President Trump’s re-election campaign filed a defamation action in Georgia against CNN on Friday for publishing an opinion piece by Larry Noble, a CNN contributor and former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. Based largely on an opinion piece by a well-known Trump critic, the lawsuit is weak and unlikely to succeed. The complaint offers more heat than light as a defamation action.
The Trump campaign alleges that CNN made “false and defamatory” statements about seeking Russia’s help in the 2020 election. Specifically, the complaint charges that CNN claimed Trump’s campaign “assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia’s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table.”
The basis is Larry Noble’s CNN story, entitled “Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime. Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it.” The title and the piece is clearly an opinion from someone who has spent much of his career in the area of federal election law. I disagree with the column, which states with little foundation that the Trump campaign “assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia’s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table.”
The obvious problem is that the Russian allegations were a matter of intense public and political debate for years. While the complaint cites the denials of White House staff and associates, this is an area rife with opinion and debate. Liability for such commentary would create a deep chilling effect on the political speech across the political spectrum.
We have previously discussed President Donald Trump’s repeated calls for changing libel laws and suing his critics, particularly the New York Times. His campaign brought such a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times recently for allegedly publishing false claims in an op-ed written by Max Frankel on March 27, 2019, entitled “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo.” As in this case, the selection of an opinion piece made that case especially difficult to litigate and again raises questions of the motivation behind the litigation.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.
The campaign must prove that the defendant had “actual malice” where it had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard whether it was true or false. That is the standard that Trump dislikes because it insulates the media from the threat of litigation. Most of the stories that Trump has railed against would not be actionable under this standard. However, Trump seems to be relishing the idea of bringing financial pressure on the media through litigation — the very goal of Sullivan and his contemporaries to bring the media to heel.
Notably, the complaint tries to establish malice by referencing the investigative stories of Project Veritas footage featuring Nick Neville, a Media Coordinator at CNN. In the videotape, Neville states that CNN’s chief executive, Jeff Zucker, has a personal vendetta against the
President. There is no question that Zucker has rebranded CNN as an anti-Trump network in the age of echo-journalism. Hosts are often unrelenting in their attacks on the Administration. It further notes:
John Bonifield, a Supervising Producer at CNN, states in the Project Veritas footage that CNN’s coverage regarding Russia’s alleged interference with the 2016 election was “mostly bullshit” and that the President “is probably right to say…you are witch hunting me.”
Christian Sierra, a Media Coordinator at CNN, states in the Project Veritas footage that Mr. Zucker wanted impeachment to be the top story every day, that “everyone at the network” complains about the amount of such coverage, and that CNN’s “Democratic interviews are like softballs, compared to the Republicans.”
Cary Poarch, a CNN employee in the Washington, D.C. bureau, states in the Project Veritas footage that CNN “purports to be facts first, and that’s clearly not the case.”
It further notes that Noble has a long-standing record of anti-Trump statements alleging criminal and ethical misconduct by President Trump.
I have been a critic of the CNN coverage for years, which I view as openly hostile and biased. Despite my respect for individual CNN hosts, I agree with the critics that much of the coverage shows a consistent and fragrant advocacy against Trump. However, that does not answer the question over defamation, particularly in dealing with an opinion piece. Such commentary fall squarely within the core of protected speech under the first amendment.
While the campaign cites Noble’s inflammatory language, it only reinforces the view that this is all opinion: “Trump cheats and lies, and when caught, lies again and claims the right to make he rules. He claims defeats as victories, takes credit for anyone’s success and blames his failures on others. And the Republicans have told him they are fine with that, so he’s just getting started.”
This brings us back to the motive of these filings, which seem cathartic at best and retaliatory at worst. This is precisely why the Supreme Court crafted the constitutional standard for defamation actions against public officials. While I agree with the criticism of CNN coverage, I strongly disagree with this lawsuit and I believe that it will (and should) be rejected in the interests of free speech.
” It merely requires that malice be proven against the public figure being libelled for a libel action to proceed. President Trump’s attorney has established such malice”
If claiming that Trump may be seeking campaign help from foreign states is a such a malicious lie then why has Trump publicly invited Russia and China to give such assistance?
The invitation to China was made after the CNN and NYT stories were published. That certainly suggests the stories were true at the time they were written.
Turley wrote: “I have been a critic of the CNN coverage for years, which I view as openly hostile and biased. Despite my respect for individual CNN hosts, I agree with the critics that much of the coverage shows a consistent and fragrant advocacy against Trump.”
