promising “fresh voices to the national conversation — those who have worn the uniform and served alongside us, who connect with everyday Americans others can’t,” according to a promotional video. (They’ve also done town halls with Buttigieg and Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin.)

“On foreign policy, the Dems need a candidate who is seen as strong/tough — not in rhetoric or bravado political platitudes but who conveys a sense of judgement and resolve with which voters connect instinctively,” said Doug Wilson, the former assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs during the Obama administration and co-lead of Buttigieg’s 2020 foreign policy team.

The “Iran war underscores the need” for such a candidate, Wilson added.

Whomever the Democrats select as their nominee could potentially face a Situation Room-steeped ticket deep with national security credentials, including a Marine Iraq war veteran in Vice President JD Vance or Rubio, with his secretary of State experience.

Depending on how the many conflicts the U.S. is engaged in at the moment resolve, that experience could cut against them.

But right now, Democrats who can match those bona fides have some currency others without them can’t.

“That’s obviously going to be helpful to them,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way. “It’s gonna be a big part of what they’re talking about for the next little while. But you know, how long does it last? We just don’t know, right? In my professional lifetime, foreign policy stuff and national security has mattered in a presidential race once — in 2004. That’s it. Otherwise, it comes up, but it’s not driving the conversation.”

Some potential Democratic candidates without such credentials have still managed to break through amid the Iran news cycle. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) has said the White House has treated aspects of the war “as a video game,” in a clip gaining traction on X. “When American service members killed in action are returning to the United States in flagged-draped coffins, and even more Americans have lost limbs or suffered terrible brain injuries or are fighting for their lives, this White House treats war like a game, and it’s a disgrace,” Ossoff said.

When asked whether military service is an essential for the party’s eventual nominee, Gallego acknowledged there is a benefit for someone who can “speak with that type of credibility.”

“I’m not the type of person that’s like, ‘you have to be a veteran — Iraq War veteran,’” Gallego said. “This is a democracy. We’re still one, and there’s a lot of people that can bring valuable experience and knowledge. But you know, someone that actually has a nuanced understanding of foreign policy; that doesn’t go to the total knee-jerk reactionism that sometimes we see where we go to the point of, you know, isolationism; or the other way, where we go to full neocon. There needs to be a very balanced way to how we approach the world.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for Blue Light News’s Playbook newsletter.

Continue Reading

Politics

House Republicans find it difficult to focus on rising costs as they plot 2026 agenda

Published

on

House Republicans find it difficult to focus on rising costs as they plot 2026 agenda

A longshot elections bill and an uphill reconciliation fight dominated the yearly policy conference…
Read More

Continue Reading

Politics

Cornyn backs ending filibuster as he courts Trump’s endorsement

Published

on

Cornyn backs ending filibuster as he courts Trump’s endorsement

The president has called on Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act…
Read More

Continue Reading

Trending