This weekend, we discussed the public threats by the Lincoln Project of a defamation action against Rudy Giuliani. The Project itself has faced questions of defaming the members of the Trump family. The Project has been accused of doxxing and trolling Republicans and waging a campaign of harassment targeting election lawyers after Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election. In the Giuliani controversy, co-founder Steve Schmidt said that he was “thrilled” by Giuliani’s interview and appeared to relish the possibility of a defamation action. Within 48 hours, the Project was involved in yet another possible defamation controversy after it publicly declared that its own co-founder, John Weaver, is “a predator, a liar, and an abuser.”
As noted earlier, I have followed the explosion of defamation lawsuits and claims for the last four years with particular interest since I have taught defamation for the last 30 years. This has been a bonanza of such cases, which I often discuss with my students. While many claims of defamation have been resulted in filings, we have had a number of high profile political controversies turn into actual tort litigation. Yet, in a reflection of the Project’s own signature style, I was attacked when I tweeted that this could trigger another defamation action. I received emails that I was defending a pedophile and abuser by simply noting that the dispute could lead to litigation given Weaver’s denials. I have never met Schmidt or said anything in support of him. Indeed, I have been one of the most vocal critics of Schmidt’s Lincoln Project for its vicious rhetoric and abusive tactics. Yet, in today’s politics, it is easier to attack people personally than address their viewpoints. Indeed, hate is addictive and such attacks relieve people of the burden of reason. The Lincoln Project has raised millions in appealing to such visceral impulses. There is a sense of utter impunity in attacks against those deemed abusers or enablers. Intolerance is now viewed as a virtue. Weaver himself once proudly declared “In our party, intolerance can no longer be tolerated,” a license claimed by academics and activists to attack and abuse others.
Now back to the defamation issue. The online magazine The American Conservative previously disclosed that Weaver has long been accused of sending unsolicited sexual messages online to young men. Weaver, who worked for the late Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) and former Governor John Kasich, has been accused of such conduct for many years. Then this weekend, the mainstream media finally reported on the story. Almost two dozen men claim to have been sexually harassed by Weaver, an astonishing number of alleged victims.
Weaver now accepts that some messages were “inappropriate” but maintains that he “viewed [them] as consensual, mutual conversations at the time.”
After the stories rans, the Lincoln Project denounced its co-founder as “a predator, a liar, and an abuser.”
The allegations appear quite damning and well documented. One victim says that he was only 14 when the messages began. However, the Lincoln Project statement on Weaver was written as a fact and did not even use the qualifier “as alleged.” That is rare for a major organization with legal counsel. There has been no criminal investigation completed, let alone an adjudication. That is usually the standard for counsel to insert qualifiers, particularly when discussing a former employee or officer. Instead, the statement read like many of the Lincoln Project attack ads.
The question is whether the Lincoln Project could be sued by Weaver.
As a threshold point, Weaver may not want a lawsuit that would open himself up to discovery and particularly depositions. With 21 men already on record, litigation would be brutal. However, as seen in the Epstein litigation, lawsuits tend to spur counter lawsuits and defamation actions are common in such fights.
Now to the merits. Weaver is clearly a “public figure” due to his political career and co-founding of the Lincoln Project. This issue will turn on Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
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. 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. In order to prevail, Weaver must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
Truth remains the primary defense to defamation.
In this case, the Lincoln Project is clearly accusing Weaver of criminal conduct. The Lincoln Project noted that Giuliani did the same thing by saying that someone associated with the Project helped organize the recent riot on Capitol hill. This is more direct and Weaver insists that he viewed the messages as consensual. As such, it would fall into the per se categories of defamation which include allegations of criminal conduct as well as professional misconduct.
Unlike the Giuliani controversy, there is little “wiggle room” on the terms used by the Project. Again, it is surprising to see the absence of qualifiers and the statement of the allegations as fact.
The Project also accused Weaver of using his “position of power and trust” to victimize these men.
As such, Weaver would have a cognizable defamation action. Unlike many lawsuits, this would not turn on the interpretation of the words but solely truth. The Lincoln Project would need to prove that he was indeed “a predator, a liar, and an abuser” who used his positions to victimize others.
Typical commie organization using everyone else’s name or title to hide behind. Lincoln freed the slaves. The Southern and Northern Democrats who melded and became the Socialist via progressive liberal party ARE to this day the party of slavery and victimizers of women.
Anybody could have guessed that Lincun project was run by a sicko.
Remember log cabin group? Republican gays?
Oh right, They tell us there is nothing special about gays and recruiting teenage boys for sex. even though we all know that is a big part of it.
And has been since ancient times, at that
“Unlike many lawsuits, this would not turn on the interpretation of the words but solely truth. The Lincoln Project would need to prove that he was indeed “a predator, a liar, and an abuser” who used his positions to victimize others.”
