Judges Unite Against Trump in Defamation Case Blowout

Judges Unite Against Trump in Defamation Case Blowout

Donald Trump recently took to his social media platform to boast about reshaping the media. He claimed credit for changes in the corporate media world. However, recent legal news suggests things are not going well for him in his many lawsuits against media companies across the country.

In a significant development, all 12 judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have rejected Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn a previous ruling. This ruling came from a judge Trump himself appointed. In 2023, this judge dismissed Trump’s defamation case against CNN. The judge stated that Trump’s claims about losing the election due to fraud were nothing more than “the big lie.” Trump disliked this label, as well as being compared to Hitler. He then sued CNN for defamation.

Opinion vs. Defamation

The judge in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Singal, ruled that the comments made about Trump were opinions. Under defamation laws, opinions are generally not something you can sue over. This means they are not legally actionable. This decision then went to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel at the 11th Circuit agreed with Judge Singal and ruled against Trump.

Unhappy with this outcome, Trump asked all 12 active judges of the 11th Circuit to reconsider the case. He wanted them to overturn the panel’s decision and rule in his favor. However, he could not secure even a single vote from the judges. This complete rejection highlights the weakness of his legal arguments in this specific case.

A Pattern of Legal Setbacks

This CNN case is just one example of Trump’s ongoing legal battles with various media outlets. He also has pending lawsuits against The New York Times, The Des Moines Register, The Wall Street Journal, and the BBC. Reports indicate that none of these cases are progressing favorably for him.

The CNN lawsuit serves as a clear illustration. Trump sued in Florida, a venue he favors. He secured a judge he appointed, Judge Singal. Judge Singal dismissed the case, stating that calling his election fraud claims “the big lie” was an opinion, not a factual statement that could be defamatory. As the speaker noted, comparing someone to Hitler, while harsh, is often considered an opinion and not grounds for a defamation suit.

The “Big Lie” and Legal Defenses

When Trump’s claims about election fraud were labeled “the big lie,” he felt defamed. He argued that these labels were false and harmed his reputation. However, the courts have largely sided with the media outlets, finding that such statements, especially when related to political commentary, often fall under protected speech as opinion. This is a common defense in defamation cases, particularly in the United States where freedom of the press is a cornerstone of the legal system.

Beyond CNN: Other Media Lawsuits

The lawsuit against The New York Times involved articles criticizing Trump and his father’s business dealings. These articles suggested some practices were fraudulent or designed to avoid taxes. This case, initially dismissed, was refiled and currently faces pending motions to dismiss that appear strong.

The case against The Wall Street Journal stems from an article about a submission Trump made for a book. The article described a cartoon image with comments in the pubic hair region. This case is also awaiting a ruling on a motion to dismiss.

A case against the BBC is moving towards mediation. This lawsuit relates to a speech Trump gave before the January 6th events. He told his supporters he would join them, but then returned to the White House instead. Mediation involves a neutral third party helping the two sides discuss a settlement.

The lawsuit against The Des Moines Register concerns a pollster who predicted Trump would lose the election in Iowa. Despite Trump winning Iowa, he is suing the pollster. The judge has paused the exchange of information in this case until a decision is made on a motion to dismiss, which is expected to favor the pollster.

Allegations of Corporate Influence

The analysis suggests a different dynamic at play with some media companies. It’s alleged that Trump has used his influence to pressure corporate media. This pressure allegedly involves demanding payments or “tithes” in exchange for regulatory approvals for other business ventures. For instance, ABC reportedly paid $16 million. This payment is linked to George Stephanopoulos’s interview where he called Trump a rapist, not a sex abuser, in reference to E. Jean Carroll’s case. The payment was allegedly made to facilitate a merger and a deal involving ABC’s parent company.

Similarly, CBS reportedly paid $16 million. This payment is connected to Larry Ellison, owner of Oracle, and his son’s involvement with CBS and a Kamala Harris interview. The analysis suggests that the Ellison Group is now looking to acquire CNN. Trump’s continued pursuit of the CNN case, even after the 11th Circuit’s rejection, might be an effort to secure another payment, potentially from the Ellison family, if they acquire Warner Brothers assets.

The Role of Shareholder Money

The discussion raises questions about where these large sums of money are going. The analysis points out that these payments, like the $16 million to ABC and CBS, are directed to Donald Trump personally. This contrasts with payments that might go to national funds. The speaker notes the difficulty in tracking funds related to Trump’s library, suggesting they are moved between accounts. The implication is that these settlements are personal financial gains, funded by corporate shareholders.

Independence and Pro-Democracy Channels

The speaker contrasts these corporate media dealings with their own platform, the Midas Touch Network and Legal AF. They emphasize their independence, stating they are not owned by a corporate parent. This independence allows them to maintain their point of view and First Amendment rights without external control. They stress the importance of supporting such pro-democracy channels through subscriptions and resources.

Why This Matters

This situation is significant because it touches upon critical issues: freedom of the press, the definition of defamation, the influence of powerful individuals on media narratives, and the financial dealings between public figures and corporations. The legal setbacks Trump has faced in these defamation cases suggest that courts are reluctant to allow public figures to use lawsuits to silence critical reporting, especially when that reporting is framed as opinion.

Furthermore, the allegations of corporations paying settlements to avoid regulatory issues or secure business deals raise concerns about the integrity of both the media and corporate governance. It blurs the lines between legal recourse and financial coercion. The distinction between legitimate defamation claims and attempts to use the legal system for personal or business advantage is crucial for a healthy public discourse.

Looking Ahead

The trend of media outlets facing lawsuits from powerful figures is likely to continue. However, the consistent rejection of these suits by the courts, as seen in the 11th Circuit’s unanimous decision, suggests a strong defense of First Amendment principles. The future may see more legal challenges, but also a continued affirmation of the media’s right to report and comment, even critically.

The ongoing financial settlements, if they continue, will also be a point of scrutiny. Transparency in these transactions and the motivations behind them will be key. As independent media platforms grow, their role in providing uncompromised reporting and analysis becomes increasingly vital in a media environment potentially influenced by financial pressures.

Source: Trump CRUSHED by ENTIRE PANEL of JUDGES in HUMILIATING LOSS (YouTube)