100% True.
The anti-Trump media is not just pumping out nonstop ‘openly hostile and biased’ coverage of the Trump administration, but now it is *intentionally* stoking panic, spreading lies and confusing disinformation, and hoping to tank the markets just to hurt Trump. CNN is literally trying to cause panic with their *hate Trump* coverage of coronavirus.
The headline is a lie – there are no Federal statutes regarding help from foreign governments. The only statute prohibits foreign monetary contributions.
“The headline is a lie”
What headline?
The statutes prohibit “donation of money or other thing of value”
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
Yet another “look over here, and ignore the gorilla over there” piece, Jon, that fits nicely into the Fox News narrative that the media can’t be trusted. This coming at a time when the only way Americans will ever hear the truth about the number of cases, the spread of cases and risk of contracting COVID-19 is from media. The irresponsibility of using your credentials and platform to stoke anti-media bias is that some Trumpsters actually do believe that COVID-19 IS a hoax because their fearless leader said so. Therefore, they won’t take precautions or follow recommendations about seeing a health care provider. I saw an interview on Saturday in which a woman Trump supporter was interviewed. She said that there is no COVID-19, that the Democrats made it up just to hurt Trump during this campaign cycle and that it’s all another hoax. She said it’s just the “flu”, and she really believes this. The interviewer was speechless. It takes a lot to shock me, but I found this shocking. Kellyanne Conway and Larry Kudlow both said that COVID-19 is “contained”, which is nothing but a lie. At least Dr. Fauci isn’t letting Pence control the message any more. Dr. Fauci made clear that COVID-19 isn’t contained, that people over 60 shouldn’t go on airplanes or cruise ships, that schools and large gatherings, such as sporting events and political rallies, might need to be cancelled, and that it will get worse before it is actually contained. On Friday, Trump said anyone who wants a test can get a test, but Pence contradicted him that same day by saying that there aren’t enough tests. The job of the media is to point out these discrepancies, plus the unavoidable conclusion that Trump cannot be trusted. Trump also said that he wanted the passengers on the Grand Princess to stay on the ship, because he “likes the numbers”. Never mind that these people are being held hostage, and that most aren’t sick, although only 45 had been tested out of more than 3,000.
Yes, you acknowledge that the reason Trump’s campaign filed this lawsuit was to cost CNN a lot of money–to punish the network because it doesn’t support Trump, which is mainstream, because most Americans don’t support Trump and don’t believe anything he has to say. This is just more of your effort to try to treat Trump like he belongs in the Oval Office, which he doesn’t. He doesn’t deserve to be treated like a president because he’s not fit to serve and cheated his way into office.
What will happen is that now CNN has a platform to compel Trump to testify, something Mueller didn’t have, so Trump will delay his deposition as long as possible and then dismiss the suit, costing CNN a fortune in attorney fees to punish them and intimidate them and others from criticizing der fuerher in the coming months as the election draws near. Jon, since you claim to be a major fan of freedom speech, how can you cite the allegations in the complaint, in large-font format, no less, thus using your credentials to stoke media distrust instead of pointing out the danger of trying to muzzle media, especially in this time of crisis?
Agreed. How can I not? It’s glaringly obvious.
Sometimes I wonder whether the Professor is a paid influencer. Well actually I go back and forth between thinking he’s actively trying to influence versus just obsessing on a devil’s advocate policy of some sort. Either way, it can come across as being blind to the obvious and staggeringly short on being able to call out the obnoxiously obvious for what it truly is.
Sure, let’s watch the partisan anti-Trump media intentionally spreading lies and misinformation, stoking panic, and seemingly hoping to tank the markets and destroy the economy — all to hurt Trump. Yep, THIS is CNN.
Trumpsters are just plain blind. You have to be to ignore the lying, lack of leadership, pettiness, pivoting to blame others, vindictiveness and unwillingness to accept responsibility for the US being unprepared to deal with COVID-19.
