Grace in victory, ya’ kiddin’ me?

Posted on December 18, 2024 by Joe Weber

For Donald J. Trump, there is no high road

Nearly five years ago, web publisher Elizabeth Spiers wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post headlined “Trump is the ultimate sore winner. Now he’ll seek revenge.” This was after then-President Donald J. Trump was acquitted by the GOP-dominated Senate in his first impeachment.

Might he have been gracious in victory? Might he have extended an olive branch to critics? Might he have even shown a touch of shame, contrition and regret?

Fuggadabout it.

Within 48 hours, Trump fired two witnesses who testified in the case, ordering hotel-chain founder Gordon D. Sondland recalled from his post as the ambassador to the European Union and having Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a decorated Iraq war veteran on the National Security Council staff, marched out of the White House by security guards. He also ousted Vindman’s brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, from the NSC staff.

Trump’s press secretary declared that those who hurt the president “should pay for” it.

So, is it any surprise that president-elect Trump hasn’t even waited until he assumes office to rain hell on his real and perceived critics? Is it any wonder that he has sued Gannett, The Des Moines Register and a pollster over simply reporting a pre-election Iowa poll that showed him as slightly behind Kamala Harris in the state?

In his mind, the pollster was guilty of “brazen election interference,” according to the suit. Reporting the news, to Trump, is interfering with an election, it seems.

This followed an October suit against CBS News in federal court in Texas, in which Trump alleged that “60 Minutes” engaged in deceptive trade practices — an odd charge — when it aired an interview with Kamala Harris. He objected to editing that he claimed made Harris look better.

“It’s clear that Trump is waging war on the press,” Samantha Barbas, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law told The New York Times. “Trump and his lawyers are going to use any legal claim that they think has a chance of sticking. They’ll cast a wide net to carry out this vendetta.”

So don’t expect graciousness in victory from the once and future president. Vindictiveness and intimidation are his longstanding tropes.

“If somebody attacks him, he attacks them back, he says, ten times as hard,” New York Times reporter Peter Baker said. “He’s not about diplomacy. He’s not about negotiation. He is all about the fight.”

Whether slights are big or small, imagined or real, Trump uses whatever levers of power he has to slash anyone who crosses him or might do so. He appears to take to heart a couple of Niccolò Machiavelli’s pieces of advice: “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both” and “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”

How petty can the once and future president be?

He once built a hill in front of a cottage in Scotland whose owner had opposed a Trump golf course and hotel development — so the cottage’s yard flooded whenever it rained.

Beyond just owning a thin skin, Trump has a method to his viciousness. Hitting back hard is pure Trump; it’s something he learned from one of his first lawyers, the late disbarred Joe McCarthy errand boy Roy Cohn. As a cousin of the notorious lawyer said, “Roy Cohn showed him that you can turn around a situation just by ignoring the facts and going after your attacker.”

Trump does that either with legal action or verbal savagery, a powerful weapon when wielded by someone in the White House.

Rex Tillerson, his former secretary of state, was “dumb as a rock and I couldn’t get rid of him fast enough. He was lazy as hell.” Adviser Steve Bannon “cried when he got fired and begged for his job.” Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci was a “highly unstable ‘nut job.’ ” Former assistant Omarosa Manigault was “wacky” and “deranged,” “a lowlife.” Former national security adviser John Bolton was “very publicly terminated.”

Making people pay has long been a key to Trump’s approach. Spiers noted that as a casino operator, he invented fake ethical scandals about people who could have exposed him as a terrible businessman. Recall that he drove his casinos into bankruptcy six times (really, what amount of stupidity or, more likely, greed does it take to bankrupt a gaming house?)

He’s especially nasty toward the media, apparently hoping he can cow critical journalists.

The $16 million settlement he won from ABC parent Disney seems to have invigorated him. In his recent press conference, he referred to ongoing lawsuits he has brought against publisher Simon & Schuster over the rights to recorded interviews he gave to journalist Bob Woodward, and the Pulitzer Prize board for reaffirming awards it gave to The New York Times and Washington Post for their reporting on ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia.

“It costs a lot of money to do it, but we have to straighten out the press,” Trump said. “Our press is very corrupt. Almost as corrupt as our elections.”

While Disney’s surrender has riled many in the media, what’s more troubling is that it may have been a product of fears that a Trumpian judiciary in Florida and beyond, as well as a Trump-friendly jury in the red state, would have backed the former president up.

A federal judge in the state in July denied Disney’s motion to dismiss Trump’s suit. As The New York Times reported: “A reasonable jury could interpret Stephanopoulos’s statements as defamatory,” Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote, and then added an emphasis in italics. “Stephanopoulos stated ten times that a jury — or juries — had found plaintiff liable for rape.”

Beyond Trump’s concerns, his war on the media could have far-reaching effects for others who share his feelings of victimization. Lee Levine, a retired media lawyer, told The Wall Street Journal that the Disney settlement will embolden some media critics. That could potentially chill news outlets’ handling of sensitive stories, the paper reported. It “will definitely have an impact on news coverage going forward,” Levine said.

