Category: Vexatious Litigation

Disney Faces Government Investigation Over DEI Practices Amid GOP’s Discriminatory Pressure

The U.S. government is investigating Disney’s diversity and inclusion (DEI) practices, as initiated by Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This investigation signifies increasing pressure on media companies to comply with the GOP’s discriminatory regulations aimed at dismantling DEI initiatives. Carr officially notified Disney and its ABC News unit via a letter, expressing concerns that the company may be promoting diversity in ways that contravene established government policies.

A spokesperson for Disney has confirmed the company’s intent to cooperate with the investigation, indicating they are reviewing the details of Carr’s letter. Disney’s ongoing alignment with DEI principles has come under scrutiny during the Trump administration, which has extended its mandate against such initiatives internationally. The American embassy in France recently reached out to French firms with U.S. contracts, mandating their compliance with Trump’s executive order prohibiting DEI programs.

Carr’s letter directly addresses Disney’s CEO, Robert Iger, emphasizing the need for compliance with FCC regulations and the elimination of any discriminatory practices cloaked in DEI terminology. He expressed a particular interest in how Disney has handled diversity within its media content, demanding clarity on their adherence to equitable employment opportunities.

Moreover, Carr has ramped up scrutiny of various media organizations since his appointment by Trump in November 2020. His investigations have targeted institutions like NPR and PBS, along with demands for transparency from tech giants such as Apple and Google regarding their editorial practices. Disney is not the only company facing this molten landscape; other major firms, including Verizon and Comcast, are also under investigation for their DEI policies amid the Republicans’ broader campaign against perceived “woke” ideologies.

This investigation adds to Disney’s existing political woes, notably its recent settlement of a $15 million defamation lawsuit brought by Donald Trump when an ABC journalist inaccurately reported on the former president’s legal issues. Additionally, Disney’s criticisms of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law have pitched it against Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, marking it as a persistent target for conservatives. Disney’s trajectory underscores the chilling atmosphere surrounding DEI initiatives under the current Republican regime.

(h/t: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62k20l5x24o)

Disney Faces Government Investigation Over DEI Practices Amid GOP’s Discriminatory Pressure

The U.S. government is investigating Disney’s diversity and inclusion (DEI) practices, as initiated by Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This investigation signifies increasing pressure on media companies to comply with the GOP’s discriminatory regulations aimed at dismantling DEI initiatives. Carr officially notified Disney and its ABC News unit via a letter, expressing concerns that the company may be promoting diversity in ways that contravene established government policies.

A spokesperson for Disney has confirmed the company’s intent to cooperate with the investigation, indicating they are reviewing the details of Carr’s letter. Disney’s ongoing alignment with DEI principles has come under scrutiny during the Trump administration, which has extended its mandate against such initiatives internationally. The American embassy in France recently reached out to French firms with U.S. contracts, mandating their compliance with Trump’s executive order prohibiting DEI programs.

Carr’s letter directly addresses Disney’s CEO, Robert Iger, emphasizing the need for compliance with FCC regulations and the elimination of any discriminatory practices cloaked in DEI terminology. He expressed a particular interest in how Disney has handled diversity within its media content, demanding clarity on their adherence to equitable employment opportunities.

Moreover, Carr has ramped up scrutiny of various media organizations since his appointment by Trump in November 2020. His investigations have targeted institutions like NPR and PBS, along with demands for transparency from tech giants such as Apple and Google regarding their editorial practices. Disney is not the only company facing this molten landscape; other major firms, including Verizon and Comcast, are also under investigation for their DEI policies amid the Republicans’ broader campaign against perceived “woke” ideologies.

This investigation adds to Disney’s existing political woes, notably its recent settlement of a $15 million defamation lawsuit brought by Donald Trump when an ABC journalist inaccurately reported on the former president’s legal issues. Additionally, Disney’s criticisms of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law have pitched it against Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, marking it as a persistent target for conservatives. Disney’s trajectory underscores the chilling atmosphere surrounding DEI initiatives under the current Republican regime.

(h/t: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62k20l5x24o)

Elon Musk Echoes Trump’s Assault on Journalism Amid Pentagon Controversy

Elon Musk has recently escalated tensions regarding a New York Times report indicating he was scheduled to receive a briefing on potential U.S. military plans against China. He dismissed the article as “pure propaganda” and further threatened to pursue legal action against Pentagon officials he accused of leaking false information to the Times. Musk expressed his interest in seeing justice served against those he claims are responsible for disseminating “maliciously false information.”