What “lies and misinformation” has the “anti-Trump media” been spreading? I don’t see panic at all: the stock market is in free-fall because the COVID-19 has caused problems with the supply chain from everything to prescription drugs, to component parts and consumer goods, a run on sanitizers and face masks, cancellation of large-group meetings, with reduced travel and the side-benefits to the hospitality industry and quarantining. It’s not a matter of panic or media hype. There are shortages and meetings and travel are being canceled. Then, there’s the crude oil situation. The media report the facts. The market is tanking. Trump unfairly took credit for Barak Obama’s turning around of the economy, but he won’t accept any responsibility for the market tanking. Another huge factor in the market free-fall is the endless lying by Trump and his surrogates abut the number of cases, false claims that the virus is “contained”, that the epidemic would magically end, that we’d have a virus “very soon”, that anyone who wants a test can get a test, and so forth. Trump has zero credibility at a time when American leadership is essential. That also is contributing to the market dropping. Dr. Drew is wrong: panic is not driving these losses: it’s the economy, stupid, exacerbated by a POTUS who lies, who withdrew the rapid response team, resulting in a lack of preparedness, and the spread of this disease.
Natacha says: “Trump unfairly took credit for Barak Obama’s turning around of the economy, but he won’t accept any responsibility for the market tanking.”
Oh for the love of god please stop spreading your lies. This booming economy is Trump’s economy, not Obama’s. The media never said a word or gave Trump credit when the markets broke never-before-seen records, yet when the markets start tanking they scream “it’s all Trump’s fault!!” So which is it?
Dr. Drew on the coronavirus: “Businesses are getting destroyed and people’s lives are being upended not by the virus, but by the panic. The panic must stop. And the press, they really somehow need to be held accountable because they are hurting people”
“Held accountable” for what? What media has lied about this situation? What lies were told? The lie is that the virus isn’t responsible for quarantining, schools shutting down, travel being cancelled, prescription drugs, consumer goods and component parts not getting shipped from China, and the Trump Administration’s incompetence, lack of preparedness and lying to the public. Dr. Drew needs to be held accountable for his misleading statements.
You Trumpsters can go right ahead with large meetings, not washing your hands, going on cruise ships and airplanes, touching surfaces, not going to the doctor when you are symptomatic, and whatever else. Just be sure to wear your red MAGA hat, so I can spray some Lysol in your face if you pass by me.
The media is stoking the panic and they are doing everything they can to report negatively and unfairly on all of it in a blatant effort to hurt Trump.
Unfortunately, the First Amerdment implies the freedom of the press to attack those in power. Crown v. John Peter Zenger shined a strong light on the British government’s abuse of power in its doctrine of “seditious libel” – particularly the idea that truth was no defense against unfavorable criticism of the government. The First Amerndment to the Constitution was a reaction to this abuse of power.
But I agree with Paul C Schulte and Allan that law suits brought by private citizens, even “public figures”, are useful in illuminating abuses of power committed by journalists and news organizations themselves. If and when such lawsuits are brought often enough, it may provoke the Supreme Court to revisit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) – with an eye toward restoring the balance between journalists and those they choose to libel.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) is not a license to lie. It merely requires that malice be proven against the public figure being libelled for a libel action to proceed. President Trump’s attorney has established such malice Professor Turley, I have to disagree with you on this count – it’s a textbook case of how far a journalist or publisher has to go to escape the protections afforded by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
CNN has repeatedly gambled that they could lie about people and get away with it, and Nicholas Sandmann’s attorney succeeded in showing where that line was drawn in the case of a young man who wouldn’t have been a public figure had the mass media not conspired to defame him. It’s now time to redraw a buffed-over line protecting “public figures” against what has clearly been malicious reporting since 2016. Journalistic malice against President Trump exists, can be proven to exist easily in CNN’s case, and for the sake of our nation, should be punishable – and punished accordingy.
Res Ipsa Loquitur. The thing itself speaks. The ‘thing’ in this case being Donald Trump who has admitted on tape he’d like the Russians to act on his behalf by hacking email. That he’d be open to foreign help in elections going forward. So speculations on how far he’d take this are by no means excessive. Just because Fox refuses to doesn’t mean anything.
The nation is exceedingly polarized. It’s media venues reflect this because they have to make a living. Having said that, I don’t think CNN is over the line. Saying you don’t like their mandate but respect the individual hosts is kind of a skate, Professor.
Dare ya to write a similar column about Fox News.
Nice try, Jon. If someone were to say, “In my opinion, you should stop beating your wife”, that’s clearly a statement of an opinion. But it also contains the ‘presupposition’ that you are beating your wife. If the speaker has no knowledge that you are beating your wife, then it is a false statement of fact as well as an opinion. If the speaker knows that you don’t beat your wife, then it is a deliberately false statement with implied malice.
After 4 years of investigations into the matter of Trump- Russia collusion, starting in July 2016 with Crossfire-Hurricane and ending with the 2.5 year Mueller witch hunt, Trump’s accusers came up empty. The New York Times is well aware of this, yet they published their defamatory story anyway.