The “truth” always depends on the interpretation of words. That’s why lawyers are so unpopular, they make enriching careers out of twisting words. If we still lived in a moral society, all that should be necessary to defame him, as in most societies, would be to prove that he’s homosexual.
It’s alarming that this dirty laundry about Cuomo and Weaver comes out only after it’s too late to stop the steal.
Diogenes, there wasn’t any steal. The attempt was thwarted on Jan 6 in Congress.
I can accept that we earnestly disagree on that point. I just find it odd that these scandalous allegations–which have been around for a while–are just now coming out. Given the recent penchant for censorship among some outlets, is this a trend?
Diogenes, “this point” – the election result – is a matter of simple fact, not opinion. There are not 2 versions, or are you one of those Post Modernists you earlier warned us about?
Let me rephrase the question so that we don’t have to relitigate the election:
It’s alarming that this dirty laundry about Cuomo and Weaver comes out only after the election. I just find it odd that these scandalous allegations–which have been around for a while–are just now coming out. Given the recent penchant for censorship among some outlets, is this a trend?
…a predator, a liar, and an abuser
These adjectives apply as readily to Andrew Cuomo. It is surprising Cuomo is not facing a recall effort similar to California’s Governor, considering the disaster he has been and continues to be for NY cf. COVID-19
9 Top N.Y. Health Officials Have Quit as Cuomo Scorns Expertise
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/nyregion/cuomo-health-department-officials-quit.html
Mr. Cuomo’s handling of the pandemic has come under criticism in recent days after the state attorney general, Letitia James, said his administration had undercounted the tally of Covid-19 deaths of nursing home residents by not publicly disclosing deaths of those residents that occurred at hospitals.
Current and former health officials agreed to be interviewed about the crisis inside the public health bureaucracy only on condition of anonymity, saying that they feared retaliation for speaking out against the governor.
Guy Benson
@guypbenson
FL is largely open, NY far more restricted.
FL has 2M+ more residents than NY & far more seniors.
FL 26k COVID deaths, NY 43k.
As of 1/30, FL 7,600 new cases (+4.3%), NY 10,800 (+6.3%)
FL ~6k hospitalized, NY ~8k.
FL ahead of NY on vaccinations:
“In this case, the Lincoln Project is clearly accusing Weaver of criminal conduct,” writes Prof. Turley. I don’t know that sexual harassment (except perhaps in the alleged case involving the minor) is classified as criminal. In my agency, sexual harassment will most assuredly get the perpetrator fired, if the allegation is substantiated, but it is a civil matter handled by the EEO department and Internal Affairs. And in cases I’ve read about in the news, sexual harassment lawsuits are civil, except in cases where it goes beyond harassment and is an actual assault or stalking. While Weaver’s actions, if true, are certainly odious, I don’t believe they are criminal. But it’s not surprising that a person who allegedly engaged in online harassment escalates to founding an organization which engages in doxing and harassment of people of differing political views. I’ve always regarded today’s cancel culture as an outgrowth of the “outing” campaign started by gay men in the 70s. It is a particularly nasty, vindictive trait that is characteristic of the worst stereotypes of gay men and “mean girls.” Unfortunately, as subcultures become mainstream, the greater society will absorb both their best and worst attributes.
Again, the Lincoln Project was run by a bunch of grifters who make their living as political consultants. It’s a reasonable wager than if you look through their financials and find whose behind the cut-outs, you’ll discover people like Pierre Omidyar and Tom Steyer. Trump’s demonstrated a couple of things in the last six years. One is that many people who were career Republicans or career conservatives are fairly easily suborned and / or actually despised the public audience to whom they were supposedly speaking. A more particular thing he demonstrated is that a lot of political consultants are greasy crooks, taking high fees for little value-added. One of the principles in the Lincoln Project is waging war on his estranged wife, another is one of the duo who mismanaged John McCain’s 2008 general election campaign.
The vitriolic denunciation of Weaver is rich. A clutch of 11 men were willing to be quoted on the record on his conduct. Another 10 made the accusation but asked the reporter not to print their name. God knows how many haven’t been reached by the media or have elected to keep their peace. The incidents described occurred over a period of five years and occurred in work settings. It beggars belief Conway, Schmidt, and the rest of them weren’t aware that Weaver was hitting on the interns. And then you have all the contrived outrage about his exchanges with a youth of 14, as if that was unusual behavior for homosexual men.
Weaver has been, by the way, married for some time and has children. (If I’m not mistaken, his current wife is not his first wife; not sure if the children were borne by the present Mrs. Weaver or the previous one). NB, the dirty talk occurred when Weaver was between the ages of 55 and 62. Try to imagine what he might have been like when he was young.
Deco writes:
“Trump’s demonstrated a couple of things in the last six years. One is that many people who were career Republicans or career conservatives are fairly easily suborned and / or actually despised the public audience to whom they were supposedly speaking….”
Oh yeah, Trump loves him some fly-over goobers and that’s why he’s always inviting them to join Mara-Lago and why on the night of the tax cut legislation passing, he went to a Huddle House restaurant in in Dayton to celebrate – wait, you say he went to his usual east side Manhattan exclusive restaurant and to cheers from his pals said “I just made you all a lot richer”. – and why he had a reputation for paying his subs early and more than the bid, and why at rallies in the closing days of the election he told several crowds “If I don’t win, I’m never coming back here.” Just one of the guys!
Perhaps the other members of the Lincoln Project “doth protest too much”.
“The Project has been accused of doxxing and trolling Republicans and waging a campaign of harassment targeting election lawyers after Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election. ”
Go ahead, say it, Jon…, Biden *won* the election, wasn’t just “declared the winner”. I get the sense this is painful for you. As a general premise, I’m wondering whether there is really an entity that qualifies as a Republican party anymore?
Elvis Bug
Right on cue.
+100
I get the sense this is painful for you.
TDS will do that to a person. If you actually tried reading for comprehension, you might just realize after Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election.qualifies when their campaign allegedly began. Now finish your oatmeal and put on your helmet. Your short bus will arrive any moment.
I’d love to engage with you Olly, but sorry, I don’t speak crazy.
Elvis Bug
” Yet, in today’s politics, it is easier to attack people personally than address their viewpoints. Indeed, hate is addictive and such attacks relieve people of the burden of reason.” Isn’t that the truth? It is hard to hope for better when hate and condemnation is the focus.
What do we expect? Individuals that push hate have to be capable of hate in the first place, and that seldom sticks to one area of life. Sociopathy seems to be a requirement to be a ‘liberal’ or their peer in the modern Democratic party. The Lincoln Project were never about righteousness (there may be righteous anger, there’s no such thing as righteous hate or cruelty. Anger is a response. The other two have intent), and they certainly weren’t ‘conservatives’. The marginal number of people successfully pushing this type of nonsense in our country is all the evidence of vast, vast collusion toward tyranny or just flat out insanity those of us old enough to remember anything before 1995 need.
James:
It’s amazing how many people think they can compartmentalize evil. Read Nietzsche. Be more amazed.
Pedophilia evil has invaded politics, just as it has college athletics, with its ugly and vile history of profiting from the international child sex trade. Penn State, the ‘Sanctuary City for Paedophiles’, has for decades operated a child sex trafficking enterprise, grooming tens of thousands of innocent children for the sexual depravity of well connected politicians, wealthy donors, and high ranking university administrators, providing the university billions in profits. Penn State bribed the former FBI Director Louis Freeh to whitewash the scandal, and then delivered several young boys to former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell for his hideous depravity in exchange for the early release of Pedophile State from NCAA sanctions. Newly unsealed documents revealed George Mitchell’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein https://www.vanityfair.com/…. Does the media possess the journalistic integrity to investigate the George Mitchell-Louis Freeh-Paedophile State-international child sex trade operation?
The fact that all these people have attached themselves to the name Lincoln (a name which is or should be synonymous with truth, justice and long-suffering righteousness) just adds another layer of squalor.
Ugly people who wallow in their viciousness.
“…hate is addictive.”
Yes.
Just follow some of the postings of Anonymous, Silverstein and Natasha.
Monumentcolorado, it’s “Silberman” not “Silverstein.” Get the name right and don’t forget it!
JS
“…and don’t forget it!”
There in a nutshell, you have the liberal attitude.
Somebody I don’t know (and who inspires contempt in me), presumes to give me an order.
In the best American tradition: “FU”.
Indeed monument, all the right wingers here are so polite and open to dialogue and that’s why all your posts are about what terrible and rude people liberals are.
Joe, if they only knew that by moving to personal attack immediately it highlights the fact they have no fact based argument to make…
Nah, I don’t think they even care.
Elvis Bug
They’re talking to each other Elvis, not us, and it’s the language their leader used – name calling, stereotyping, with some conspiracy added in. We’re part of that too apparently.
Yes, how awful that someone tells you to use their correct name. It’s so unjust.
Ironic that you say that liberals are hateful and then say “FU.”
Yeah, if Jeffery wanted his correct name used, instead of some stereotypical Jewish name, he should include it in his posts.
Turley: “Yet, in today’s politics, it is easier to attack people personally than address their viewpoints.”
Professor, give Mark Levin’s radio show a listen sometime if you want to hear a litany of personal attacks. I will not take seriously your admonition against ad hominem attacks until you condemn many of your Fox News colleagues for doing exactly what you rightly and vehemently criticize others. For the sake of your credibility, I implore you to stop being a hypocrite by ignoring the obvious.
JS:
Buzz off pilgrim. Your hypocrisy is the one on display. Imagine, chastising JT for not condemning his colleagues. Natacha ring a bell? How’s about anonymous the Stupid? And Gainesville, let’s not even get started on that old coot. Elvis Bug – he’s a revelation none need.
“What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?
I adjure you by God, do not torment me!”
(He had been saying to him, “Unclean spirit, come out of the man!”)
He asked him, “What is your name?”
He replied, “Legion is my name. There are many of us.”
Gospel of Saint Mark 5:1-30
Estovir:
Always were. Too bad Jesus et al made ‘em. What do you make of that? Always been my bone to pick with religion.
Mespo: “Imagine, chastising JT for not condemning his colleagues.”
If JT is legally representing Fox News, of course, he cannot criticize the rampant name-calling of the opinion hosts, but I presume that he is engaged as a contributor, not as an attorney. Accordingly, he should be consistent in his criticism if he wishes to maintain his credibility. Eventually, he will be held to account in some public forum or interview for his turning a blind eye. What do you think he can say to explain his hypocritical silence?
JS:
Oh come on. Guilt by association went out with McCarthy. It was in all the papers.
Mespo, I’m not going to further quibble with you. You know where I stand, and I’m not going to let Turley off the hook. I don’t flatter myself supposing that Turley is the least bit aware of my comments. I’m quite positive that Turley does not waste his precious time perusing the mostly inane comments on this blog. Still, some people read them, and I intend to express myself freely if it’s all the same to you.
JS:L
“Still, some people read them, and I intend to express myself freely if it’s all the same to you.”
**********************
Please do and no desire to quibble. You certainly can criticize hypocrisy but when was Turley asked about his Fox colleagues? Never that I know. Should JT then be a knight errant crisscrossing the digital landscape to chastise everyone he meets?
Mespo: “Should JT then be a knight errant crisscrossing the digital landscape to chastise everyone he meets?”
Straw man argument, right anonymous?
JS:
You want him to criticize his “colleagues.” That’s a classic roving commission.
he cannot criticize the rampant name-calling of the opinion hosts,
I intend to express myself freely if it’s all the same to you.
What do you think he can say to explain his hypocritical silence?
I suspect something like this: You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Mathew 7:5
mespo727272, you don’t condemn your colleagues or constrain your own behavior. Your hypocrisy is the one on display.
Awesome. Big Mess thinks I’m a revelation!!
Elvis Bug
Bug:
And a needless one! So yes we agree. Yay!
“I will not take seriously . . .”
Oh, my. That’s hilarious.
You’re rejecting JT’s condemnation of ad hominem, by using ad hominem (see “tu quoque”).
Sam, do yourself a favor and Google what “ad hominem” means.
JS:
I think he meant dismissive. Just a guess.
Tu quoque (the appeal to hypocrisy), which is the fallacy you committed, is a type of ad hominem.
And now you’ve created an ad hominem pile up, by ignoring my original argument and attacking me personally for my (alleged) ignorance.
Anonymous, whoever you are, I want to thank you for educating me! I always like to learn. It was not my intention to dispute Turley’s argument. My point is that he is an undeniable hypocrite as anyone familiar with the ad hominem attacks by the hosts of the shows Turley frequents. When I said that I would not take him seriously, I mean to say that he does not maintain the moral standing to make such an argument until he is consistent in his condemnations. To be sure, hypocrites can make good arguments, but I refuse to listen to hypocrites or take them seriously. That is the penalty of hypocrisy.
Pot meet kettle. And ye shall know them by their fruit(s). The comments just write themselves.
I am convinced that there are more dominoes to fall. The Lincoln project is filled with hate filled, self righteous people. Having achieved their goal of helping to defeat Trump, they seem so consumed by gate that they cannot stop themselves.
It is inconceivable to me that this is the only deviant among them.
Put another way….a Pox on both their Houses!
When one points a finger at another…..one. should make sure there is not a single skeleton in one’s own closet.
Weaver at least admits to the conduct while doing his best to muddy the waters….but in the end it is his actions and not his words that shall determine the result.
Same goes for the Lincoln crowd….they can deflect all they want but in the end they too shall be judged by their actions and not just their words.
The ugly truth is the whole bunch of them are corrupted by hate and the utter lack of integrity, ethics, and morality, ….which always destroys those who conduct themselves as they have….Weaver and the rest of the new found Lincoln Brigade.
“The ugly truth is the whole bunch of them are corrupted by hate and the utter lack of integrity, ethics, and morality…”
Ralph, you’re a Trump supporter. When did you start caring about these things?