In a post on social media, Musk’s comments mirrored the rhetoric of current President Donald Trump, who also targeted the Times following the report. Both figures dismissed the claims made by anonymous sources within the government, calling the article “fake news.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell joined Musk and Trump in condemning the report, calling it “garbage” and demanding a retraction.

Musk’s critique further highlights his controversial position as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), raising eyebrows about his dual role as a private sector mogul and a government official. His close business ties with the U.S. Department of Defense and his operations in China position him uniquely within a potentially conflicting situation, where corporate interests may intertwine with national security implications.

The Pentagon’s decision to brief Musk underscores concerns over the militarization of business leaders, as it raises questions about the influence of private enterprise in shaping national defense strategies. Critics argue that this blending of corporate power and government authority exemplifies troubling trends in the Trump administration that favor wealthy elites and undermine democratic accountability.

As both Musk and Trump continue to dismiss legitimate journalistic inquiry with accusations of misinformation, their narratives reflect a broader pattern of authoritarianism that seeks to delegitimize any dissenting voices. The potential for corruption and unethics in their dealings manifests clearly in their rhetoric, reinforcing concerns about the ongoing erosion of democratic norms under their influence.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/news/they-will-be-found-elon-musk-threatens-prosecutions-of-trump-pentagon-officials-after-bombshell-new-york-times-report/)

Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Support to Undermine Birthright Citizenship and Constitutional Rights

The Trump administration is actively seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention to implement its controversial restrictions on birthright citizenship. In recent emergency applications, the administration requested permission to partially enforce these restrictions while ongoing legal challenges unfold. This tactic highlights the Trump administration’s persistent attempts to undermine fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Specifically, the administration aims to restrict citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented immigrants, targeting those born after February 19. This drastic measure not only strips away rights protected under the 14th Amendment but also reflects Trump’s ongoing xenophobic agenda aimed at rallying support from his far-right base.

Legal pushback has been strong, with three federal appeals courts already rejecting the Trump administration’s requests to enforce these restrictions. The courts have deemed such attempts problematic, stressing the importance of preserving birthright citizenship as a fundamental aspect of American democracy.

The intent behind these legal maneuvers is clear: Trump and his allies are determined to dismantle immigrant protections and reshape the nation’s approach to citizenship through executive power. JD Vance, Vice President and ally to Trump, has further complicated matters by claiming judicial constraints on the executive branch’s power, which threatens the judicial authority essential for a balanced government.

This attack on birthright citizenship is not merely an isolated incident but a continuation of Trump’s broader campaign against immigrants and refugees, which aims to reinforce a narrative of superiority for certain demographics. By undermining constitutional rights and working to eliminate fundamental protections, Trump’s actions underscore a troubling trend toward authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic values in the United States.

Trump DOJ Threatens Dem Congressman Over Musk Joke

Donald Trump’s Department of Justice has issued a warning to Representative Robert Garcia after the Democrat’s humorous jibe at Elon Musk, where he mockingly referred to the tech billionaire’s picture as a “dick pic.” This incident unfolded during a House hearing focused on Musk’s influence in government efficiency efforts.

Garcia’s remarks were interpreted as a challenge to Musk’s role in the Trump-administration-backed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which seeks to downsize federal agencies significantly. In a subsequent CNN interview, Garcia called for strong action against threats to democracy, igniting the ire of interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin.

Martin interpreted Garcia’s comments as potentially threatening toward Musk and his staff, asking for clarification under the pretext of protecting public figures appointed by Trump. Martin’s letter to Garcia, demanding a response by February 24, reflects a troubling misuse of prosecutorial power aimed at silencing dissent.

This is not Martin’s first attempt to suppress opposition to Trump. He has previously targeted notable figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and former special counsel Jack Smith, often invoking Trump’s false narratives regarding election fraud to justify his actions. Martin’s efforts exemplify a disturbing trend of retaliation against those who dare to criticize the Trump administration.

Garcia, unyielded by the threats, publicly defended his right to oppose Trump’s policies and called for accountability. The escalation of these tactics signals a broader pattern within the Republican Party to intimidate critics, revealing an authoritarian bent that threatens democracy itself.

(h/t: https://newrepublic.com/post/191787/trump-doj-threatens-democratic-congressman-garcia-elon-musk-dick-pic)

Trump’s $10 Billion Lawsuit Against CBS is a Frivolous Attack on Press Freedom

Former President Donald Trump has launched a ludicrous legal attack against CBS, claiming $10 billion in damages over the network’s ’60 Minutes’ interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. This frivolous lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Texas, is riddled with absurd accusations that CBS engaged in partisan election interference and misled the public during the presidential election process. Trump’s legal team alleges that the interview was unfairly edited to disadvantage him, a claim that has been categorically dismissed by CBS.