Perhaps Trump is really good at concealing his bad behavior. Or perhaps, Trump is no better than the rest of us at proving a negative. I was under the impression that the libel laws are intended to protect us from this. And even though Trump is a public figure, he is no less of a person or a citizen than the rest of us.
After 4 years of investigations into the matter of Trump- Russia collusion, starting in July 2016 with Crossfire-Hurricane and ending with the 2.5 year Mueller witch hunt, Trump’s accusers came up empty.
__________________________________________________
Trump’s so-called “accusers” to which you refer were working for the Trump administration. The objective of these exercises was to get Trump elected in 2016 and 2020.
Free Speech isn’t just a matter of opinion when you risk another person, whether it’s their life or their reputation. Which is why you can’t yell Fire in a crowded theater. You also can’t yell “treaso”n or maybe “future treason” when it’s not true . Both are lies. Not free speech. Lies are not protected.
Maybe these media organizations who are reckless with the truth need to get their act together. They make up sh** all the time and are never called on it. If you have plenty of ink (?) you need to be careful of what you say or print.
Jonathan: Along with the NY Times Trump has also sued CNN for defamation. Big surprise. Trump wants a supine press that that only prints articles and opinion pieces he approves. Nothing new here. You ask what is “the motive behind these filings” by Trump. No doubt Trump’s lawyers have told him there is little likely of success because of the seminal NY Times vs Sullivan case standing in the way. But, perhaps, emboldened by the recent court opinions upholding his growing list of unlimited powers Trump thinks he might have success with a Supreme Court, packed with his supporters, that might look more favorably on his demand that the libel laws be changed. Far fetched? Nothing is far fetched or predicable with this President?
I hope Trump gets a generous decision like that high school kid did when that Native American got in his face.
First, CNN will have to spend money to defend this lawsuit. Money that it doesn’t have.
Secondly, CNN has not spent the last three years offering its opinions. It has spent the last three years reporting its opinions as actual facts.
Finally, I find it most amusing that Professor Turley has written a number of pieces whining about the “false stories” written about his congressional testimony.
CNN…KGB..bee eye Vicki oh
Buy oh eeh..
Vicki bye Vicki oh..
Boo Boo.
“ There is no question that Zucker has rebranded CNN as an anti-Trump network in the age of echo-journalism. Hosts are often unrelenting in their attacks on the Administration. “
Like Wah Putz, CNN can not generate the revenue to support its vile debunked views. If it were not for corporate billionaires flush with cash to float them, these vile yellow journalists would die a death swifter than the business peddled by prostitutes dressed in bad makeup and sexually transmitted diseases. At least the latter admits to wearing falsies
This is not hard. Did CNN truly believe what they said or not. It is that simple. Here is what I would say to the jury:
———–
The question here is whether or not CNN believed what they said or not. Because if CNN truly believed what they said, then that is an opinion, and that is protected by the Constitution. But if CNN did not truly believe it, and said it anyway, then that is malice. And that is not protected by the Constitution.
Fortunately for you, this is an easy question to answer, and you will not have to read anybody’s mind because CNN has been very open about what they truly believe.
John Bonifield, a Supervising Producer at CNN, states in the Project Veritas footage that CNN’s coverage regarding Russia’s alleged interference with the 2016 election was “mostly bullsh!t” and that the President “is probably right to say…you are witch hunting me.”
Van Jones, a regular political contributor to CNN said years ago that, “The Russia thing is just a big nothing burger.”
Noted Constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley, no supporter of Trump, has said, “There is no question that Zucker has rebranded CNN as an anti-Trump network in the age of echo-journalism. Hosts are often unrelenting in their attacks on the Administration.”
Cary Poarch, a CNN employee in the Washington, D.C. bureau, states in the Project Veritas footage that CNN “purports to be facts first, and that’s clearly not the case.”
(more in this vein, then)
So, considering all of this, is there any question that CNN acted out of malice? I do not think so. This is a no-brainer and a slam dunk. CNN acted out of malice, and when CNN chose to go this route, when CNN chose to tell lies, when CNN chose to walk away from facts and the truth, then they removed their own Constitutional protections. That was their choice, and you should let them pay the price.
