Connect with us

Politics

Trump and Fox News, Twin Titans of Politics, Hit With Back-to-Back Rebukes

Published

on

Trump and Fox News, Twin Titans of Politics, Hit With Back-to-Back Rebukes

For the higher a part of a decade, Donald J. Trump and his allies at Fox Information have beguiled some People and enraged others as they spun up another world the place elections turned on fraud, one political social gathering oppressed one other, and one man stood in opposition to his detractors to hold his model of reality to an adoring voters.

Then this week, on two consecutive days, the previous president and the highest-rated cable information channel had been delivered a dose of actuality by the American authorized system.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump grew to become the primary former president in historical past to be indicted on legal prices, after a Manhattan grand jury’s examination of hush cash paid to a pornographic movie actress within the remaining days of the 2016 election.

The subsequent day, a decide in Delaware Superior Courtroom concluded that Fox hosts and friends had repeatedly made false claims about voting machines and their supposed position in a fictitious plot to steal the 2020 election, and that Dominion Voting Programs’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit in opposition to the community ought to go to trial.

Each defendants dispute the claims. Nonetheless, the back-to-back blows in opposition to twin titans of American politics landed as a reminder of the still-unfolding reckoning with the tumult of the Trump presidency.

Advertisement

For the left, the seismic week delivered an “I informed you so” years within the making. Democrats who’ve lengthy needed Mr. Trump criminally charged received the satisfaction of watching a prosecutor and a grand jury agree.

A day later, after years of arguing that Fox Information was hardly truthful and balanced, they may learn a decide’s discovering that Fox had not carried out “good-faith, disinterested reporting” on Dominion. Fox argues that statements made on air alleging election fraud are protected by the First Modification.

Whereas the 2 circumstances don’t have anything in frequent in substance, they share a uncommon and highly effective potential. In each, any remaining judgments can be rendered in a courtroom and never by bickering pundits on cable information and editorial pages.

“There’ll at all times be a remnant, regardless of how the matter is resolved in courtroom, who will refuse to just accept the judgment,” stated Norman Eisen, a authorities ethics lawyer who served as particular counsel to the Home Judiciary Committee throughout Mr. Trump’s first impeachment. “However once you have a look at different post-upheaval societies, judicial processes scale back factions down to some hard-core believers.”

He added, “A sequence of courtroom circumstances and judgments can break the fever.”

Advertisement

That, after all, might show to be a Democrat’s wishful pondering.

On this second of fixed campaigning and tribal partisanship, even the courts have had issue puncturing the ideological bubbles that Mr. Trump and Fox Information pundits have created. The authorized system produced a $25 million settlement of fraud prices in opposition to Trump College, dismissed dozens of lies about malfeasance within the 2020 election, pressed for the seek for lacking labeled paperwork and dominated quite a few instances that Dominion’s machines didn’t in truth change votes.

But lots of of 1000’s of People stay dedicated to each defendants.

Embarrassing and damaging materials has already come out by way of each circumstances, with little fast signal of backlash.


How Occasions reporters cowl politics. We depend on our journalists to be impartial observers. So whereas Occasions employees members might vote, they aren’t allowed to endorse or marketing campaign for candidates or political causes. This contains collaborating in marches or rallies in assist of a motion or giving cash to, or elevating cash for, any political candidate or election trigger.

Advertisement

1000’s of textual content messages, emails and different inside firm paperwork disclosed to Dominion and launched publicly painting high-level figures on the community as bent on sustaining scores supremacy by giving audiences what they needed, whatever the reality.

Texts present the star prime time host Tucker Carlson calling Mr. Trump a “demonic drive,” and the chairman of Fox Company, Rupert Murdoch, describing Sean Hannity as “privately disgusted by Trump.”

Fox Information has stated Dominion took non-public conversations out of context. Its scores dominance seems untouched by the unfavourable headlines in latest weeks. Information from Nielsen present that in March the ten top-rated cable exhibits in America had been all on Fox Information, led by “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” and that 14 of the highest 20 had been produced by the community.

Nonetheless, consultants consider the case has already resonated.

“I’ve by no means seen a case earlier than the place journalists stated they didn’t consider the story they had been telling however had been going to maintain telling it as a result of it’s what the viewers needed to listen to,” stated Lyrissa Lidsky, a professor of constitutional legislation on the College of Florida and an skilled on defamation legislation. “It’s a shock wave saying it’s time to get severe about accountability.”

Advertisement

Democrats, too, might see their illusions fall. Though many have clamored to see Mr. Trump charged, and felt vindicated this week, the dangers of failure are appreciable.

