Rupert Murdoch should fight Trump's bogus lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal
Trump is suing Murdoch, News Corp., Dow Jones & Co., The Wall Street Journal's publisher and two reporters who wrote a bombshell article last week about a 'bawdy' Trump-penned birthday note to the late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump claims the letter is a 'fake,' and his lawyers in the suit accuse the Journal of 'glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting.' He wants the defendants to pay at least $20 billion.
Trump posted to Truth Social on Friday: 'I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his 'pile of garbage' newspaper, the WSJ. That will be an interesting experience!!!' The White House also booted the Journal from the press pool for an upcoming presidential visit to Scotland.
It's not hard to see why Trump thinks this could work. Disney and Paramount, rather than take Trump to court and win (as many legal experts said they would), paid off settlements of $15 million and $16 million, respectively, to end Trump's legal attacks against ABC News and CBS News. Just as some white shoe law firms and universities sheepishly bent the knee when faced with the Trump administration's punitive threats, Disney and Paramount helped solidify a model of corporate cowardice. These companies demonstrated they'd rather just pay off the shakedown artist in the White House than stand up for their news operations or the First Amendment.
A representative with Dow Jones, the Journal's parent company, said in a statement: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.'
To be sure, that's what they all say at first. But there are reasons for hope that the 94-year-old Murdoch could show more spine than his competitors.
Murdoch's Fox News and New York Post properties — for the most part — have been reliable MAGA cheerleaders in the decade since Trump's 2015 escalator ride announcing he was running for the Republican presidential nomination. But there have been cracks in their Trump devotion. The day after the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, the Post's editorial board put the blame on Trump. Murdoch, for his part, was so outraged at Trump's conduct that he wrote in an email to a Fox News executive that he wanted the network to 'make Trump a non person.'
Obviously, once the Republican base made it clear that there was literally nothing Trump could do that would make it vote for another contender, Fox News once again got in line behind Trump during the 2024 election. But Murdoch seems to understand that The Wall Street Journal is a much different property from a cable news network and a shouty local tabloid.
Murdoch never turned the Journal into a sensationalist, ideologically conservative outlet. Under his ownership, the Journal has maintained its well-deserved reputation for diligent, independent news reporting. And Murdoch knows there's a distinct value to that.
Even the Journal's typically Trump-adoring editorial board has repeatedly decried Trump's shakedowns of media outlets' parent companies. A WSJ editorial from June beseeched Paramount to resist the 'threat of regulatory disapproval' and instead 'win the legal case, vindicate its CBS journalists and the First Amendment, and trust that the FCC has enough integrity to operate as something more than the President's personal protection racket.'
If only Paramount shared the right-wing editorial board's ethical clarity on the matter. Oh, well.
Trump's history of bogus, speech-chilling lawsuits is well-documented. He's been filing them for decades, even once boasting that he knew he'd lose the cases but persisted with them because he knew they would make his perceived enemies' lives 'miserable.'
There are other reasons Murdoch should fight back against Trump's legal thuggery.
A judge last week threw out Trump's nearly $50 million lawsuit against legendary journalist Bob Woodward, and as my colleague Steve Benen noted, 'When Trump sued CNN and demanded $475 million, the case was thrown out; when he sued The Washington Post, the case was thrown out; and when he sued The New York Times, seeking $100 million, the case was thrown out.'
In a thread posted to X, attorney Andrew Fleischman noted some of the reasons Trump's lawsuit against Murdoch and the Journal is a complete mess. These include the fact that Trump's legal team filed the suit in Florida, which has an anti-SLAPP law to protect people menaced by such bogus suits. Fleischman also noted what he says is a procedural error by Trump's legal team that could lead to a dismissal and Trump's paying the Journal's legal fees.
Fleischman's conclusion: 'This lawsuit is meant to punish a newspaper for fair reporting. Any lawyer who tells you it has merit is talking out his ass.'
Murdoch's often factually challenged right-wing media empire has done incalculable damage to the American body politic — and continues to serve as a faithful echo chamber for MAGA rhetoric during Trump's reign of flagrant authoritarianism.
But the nonagenarian billionaire has a chance to stand up to a bully whom he clearly has no great personal affection for, and he has the chance to at least do his part in blocking Trump's rampage on the First Amendment.
This is a legacy-defining moment. If Murdoch stands up to Trump's cancel culture and his defamation suit lawfare — and vigorously defends The Wall Street Journal and its journalists — Murdoch can boast that, at least once, he did the right thing for America.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Federal judge blocks Arkansas law barring pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies in state
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A federal judge temporarily blocked on Monday Arkansas' first-in-the-nation law that would have prohibited pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies in the state. U.S. District Judge Brian Miller issued a preliminary injunction against the law restricting pharmacy benefit managers, who run prescription drug coverage for big clients that include health insurers and employers that provide coverage. Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the restriction into law earlier this year, and it was set to take effect Aug. 5. CVS and Express Scripts had sued the state over the law. The law, Miller wrote, "appears to overtly discriminate against plaintiffs as out of state companies and the state has failed to show that it has no other means to advance its interests.' Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin said he respected the court's decision and planned to appeal. Supporters of the Arkansas law have said it's needed because pharmacy benefit managers are forcing independent pharmacies, especially those in rural areas, to close. CVS and Express Scripts in their lawsuits said the restriction would have devastating effects on consumers if it was allowed to take effect. CVS, which ran TV ads urging Sanders to veto the legislation, has said it would have to close its 23 retail pharmacies in the state if the law takes effect. The company said it was pleased with the decision. 'We continue to be focused on serving people in Arkansas and are actively looking to work together with the state to reduce drug prices and ensure access to pharmacies,' CVS said in a statement.
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Chokeholds, bikers and ‘roving patrols': Are Trump's ICE tactics legal?
An appellate court appears poised to side with the federal judge who blocked immigration agents from conducting 'roving patrols' and snatching people off the streets of Southern California, likely setting up another Supreme Court showdown. Arguments in the case were held Monday before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the judges at times fiercely questioning the lawyer for the Trump administration about the constitutionality of seemingly indiscriminate sweeps by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agents. 'I'm just try ing to understand what would motivate the officers ...to grab such a large number of people so quickly and without marshaling reasonable suspicion to detain,' said Judge Ronald M. Gould of Seattle. Earlier this month, a lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order that has all but halted the aggressive operations by masked federal agents, saying they violate the 4th Amendment. The Justice Department called the block that was ordered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong 'the first step' in a 'wholesale judicial usurpation' of federal authority. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov M. Roth argued Monday. 'We don't think that happened, and we don't think it's fair we were hit with this sweeping injunction on an unfair and incomplete record.' That argument appeared to falter in front of the 9th Circuit panel. Judges Jennifer Sung of Portland and Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco heard the case alongside Gould — all drawn from the liberal wing of an increasingly split appellate division. 'If you're not actually doing what the Distinct Court found you to be doing and enjoined you from doing, then there should be no harm,' Sung said. Frimpong's order stops agents from using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The judge found that without other evidence, those criteria alone or in combination do not meet the 4th Amendment bar for reasonable suspicion. 'It appears that they are randomly selecting Home Depots where people are standing looking for jobs and car washes because they're car washes,' Judge Berzon said. 'Is your argument that it's ok that it's happening, or is your argument that it's not happening?' Roth largely sidestepped that question, reiterating throughout the 90-minute hearing that the government had not had enough time to gather evidence it was following the Constitution and that the court did not have authority to constrain it in the meantime. Arguments in the case hinge on a pair of dueling Golden State cases that together define the scope of relief courts can offer under the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'It's the bulwark of privacy protection against policing,' said professor Orin S. Kerr of Stanford Law School, whose work on 4th Amendment injunctions was cited in the Justice Department's briefing. 'What the government can do depends on really specific details. That makes it hard for a court to say here's the thing you can't do.' In policing cases, every exception to the rule has its own exceptions, the expert said. The Department of Justice has staked its claim largely on City of Los Angeles vs. Lyons, a landmark 1983 Supreme Court decision about illegal chokeholds by the Los Angeles Police Department. In that case, the court ruled against a blanket ban on the practice, finding the Black motorist who had sued was unlikely to ever be choked by the cops again. 'That dooms plaintiffs' standing here,' the Justice Department wrote. But the American Civil Liberties Union and its partners point to other precedents, including the San Diego biker case Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. vs. Hannigan. Decided in the 9th Circuit in 1996, the ruling offers residents of the American West more 4th Amendment protection than they might have in Texas, New York or Illinois. In the Easyriders case, 14 members of a Southland motorcycle club successfully blocked the California Highway Patrol from citing almost any bikers they suspected of wearing the wrong kind of helmet, after the court ruled a more narrow decision would leave the same bikers vulnerable to future illegal citations. 'The court said these motorcyclists are traveling around the state, so we can't afford the plaintiff's complete relief unless we allow this injunction to be statewide,' said professor Geoffrey Kehlmann, who directs the 9th Circuit Appellate Clinic at Loyola Law School. 'In situations like this where you have roving law enforcement throughout a large area and you have the plaintiffs themselves moving throughout this large area, you necessarily need to have that broader injunction,' Kehlmann said. Frimpong cited Easyriders among other precedent cases in her ruling, saying it offered a clear logic for the districtwide injunction. The alternative — agents sweeping through car washes and Home Depot parking lots stopping to ask each person they grab if they are a plaintiff in the suit — 'would be a fantasy,' she wrote. Another expert, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the Los Angeles Police Department chokehold case set a standard that litigants 'need to show it's likely it could happen to you again in the future.' But, he added: 'The 9th Circuit has said, here's ways you can show that.' The tests can include asking whether the contested enforcement is limited to a small geographic area or applied to a small group of people, and whether it is part of a policy. 'After the injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said 'we're going to continue doing what we're doing,'' Berzon said. 'Is that not a policy?' Roth denied that there was any official policy driving the sweeps. 'Plaintiffs [argue] the existence of an official policy of violating the 4th Amendment with these stops,' Roth said. 'The only evidence of our policy was a declaration that said, 'Yes, reasonable suspicion is what we require when we go beyond a consensual encounter.'' But Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California, part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests, argued that the federal policy is clear. 'They have said, 'If it ends in handcuffs, go out and do it,'' he told the panel. 'There's been a wink and a nod to agents on the ground that says, 'Dispatch with the rigors of the law and go out and snatch anybody out there.'' He said that put his organization's clients in a similar situation to the bikers. 'The government did not present any alternatives as to what an injunction could look like that would provide adequate relief to our plaintiffs,' Tajsar said. 'That's fatal to any attempt by them to try to get out from underneath this injunction.' The Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics, he said, are 'likely to ensnare just as many people with status as without status.' The Justice Department said ICE already complies with the 4th Amendment, and that the injunction risks a 'chilling effect' on lawful arrests. 'If it's chilling ICE from violating the Constitution, that's where they're supposed to be chilled,' Chemerinsky said. A ruling is expected as soon as this week. Roth signaled the administration is likely to appeal if the appellate panel does not grant its stay.