“You need a fair press,” Trump also said, striking an heroic pose. “I’m doing this not because I want to. I’m doing this because I feel I have an obligation to.”

Gimme a break. Trump’s litigiousness should be a lesson to anyone in media who believes that capitulating to him will spare them his ire (take note, owners of The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times).

He will use whatever powers are available to him to muzzle or punish critics in journalism and elsewhere. His choice to head the FBI, Kash Patel, said months before the election that he would use his post “to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.”

And Trump has made it clear he will use his Justice Department to exact vengeance on political opponents, such as former Rep. Liz Cheney, whom House Republicans want investigated criminally for her role in leading the panel that probed the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. A House subcommittee, echoing Trump’s attacks, recommended the investigation in a recently issued report that suggested she tampered with a witness.

“Liz Cheney could be in a lot of trouble based on the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, which states that ‘numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, and these violations should be investigated by the FBI,’” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social network.

Trump’s enemies list is a long one. That’s why some, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, have urged President Biden to issue preemptive pardons to, among others, the entire Jan. 6 House investigative panel.

“You know, when Trump talks about sending to jail people who were on that Jan. 6 committee, that sounds like being a tin-pot dictator,” Sanders said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “This is what authoritarianism is all about. It’s what dictatorship is all about…. You do not arrest elected officials who disagree with you.”

Would-be appointee Patel seems to think arrests and worse are appropriate and not only for elected officials, but just rank and file government staffers. In a 2023 book, Patel listed 60 people whom he classified as “members of the executive branch deep state” — a “cabal of unelected tyrants” who posed “the most dangerous threat to our democracy.”

And he has since said that the Trump administration must deal with this “deep state,” be it “criminally or civilly.”

At least one potential target on Patel’s list, former Justice Department public affairs office director Sarah Isgur, argues she would prefer a prosecution to a pardon that would be seen as an affirmation of guilt.

“If we broke the law, we should be charged and convicted,” Isgur wrote in a New York Times opinion piece headlined “I Don’t Want a Pardon from Biden. None of Us Should.” “If we didn’t break the law, we should be willing to show that we trust the fairness of the justice system that so many of us have defended. And we shouldn’t give permission to future presidents to pardon political allies who may commit real crimes on their behalf.”

Certainly, Isgur is taking a high-minded approach. She notes, however, that such prosecutions would likely be unpopular with many Americans, including those who voted for Trump.

“If he wants to prosecute everyone on his list, it’s going to require a lot of law enforcement resources,” she writes. “At a time when much of the American public wants the president to focus on inflation, crime and immigration, voters may not be pleased if drug cartels are a lower priority than prosecuting Liz Cheney for treason.”

Of course, for Trump and his toadies, using taxpayer money and resources to browbeat enemies would likely be cost-free. He wouldn’t be paying the bill — we all would — and he would force his targets – whether well-heeled or not – to spend a lot in their defenses.

As The New York Times reported, Trump famously lost a libel case that he brought against the writer Timothy O’Brien for allegedly understating Trump’s net worth. During the 2016 election, Trump told The Washington Post that it was worth it, even with the loss.

“I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more,” he said of O’Brien and his book publisher. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

If that’s the sort of thing that makes Trump happy, buckle up. If you’ve watched him over time — or, heck, just visited one of his gaudy hotels — you know that grace is not part of his repertoire.

Kowtowing to a new reality

Posted on December 15, 2024 by Joe Weber

Why ABC’s settlement is a problem for the press and us all

Over the years, when major TV networks have displeased Donald J. Trump, he has been quick to respond.

After moderators on ABC fact-checked his false statements during a presidential candidate debate in September, he called the network “dishonest” and railed against it on Fox. “To be honest they are a news organization, they have to be licensed. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that,” he said on Fox & Friends.

Thanks for reading The Big Picture! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and encourage my work.

Then, he took umbrage at CBS for an editing decision in an interview with Kamala Harris, saying it should lose its broadcast license. And, a few weeks before the general election, he went on his Truth Social to expand his targets to include not only CBS, but also “all other Broadcast Licenses.”

The TV-sensitive Trump’s attacks followed those from as far back as 2017, when he tweeted: “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for Country!,” followed by “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not far to public!”

So, now that the once and future president will again wield influence over the ostensibly independent Federal Communications Commission, is it any wonder that ABC has kowtowed to him in agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a defamation suit he brought? Indeed, Trump just named a new chair for the commission, Brendan Carr, a Project 2025 contributor who has said networks should be punished for political bias.

Just how much power Trump, Carr and the FCC will have over the networks is in dispute. The networks don’t need licenses to operate, even though local affiliate stations do.

And, while the White House doesn’t control FCC decisions, it does appoint the five commission members. Surely, the other four will be parrots for Carr, who is already firing shots across the bow. The Republican operative and Trump toady just wrote on X that “broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource — our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest.” As chairman, he added, “the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation.”