If Mr. Trump’s legal professionals file to have the costs merely dismissed as prosecutorial overreach and rapidly win, the results would virtually actually strengthen Mr. Trump, who will make the case — and probably others to comply with — central to his main marketing campaign.

However in a courtroom of legislation, the magnetism that Mr. Trump and Fox Information have over their audiences might lose a few of its energy. Regardless of what number of instances the previous president insists exterior the courtroom that he’s the sufferer of a political prosecution, contained in the courtroom his legal professionals should tackle the particular prices. They are going to win or lose primarily based on authorized arguments, not bluster.

“I’ve been round for 50 years, and I’ve heard the political argument earlier than,” stated Stanley M. Model, a veteran Washington protection lawyer. Mr. Model cited the “Abscam” bribery case of the Seventies, when the defendants accused President Jimmy Carter of orchestrating the bribery sting, or the investigation of Senator Robert G. Torricelli, which was additionally surrounded by prices of politics. “It’s by no means labored in a courtroom of legislation.”

James Bopp Jr., a conservative protection lawyer, stated he agreed with just about all Republicans that the Manhattan district lawyer had coaxed his grand jury to convey ahead a specious indictment for the political function of damaging Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

However, he stated, Mr. Trump’s legal professionals should reply the costs, not grandstand on the politics.

“A cost shouldn’t be robotically dismissible as a result of it’s introduced for political function,” he stated. “The motive of prosecutors could also be pertinent to the broader society. It’s not pertinent to a decide.”

The precise prices in opposition to Mr. Trump might not be identified till he’s arraigned on Tuesday. The grand jury that introduced the indictment was inspecting funds to Stormy Daniels and the core query of whether or not these funds had been illegally disguised as enterprise expenditures, a misdemeanor that might rise to a felony if these funds may very well be labeled an unlawful marketing campaign expenditure.

If previous authorized skirmishes are a sign, Mr. Trump is more likely to drag the proceedings out for months, if not years, with movement after movement as he builds his third presidential marketing campaign round what he known as on Friday the “unprecedented political persecution of the president and blatant interference within the 2024 election.”

Likewise, Fox Information will virtually actually proceed to border the Dominion case as that of an organization intent on stifling the First Modification’s ensures of free speech and freedom of the press.

Advertisement

“This case is and at all times has been in regards to the First Modification protections of the media’s absolute proper to cowl the information,” the community stated in a press release Friday.

Which may be left for a courtroom to resolve.

Ken Bensinger contributed reporting.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment

Published

on

Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

A federal judge in Illinois has found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday ruled that a federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The court found that while the federal ban is “facially constitutional,” there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation that permits the government to deprive a noncitizen who has never been convicted of a violent crime from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Advertisement

“The noncitizen possession statute … violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Coleman, a President Obama appointee, cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results. 

DELAWARE BILL REQUIRING GUN BUYERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED, TRAINED, SET TO BECOME LAW

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (iStock)

In this case, U.S. v. Carbajal-Flores, the court considered whether people who enter the country illegally can be banned from owning firearms.

Advertisement

Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant who, on June 1, 2020, was found to be in possession of a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. He was subsequently charged with violating a federal law that prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 

In an April 2022 decision, Coleman denied Carbajal-Flores’ first motion to dismiss his indictment, finding that the ban was constitutional. However, Carbajal-Flores asked the court to reconsider that ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and appellate decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuit that considered whether people convicted of non-violent crimes can be prohibited from possessing firearms. 

CONGRESS POISED TO ROLL BACK ‘VETERAN GUN BAN,’ WITH RELUCTANT BIDEN BACKING

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman presents award to attorney Paula E. Litt

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman, left, presents an award for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service to attorney Paula E. Litt, on May 1, 2019. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division)

Upon review, Coleman concluded that Carbajal-Flores’ illegally present status was not sufficient to deny him Second Amendment rights. The judge said the “plain text” of the Constitution “presumptively protects firearms possession by undocumented persons.” 

“Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” the judge wrote. “Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants.”

Advertisement

The court determined that because there is insufficient evidence to suggest Carbajal-Flores is a danger to society, there is no historical analogue that would permit the federal government to deny him his gun rights. 

NRA SLAMS BIDEN’S SOTU SPEECH AS ATTACK ON ‘THE VERY FABRIC OF AMERICAN FREEDOM’

Gun store customer

A federal judge in Illinois has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the gun rights of illegal immigrants. (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”

The ruling has divided gun rights activists, with some arguing that noncitizens should not have rights protected by the Constitution.

Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Fox News Digital his group “has historically recognized the dangers unchecked illegal immigration presents, chiefly of which is a serious potential to swing the balance of power into the hands of anti-gun politicians.” 

Advertisement

Pratt reiterated GOA does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. 

“In this underlying ruling, the Second Amendment community undoubtedly has mixed feelings, because while illegal aliens are most certainly not part of ‘the People,’ everyone has a God-given right to defend themselves against violent acts like rape and murder,” he said. 

“Of course, the courts wouldn’t have to decide this question if Joe Biden and the Democratic Party would simply secure our borders.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation

Published

on

Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation

Former President Trump is suing TV journalist George Stephanopoulos and ABC News for defamation for saying he raped advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

On a March 10 edition of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the anchor said Trump was “liable for rape” during his interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Stephanopoulos was pressing Mace, a rape victim herself, on how she could rationalize supporting Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy.

Trump’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Miami, said the jury in the Carroll case found him liable for sexual abuse — not rape — and that Stephanopoulos defamed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by using the term.

A jury ruled in January that Trump must pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages after finding Trump liable for defamation, the second case related to a 1996 incident that occurred when the two met in a New York department store.

In May, jurors rejected Carroll’s allegation that she was raped but found Trump responsible for the lesser charge of sexual abuse, along with defamation, and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump, who denied that the incident occurred, repeatedly mocked Carroll over her claims.

Advertisement

Trump’s suit cites how Stephanopoulos himself reported that Trump was not liable for rape when he reported on the verdict of the previous Carroll case on May 10.

The suit also noted that the headline on an ABC News online story on the Mace interview first used the word “rape” and was later changed to “sexual abuse.”

Trump’s suit is asking for unspecified damages.

ABC News has not issued a comment on the matter.

The tense “This Week” interview was widely shared on social media. Mace took umbrage at Stephanopoulos’ question, claiming he was “rape-shaming” her by bringing up her own experience as a victim, which she has publicly discussed.

Advertisement

Trump has previously sued media outlets, including the New York Times and CNN, with no success.

Trump sued the Times over its investigation of his finances, which led to the recent New York civil court ruling that has him on the hook for $454 million. The suit was dismissed in March and Trump had to reimburse the Times legal cost.

In 2022, Trump sued CNN for $475 million claiming the news network was waging a campaign against him by booking guests critical of his policies and speeches. The case was dismissed in 2023.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal

Published

on

Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday for the first time since retiring, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Joining Milley will be retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, who served as United States Central Command (CENTCOM) commander during the 2021 withdrawal. The pair have appeared before Congress to discuss failings in the operation before, but Republicans say they may have been more tight-lipped then because they were still serving under President Biden.

Advertisement

Both Milley and McKenzie testified in 2021 that they had advised Biden to maintain a small U.S. force in Afghanistan, rather than committing to a full U.S. withdrawal. Milley himself has described the operation as a “strategic failure,” saying he has “lots of regrets.”

“It didn’t end the way I wanted it. That didn’t end the way any of us wanted it,” he told ABC News in September. “In the broader sense, the war was lost.”

OBAMA LIED TO AMERICANS ABOUT WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN: BOOK

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, left, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee for the first time since retiring on Tuesday, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

The Tuesday afternoon hearing comes after months of Republican investigations into Biden’s handling of the withdrawal. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas., has repeatedly demanded the State Department turn over documents relating to the operation.

Advertisement

BIDEN’S BOTCHED AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL HAUNTS 2024 ELECTION AS BOOK CLAIMS ‘13 AMERICANS NEVER HAD TO DIE’

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has so far refused to offer interview notes relating to the Afghanistan after action report, which blamed senior officials for failing to prepare for all outcomes in the operation.

General McKenzie Afghanistan Pentagon

Retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, former commander of the United States Central Command, listens during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the conclusion of military operations in Afghanistan. (Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book.

THINK THE US EXIT FROM AFGHANISTAN WAS BAD? LOOK WHAT’S BREWING IN THE PACIFIC

Following the withdrawal, “no one offered to resign, in large part because the president didn’t believe anyone had made a mistake. Ending the war was always going to be messy,” author Alexander Ward writes in the book, “The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore Foreign Policy After Trump.”

Advertisement
President Joe Biden

Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, President Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Biden allegedly told his top aides, including White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, that they had done their best given the situation and vowed to stand by them.

Fox News’ Nikolas Lanum contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending