Marc Elias has long been at the center of controversial election tactics, including criminal investigations. If lawyers had to take an oath to first do no harm, the court-sanctioned Democratic lawyer would leave Hippocrates gobsmacked. Well, Elias is back and his legal team is threatening the media with what appears an entirely meritless defamation lawsuit on behalf of former Gov. Roy Cooper, the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate.
This seems to be an effort to deter the media from raising the issue of the health of Cooper, who is 69 years old. Such health related issues have been much in the news for politicians ranging from former President Joe Biden to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
It is obviously a legitimate matter for media inquiry and the threat seems designed to deter others from raising the issue before the midterm elections. In typical Elias fashion, it is a smash-mouth approach that only generated national coverage of the issue — working against the interests of his client.
The North State Journal reported that it had asked the Cooper campaign if there were any health problems that might impede him from completing his term:
“North State Journal (NSJ) has previously emailed questions to the campaign eight times this year, and all but two went unanswered. The ninth time, NSJ received a cease-and-desist letter threatening legal action from the Elias Law Group.
The Journal reports on such stories as “the only statewide newspaper in North Carolina.”
In a letter to make this “exceedingly simple and crystal clear to you,” the lawyer for the Elias Law Group warned the Journal that any suggestion that Cooper is “‘experiencing a neurological issue,’ or that any health condition would prevent him from completing his term, is categorically false and defamatory.”
While I have taught torts for 30 years, I must be missing the Elias Group’s simple clarity on this issue. In demanding that the media “cease and desist,” the Elias Group lays out the defamation law in North Carolina in making “false, defamatory statements of or concerning the plaintiff, which were published to a third person, causing injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.”
Notably, the Elias Group stated that “a publication that is obviously defamatory constitutes defamation per se.” That specific assertion is challengeable if it is referring to the common-law per se categories. Such a publication can be defamation, but the per se categories are laid out as a matter of state law. (The letter goes on to make a more specific per se defamation claim).
The common law per se categories began as categories of slander where damages would be presumed in the same way as libel. The allegation would fall into one of the “per se” categories of defamation. Under the common law, these per se categories of defamation allow for presumed damages and include: (1) disparaging a person’s professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person’s business or professional reputation.
North Carolina has a broad definition of defamation per se, including alleging that the person (1) has committed an infamous crime; (2) has an infectious disease; (3) imputes a person’s trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt, or disgrace. That last category is obviously somewhat elastic.
The letter references a more specific basis for a per se category for “imputing insanity or impairment of mental faculties is libelous per se.” Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468, 472 (1954). The Elias Group adds menacingly, “The North State Journal—and you personally—would be liable for any such publication.”
What the letter does not address is the fact that Cooper is a public figure.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard, requiring public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
The standard was later extended to public figures. 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).
It is legally absurd to suggest that a media outlet would be liable for defamation, let alone defamation per se, for raising the mental or physical fitness of a candidate for political office.
It is indicative of Elias’s sledgehammer approach that often does more harm than good for his Democratic clients. A few months ago, Elias caused a stir during the unsuccessful Democratic gerrymandering effort by reminding Democratic leaders that they could simply eliminate the entire Virginia government.
What is equally baffling is the desire of Cooper to be associated with Marc Elias while trying to appeal to Republican and independent voters. Despite his losses in cases such as National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, Elias is still a favorite of many on the left for his aggression and partisan loyalty. What makes him notorious for some makes him popular for others.
It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it secretly funded the infamous Steele dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was later indicted but acquitted).
Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. When journalists discovered after the election that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie, they were reportedly stonewalled. The campaign was ultimately sanctioned by the Federal Election Commission for the subterfuge.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman later wrote that “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Elias’s group later unsuccessfully led efforts to challenge Democratic electoral losses.
In Maryland, Elias’s team supported another abusive gerrymandering scheme that a court found not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map “subverts the will of those governed.”
One media site accused Elias and his group of “making millions off gerrymandering efforts” while publicly denouncing Republican gerrymandering.
In 2024, Elias’s legal team was also accused of pushing “to bar third-party presidential candidates — including Cornel West — from swing state ballots where they might siphon votes from the Democratic nominee [Kamala Harris].”
Likewise, the New York Times reported that Elias’s firm’s work “on behalf of a Soros-funded PAC in Texas…was opposed by a left-leaning election watchdog as undermining laws intended to limit the influence of major donors.”
His group’s work for New York redistricting was ridiculed as not only ignoring the express will of the voters and also effectively negating the votes of Republican voters.
In 2024, the Chief Judge of the Western District of Wisconsin criticized the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”
Cooper, however, wanted Elias and his legal team to represent him and must have approved threatening a media outlet rather than answering a predictable question from a journalist.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Turley Writes:”It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it secretly funded the infamous Steele dossier.”
* * * * *
On Wednesday, X, the social media platform, announced it had banned 13,000 accounts linked to three separate influence operations connected to Iran, Russia and China. The platform said the fake accounts amplified “content about U.S. politics, targeting candidates and public figures across the political spectrum.”
Propaganda campaigns by the Kremlin and others have evolved over the years to include different platforms, new tactics and, increasingly, the use of artificial intelligence.
Such operations have grown more difficult to track amid a broad pullback by many social media firms on trust and safety work after years of criticism from conservatives who accused the companies of collaborating with the U.S. government to stifle free expression.
Edited From:
“Russia Appears To Step Up Efforts To Influence U.S. Voters”
Today’s New York Times
…………………………………………
Republicans complained loudly to social media companies that far-right influencers weren’t being heard. Consequently social media companies loosened restrictions. That, in turn, benefitted foreign trolls.
If Republicans had been listened to those fake accounts would have been closed under Biden.
Regardless, I do not really give a schiff about foreign attempts to influence US elections through social media.
Who in the US is actually voting based on social media from China Iran or Russia ?
And honestly if Putin can persuade you to change your vote – then change your vote.
While there is not technically a constitutional right for foreign nations to speak in US elections – they do so all the time – and we do so in theirs.
Unless you are planning to go to war with China or Russia – how are you planning to actually stop russia from speaking about rhe US ?
John Say,
Foreign trolls aren’t necessarily ‘trying to change your vote’. Instead they want to inflame tensions between Americans. And they’ll have different narratives for liberals and conservatives. They don’t just play to any one group! Foreign trolls don’t work that way. Instead they plant rumors to rile everyone!
How boring.
At least few comments by the Nony Mice.
Lots of good comments. Johnathon’s post made me think about the Indispensable Right against the defamation tort. Elias’s tort cease and desist demand runs to the very same question that a voter might “publish” by asking it of his candidate client at a political gathering soliciting votes. In the presence of those gathered. Stacked up against the Indispensable Right, Elias’s tort demand says cease and desist from voting for my client.
This man is a powerful advocate for his party, an undeniable and virulent partisan. He is everywhere. Under the banner of his legal juggernaut – Democracy Forward – he has even ensnared nominally non-partisan groups like the Coalition to Protect the Parks (of which I am member). It was Democracy Forward who brought the Coalition’s ill-considered suit to subject the content of National Park Service (NPS) interpretive displays in Boston to judicial censorship and review. In June this year Federal District Court Judge April Kelly issued an intemperate Opinion ordering the NPS to halt its revision of park interpretive materials. The First Circuit lifted her stay stating that the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 (that governs Federal agency rulemaking) does not apply to the NPS selection of the words it uses in its interpretive materials for the public. The First Circuit is correct. Besides, this is “Government Speech.” To my dismay, the Coalition taints itself with partisan extremism like this. And this is not the only liason the Coalition has had with Democracy Forward. For more information, see Jonathan Turley’s article of June 15, 2026.
Turley Writes:
“It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it secretly funded the infamous Steele dossier.”
* * * * *
At a time when Donald Trump’s party is struggling to hold both houses of Congress and his own approval ratings are cratering to historic lows, the President has been campaigning hard all week against . . Volodymyr Zelensky.
Yes, Trump’s October preëlection surprise is that he’s finally decided to begin openly helping Vladimir Putin in Russia’s war of conquest against Ukraine.
Trump has pivoted to Putin so many times before that it should hardly astonish anyone that he did it again. But these crises that Trump provokes with such regularity always manage to reveal something new, and this one has been no exception, showing a President so politically cornered by the consequences of his war in the Middle East that he turned to Putin to help him out with less than three weeks to go before the midterm elections.
……………………….
Edited From:
“Trump Is Now Openly Helping Russia In Its War Against Ukraine”
This Week’s The New Yorker
Yawn.
In other news – in early voting – voiters from 18-34 are only 3% of voting so far – that is absymal – and that is the people democrats have to turn out. Nationwide democrats have amassed a 200,000 vote edge thus far – assuming registered democrats actually vote democrat and registered republicans vote republican.
Overall this appears to be a D+3-4 year – not the D+8-11 year that is being modeled. There have been several high profile Democrat debate disasters so far, and surprise surprise PA is running R+8.5 – Republicans NEVER lead in early voting. The 200,000 vote Democrat “wave” so far is a very positive development for the GOP that is a Tiny edge compared to normal. Republicans vote on election day – like the constitution says.
As to the War in Ukraine – Russia is losing – albeit slowly. The moment for a peace deal has been ripe for the past 9 months. But Putin and Zelensky are recalcitrant. Zelensky beleives he is going to win this – and in the very long run with millions more dead he may. But it is likely the oportunity for peace may be closing.
Russia is very very unkind to leaders who lose wars. Once it is clear to Russians that the war is lost – Putin is dead meat.
And that is a cause to take desparate measures.
There was serious concern that Biden was risking nuclear war with Russia early in this conflict – Contra idiots like your post above – Trump supporting Zelenskyu more tangentially – such as shutting down the Iran to Russia munisitons pipeline that supplied 40% of Russia munitions is more damaging but less provacative.
The last thing anyone sane wants is Putin feeling he has no options available and could face a firing squad firing off a nuke.
Please do not be an idiot regarding Ukraine. We all want Russia to get its comeupance – which it has.
It can not manage to defeat a country 1/5th its size – who in their right mind thinks Russia could handle Poland as an example ?
But we also want the world to still be there when this is over.
We are in the Gulf trying to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon – that is pointless if Putin get so desparate he lobs one at Kiev.
John Say,
Russia won’t lose if Trump can help it. And this week Trump came out as a full Putin ally. Which puts U.S. foreign policy into a dark void.
What does the U.S. even stand for anymore? Are we no longer connected to the west? Or are we now an actual Russian ally hostile to the west? It’s beginning to look that way!!
Marc Elias is the prosτiτuτe of dark money, a despicable pimp with his cherished whοrεs
But while Elias’s ballot-access work is admirable, Ryan said, it is offset somewhat by his history opposing limits on political donations, including orchestrating a successful 2014 effort to raise the limit on contributions to political parties from from $97,400 to $777,600. Larry Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission and past head of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks political donations, said of Elias: “My sense of him is that he does not believe in campaign finance laws.” “He struggles hard to make sure that people have the right to vote and I applaud him for that,” Noble said in an interview. “But once they’ve voted, he works very hard to make sure their voices are drowned out by wealthy people.”
https://forward.com/news/461074/marc-elias-democratic-lawyer-voting-rights-campaign-finance-trump/
Shortly before the 2016 election, billionaire left-wing donor George Soros gave at least $5 million to Elias and his firm to challenge what left-of-center activists alleged to be restrictions that deter Democrats and left-leaning constituencies from voting, such as photo-identification requirements at polling places. 5 In early 2017, Elias joined the board of Priorities USA at the same time it was announced that the organization would begin focusing on similar work. 6 Soros also contributed $5 million to the Priorities USA super PAC during the 2018 election cycle. 7
https://www.influencewatch.org/person/marc-elias/#political-advocacy-and-public-profile
Just a question. Would such a lawsuit require divulging Cooper’s medical records in discovery?
Cooper’s Defense would cite: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 is a U.S. federal law that protects sensitive patient health information from unauthorized disclosure.
Enacted on August 21, 1996, the law is enforced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
We can now conclude that Roy Cooper is, in fact, “experiencing a neurological issue”.