Brendan Carr, source: Getty Images via Variety

Moreover, Trump’s Department of Justice will have power over corporate media deals. Recall that in his first term Trump tried to block AT&T’s acquisition of CNN’s owner, Time Warner (though Justice’s antitrust division failed in that effort in court). That potent lever could bode ill for ABC and the other networks.

Even while presidents are somewhat hemmed in by longstanding free speech protections, there’s no doubt that Trump, as president again, can make life very tough for broadcast media. Tom Wheeler, FCC chairman from 2013 to 2017, told The New York Times that Trump’s threats could create a “chilling effect” on how news organizations make editorial calls.

“It is hard to yank a license; it is particularly hard to yank a license on the instruction of the president of the United States,” Wheeler said. “But it is not hard to have an impact on decision making.”

So, ABC’s decision, while alarming to believers in a free press, is not surprising. The case at issue turns on politics, lust and semantics.

Anchor George Stephanopoulos last spring repeatedly referred to Trump as being “liable for rape” after a jury found him liable for “sexual abuse” in a mid-1990s assault on writer E. Jean Carroll. Without her consent, Trump had penetrated Carroll with his finger in an assault in a New York department store dressing room. While Trump objected to the term “rape,” the judge in the case acknowledged that the terms were interchangeable in real-world use, even though they were legally distinct.

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.” Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

Trump still owes Carroll nearly $90 million, plus interest, in the matter. He was found liable for that because he defamed her, according to two juries. Of course, the litigious mogul is appealing and may be hoping a friendly judiciary — one larded with his appointees — will vindicate him.

The facts, and Kaplan’s comments in a binding ruling, suggest that ABC likely would have had a good case, had it stood its ground and fought. Indeed, had Trump lost the election, it’s hard to see how the network would have bent the knee as it has. But, as president, Trump will just have too much power over it, network executives seem to think.

From a purely financial standpoint, moreover, the $16 million is peanuts compared with what litigating the case would cost. And it’s notable that $15 million will not go directly to Trump, but rather to his future presidential foundation and museum ($1 million goes to legal fees). Notably, neither Stephanopoulos nor the network apologized for the comments, saying only that they “regret” them.

It is a far cry from the $787 million that Fox agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems for defaming the company in its dishonest and incorrect reporting. “The truth matters. Lies have consequences,” the company’s lawyer said in discussing the settlement.

It’s a bit surprising, in fact, that Trump didn’t press for more money or to have it go directly into his pockets. But it seems likely that he valued the PR effect and his ability to crow about the deal to his followers even more. He also may not have relished the idea of prolonged litigation that drew still more attention to his longstanding sexual depravity.

Is this all appalling, nonetheless? Unquestionably.

Much as the decisions by the owners of The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times to kill editorial page endorsements of Kamala Harris, ABC’s action seems like another case of what Yale historian Timothy Snyder calls “anticipatory obedience.” This is where organizations or individuals facing a tyrannical leader rush to yield in hopes he will not crush them.

“Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,” Snyder writes in his book On Tyranny. “In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

For those counting on the press to act as a guardrail against Trump’s excesses, the ABC decision seems craven, at best. It’s of a piece with the steady stream of major execs rushing to kiss Trump’s, ahem, ring by jetting off to Mar-a-Lago to dine with him and donate to his inaugural fund. Perhaps the most shameful is the $1 million donation by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos.

What’s more, it’s not at all clear that ABC’s choice will make any difference over the coming four years. The notoriously thin-skinned Trump may yet threaten its ability to broadcast the truth when something else offends him.

Sadly, we can be sure that the journalists there will second-guess everything they do now to try to avoid irking the king. That’s the way tyrants work. Self-censorship, authoritarians across the world have found, is the best kind.

With a Trumpist Senate, House and judiciary, the incoming president will have extraordinary power to shape the laws and practices we follow. With decisions such as ABC’s, he may also in effect hold sway over the reporting and discussion of any of his efforts, perverting reports to suit his often distorted view of reality.

Will the media be able any longer to shine a light on the truth? Will more print media fall in line behind the Times, Post and ABC? And just how much of a difference will that make, in any case?

As shown by an election in which a bit over 49 percent of voters ignored or dismissed a ceaseless cascade of troublesome headlines and broadcast stories, the media is far less of a counterweight than it once was or should be. In their thrall to a strongman, far too much of the public — though not quite a majority — simply doesn’t seem to care about facts.

It’s hard to find reason for optimism, for hope that things could change for the better with Trump holding the whip hand at the moment. Still, in our electoral system, little is forever. Enough voters may care about reality that things could change with the midterm elections in a couple years. Certainly, that happened in Trump’s first term and in 2020.

In the end, Trump may have just a couple years to cow networks and intimidate journalists. But, as the ABC decision suggests, a tyrant to whom all kneel can do a lot of damage. Will his loathsome handiwork prove to be lasting? We’ll all have to stay tuned for that.