Tag Archives: libel

Look inward, Mr. President, when talking about libel

Donald John “Stable Genius” Trump Sr. wants to change libel laws.

This president is angry about a book that paints his administration in a negative light. He calls libel laws a “sham” and a “disgrace.”

OK. How does one put this presidential nonsense into some perspective? I’ll try.

This president spent years defaming Barack H. Obama by insisting that the former president wasn’t constitutionally qualified to serve in the office to which he was elected twice. Did the former president sue him? No, although he had grounds.

Then, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Republican candidate defamed Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s father by implying that he might have had a hand in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Trump said Rafael Cruz had met with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination, suggesting some — dare I say it? — “collusion” between the elder Cruz and the man who actually killed the president. I believe there might be grounds for a lawsuit there, too.

For this president now to get his skivvies in a knot over some negative coverage — and to insist on changes in libel law — is on its face laughable.

It’s also disgusting and disgraceful.

Look inward, Mr. President … if you dare.

Weaken libel laws? No can do, Mr. President

Donald John Trump wants to make it easier to sue publications for libel. The president vowed to change laws he called a “sham” and a “disgrace.”

Really, Mr. President?

He made the vow at the start of a Cabinet meeting in the White House.

Where can I start? I’ll give it a shot.

Trump said journalists cannot write stories that are knowingly false and then smile while they count their money as it pours into their bank account.

True enough, Mr. President. Except that current libel laws ensure that those who publish “knowingly false” stories are punished.

As for whether the federal government can rewrite the law, I need to remind Donald Trump that the U.S. Constitution declares in the First Amendment that there should be a “free press” that is allowed to do its job without government interference.

The founders wanted to ensure that a free press could function without fear of intimidation and, thus, established a high bar for public officials to clear if they decide to sue for libel.

The object of Trump’s tirade clearly is the publication of “Fire and Fury,” the highly controversial book written by journalist Michael Wolff, who reports some mighty scathing remarks from former and current White House staffers who had some disparaging things to say about Donald Trump. The president calls it all fiction; Wolff, of course, stands by his reporting in the book.

National Public Radio reports: And this is hardly the first time Trump has railed against libel laws, which as a matter of practice are made by the states and backed by a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that sets a high bar for public figures wanting to prove libel.

So, what is left for Trump to do? He can nominate Supreme Court justices who are willing to water down the First Amendment. However, he then sets up a proverbial “litmus test” for potential appointees.

Would he dare ask them prior to selecting them whether they would pledge a sort of loyalty to the president by agreeing beforehand to rule favorably on a libel case that comes before the nation’s highest court?

Now that I think about it, I believe he would … to his shame!

Trump’s war on the media keeps getting hotter.

Frightening … and dangerous.