————–
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
In the minds of Citizens which to me does not include supporters of CNN that sad remnant of a once brilliant idea can now fairly and objectively be known as the Clinton No News propaganda network. A tool of the foreign ideologists of the equally no longer valid DNC who are socialists actively in revolution mode against Our Constitutional Republic,
Emphasis on the elected group who committed a crime in taking the Oath of Office (Pelosites and Schumerians) just as criminal as those who refused to take the Oath (The Squat) and those who seated them in violation of Our Constitution. Namely Comrade Benita Pelosillyni and Chuckie Schumuckley Puts .
Time to call a shovel a shovel and a Bullshevik a Democrat In Name Only which is much more honest. DINO yes DNC No. The shovel is just the tool to toss them out of our Government using our independent self governing citizen main weapon of the vote. much like we did in 2016.
No room for Bullsheviks or even Mensheviks as The Counter Revolution continues.
Constitutional Centrist Coalition of independent self governing citizens and our friends from the various anti Socialist Groups provided a block of 40% of the total vote in 2016 with a budget of zero simply by using three words. Pass it on.
The NYTimes provided the left with a false story that went on for years causing a lot of sleepy Americans to believe the lie. Trump wants to let the American people recognize these lies as lies. While waking up the American people might be more careful in assessing what they read so perhaps a suit of this nature will do what is intended. It may or may not be a weak case, but so what? There is nothing wrong with correcting lies. I’ll let Turley deal with the legalisms that are meaningless in this case while Trump deals with with righting a lot of wrongs and gets the news media to reveal the truth.
I think that’s right, Allan, the President has wins in his column and should send these types of *messages* in the run-up to the November election. As you know, Mr. Turley, 2016 was a horrendous hit job on a presidential candidate and it has only slowed because of an all hands on deck conservative pushback from public and private sources showing support for the guy in the ring.
Right is right and won’t be found on the left.
CNN viewership decreasing by the hour.
If his campaign files enough of these, maybe they will get the idea, or one of them will get to discovery.
_________________________________________________
What do you expect to be discovered?
CNN and Trump have a synergistic relationship from which they both benefit.
The lawsuit is just part of the phony adversarial relationship that will help trump get reelected in 2020.
jinn – the discovery would include all emails and communications that concern Trump.
Hmmm. Interesting. Well Trump is no dummy, so that could be true. He plays the media.
It may be a high standard but I think it is a good idea to after CNN with what Trump Election committee has for reasons, CNN left themselves exposed by MGMT and Staff hatred for Trump.
CNN got caught by N. Sandman, when they went after a young Trump supporter Student, like jackals and in the end they had to settle for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. A lot of people did not think Sandman could win but he did, first of many lawsuits that he will win or force major settlements.
Perhaps Trump will get lucky.
I fail to understand CNN ownership/ATT how they can allow CNN to fall, lose ratings and viewers? makes no sense.
Just because AT&T isn’t (visibly) part of the Left Wing Echo Chamber doesn’t mean they’ll meddle with how their subsidiaries run. They’ve left HBO alone, too, despite John Oliver’s Foul-Mouthed Personal Attack hour. Enough people still subscribed to HBO to find out how Game of Thrones‘ plot worked out that it didn’t matter how many viewers thought Oliver was a Left Wing Twit.
AT&T has one huge predominant business. They provide electronic communications for a fee. They don’t seem to have a dog in the current political battle, and like other purveyors of digital access, don’t care who wins
I suspect AT&T has warm fuzzies for Trump’s FCC and how they switched net neutrality off at the Federal level, but as long as they can buy enough franchises to supply cable/Internet at the city/county level, net neutrality’s a big “meh” to them.
AT&T and their competitors did very well since 2005, when FCC adopted “net neutrality principles” which allowed Google and every other mega-content provider to grab bandwidth those of us who just want to send and receive Email pay for. It all works out in the end, since Google’s tree of services, Facebook, Twitter and other social media giants keep AT&T and its competitors selling access to the Internet.
When Zucker’s CNN crashes and burns because they’ve told one lie too many, I’m sure there are plenty of lucrative things AT&T can do with an empty shell company that happens to have presence all over the Intenet. Re-re-branding might be a smart thing to do, given that journalists and Congress still poll lower than anyone else. Then again, unscrewing the red light over CNN’s door would mess with ratings. There are three things with a mandate from history – death, taxes, and what CNN does, metaphorically.
If his campaign files enough of these, maybe they will get the idea, or one of them will get to discovery.
Paul, that is one of the reasons I find law suits particularly helpful when dealing with certain issues. It’s not the suit. It’s the deposition or its threat. Money isn’t always the objective.