UPI
17 minutes ago
- UPI
U.S. honors 72nd armistice of America's 'forgotten' Korean War
1 of 4 | Statues at the Korean War Memorial are seen a day before Veterans Day on November 10, 2017, in Washington, D.C. File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo July 28 (UPI) -- The White House said Monday the United States will "steadfastly" safeguard its interests on the Korean Peninsula with "safety, stability, prosperity and peace" as the endgame. That message was delivered the day in which the nation honors the truce that ended America's involvement in the Korean War more than seven decades ago. It was a day that also served as a catalyst of the current divergent north and south Korean national ideologies. "We pay tribute to every American hero who ventured to unfamiliar lands to face some of the most gruesome combat in the history of our country," U.S. President Donald Trump said in a statement. The armistice agreement signing ended the bloody three-year conflict in northeast Asia in which 36,574 U.S. military service members, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, died out of nearly 2 million who fought in the bid to repel the advancement of communism in the region. "We spent 15 minutes or so honoring all those men and women who fought and died in Korea," Master of Ceremonies Bob Fugit said Monday in Wichita as locals gathered at Veterans Memorial Park for events to commemorate what some say is America's "Forgotten War." "That's been a war that everybody wants to forget, even more than Vietnam," Fugit told KAKE in Kansas. Though most might want to forget, there still have been some efforts to remember. In July 2022, the nation's capital saw the Korean War Veterans Memorial unveil its new addition along with a total renovation to coincide with that year's Armistice Day festivities in Washington. A DOD web portal for the Korean conflict lists volumes of stories in a live-running historic archive of events related to the conflict. "Today, we pause to remember the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who served during the Korean War," the department posted Sunday morning on X, adding that the "legacy of their resilience lives on." In June 1950, then-President Harry S. Truman said that those responsible for "unprovoked aggression" against South Korea during the so-called "forgotten" war "must realize how seriously the government of the United States views such threats to the peace of the world." In a UPI article on July 27, 1953, the day it was penned seven months after war hero general and eventual GOP icon Dwight D. Eisenhower assumed the presidency, it read in part: "The armistice documents ending the bitter, stalemated efforts of the Communists to seize all Korea by force were signed at 10:01 a.m. today in the truce village of Panmunjom." On Monday, the 33rd president's oldest grandson said he believes Korea is collectively labeled by historians as the "Forgotten War" primarily because of public sentiment at the time. "I think that has to do with fact that, although Americans were firmly behind my grandfather when he moved quickly to aid a beleaguered South Korea," Clifton Truman Daniel told UPI via email, "they quickly tired of a conflict that was perceived as being not our fight." Daniel, the son of acclaimed author Margaret Truman Daniel, is honorary chair at the Harry S. Truman Library Institute, a partner of the 33rd president's library and museum in Independence, Mo. It was "a war on top of a war, if you will," Daniel, 68, said of the times. "And it came with objectives that were new, in terms of warfare," he said, adding that it was "hard to define" at that point. Outside efforts have lingered on with hopes to one day reunite the two Koreas even as the north rejects any such idea. Meanwhile, officials pointed to Trump's visit in June 2019 as the first sitting U.S. president to walk next to communist North Korea's demilitarized zone. On Monday, the president said that in observing the day "we renew our resolve that forces of freedom will always prevail over tyranny and oppression." In its statement, the White House reiterated that South Korean and U.S forces remained "united" in an "ironclad" military alliance as the region circles around aggression by North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-Un, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "We honor the patriots who fought and died in Korea so that freedom might endure both on our land and beyond our shores," the president continued, vowing to "rebuild" the U.S. military, support veterans "and stand strong against forces of tyranny." In North Korea, its "Victory Day" is celebrated with great fanfare, and it is not uncommon to see large-scale military parade processions in the north's capital city Pyongyang, much like Trump's in June that rolled through the streets of Washington, D.C. But Trump said that, above all, "we proudly remember every American hero who shed their blood to defend our home, our heritage and our glorious way of life." "Their valiant legacy will never be forgotten," he said.