The suit has been met with widespread ridicule from First Amendment experts, who have condemned it as a dangerous overreach aimed at stifling press freedom. Prominent attorneys have asserted that Trump’s actions are not just meritless but also represent a blatant attempt to control how the media reports on political figures, undermining the fundamental protections of the First Amendment. Legal analysts emphasize that the media, not governmental entities or political candidates, should dictate the coverage of news events.

Trump’s lawsuit specifically demands CBS release the full, unedited transcript of the interview, further demonstrating his desperation to manipulate the narrative surrounding his political image. The rationale behind filing in Texas, particularly in a court presided over by a Trump appointee, raises suspicions of ‘judge shopping,’ a tactic often employed by litigants seeking favorable rulings.

CBS has firmly rejected Trump’s claims, asserting that the interview was accurately presented and that the lawsuit lacks any substantive basis. A representative for CBS stressed that their coverage was intended to inform viewers, not mislead them, directly countering Trump’s narrative of deceit. Furthermore, the legal action has drawn sharp criticism from experts who argue that such attempts to intimidate the media only serve to highlight Trump’s ongoing struggles with accountability and the truth.

During a rally in Nevada, Trump boasted about the lawsuit, showcasing his continued penchant for theatrics over substance. This legal maneuver is yet another indication of Trump’s relentless pursuit to reshape public perception while disregarding journalistic integrity. As the case unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the importance of protecting the freedom of the press against politically motivated litigation.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/media/trump-cbs-lawsuit-harris-60-minutes-interview/index.html)

Trump’s Baseless Election Contest in Georgia Undermines Democracy

Donald Trump’s campaign has filed an election contest in Georgia, seeking to undermine the results of the November 3, 2020 presidential election. This legal maneuver comes despite the absence of credible evidence supporting his claims of widespread voter fraud. In a troubling display of defiance against democratic norms, Trump’s campaign alleges that tens of thousands of illegal votes were counted, a claim that has been repeatedly debunked by numerous sources.

Ray S. Smith III, the lead counsel for the Trump campaign, echoed the unfounded narrative of election irregularities, stating that the Georgia Secretary of State orchestrated an ineffective election process. This rhetoric not only seeks to delegitimize the election but also stirs public distrust in the electoral system, a dangerous precedent for American democracy.

Accompanying the lawsuit are affidavits from Georgia residents, which Trump’s team claims support their allegations. However, many of these affidavits lack the necessary scrutiny and verification required to substantiate such serious accusations. Claims of voter fraud, including those involving underage voters and individuals casting ballots from out-of-state addresses, have been thoroughly examined and dismissed by election officials.

In the face of overwhelming evidence confirming the legitimacy of the election results, Trump’s insistence on pursuing this course of action has raised alarms about his commitment to democratic principles. Instead of accepting the will of the voters, he continues to rally his supporters around baseless conspiracies that threaten to erode trust in future elections.

This latest move is part of a broader strategy by Trump and his allies to overturn a free and fair election. The implications of this lawsuit extend beyond Georgia, as it reflects a national trend among some Republicans to challenge the integrity of the electoral process. Such actions not only undermine the democratic foundation of the United States but also set a troubling precedent for future political contests.

(h/t: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-trump-campaign-files-election-contest-georgia)

Trump administration sues Bolton over memoir

The Trump administration on Tuesday filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent John Bolton from publishing a highly anticipated memoir describing his 17 months serving as President Trump’s national security adviser.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Bolton’s book, due to be released on June 23, contains classified information that stands to compromise national security if published before a government review is completed.

“[Bolton] regularly came into possession of some of the most sensitive classified information that exists in the U.S. government,” the lawsuit states. “Within two months of his departure from government service, defendant had negotiated a book deal allegedly worth about $2 million and had drafted a 500-plus page manuscript rife with classified information, which he proposed to release to the world.”

The Department of Justice asked the court to declare that Bolton’s account of his time as a top Trump adviser from April 2018 to September 2019 violated his nondisclosure agreement.

The lawsuit also seeks to stop Bolton from disclosing contents from his memoir without U.S. government permission and to order his publisher, Simon & Schuster, to “retrieve and dispose of” any copies of the book held by third parties. Bolton’s attorney Chuck Cooper has denied that the book contains classified material.

“We are reviewing the Government’s complaint and will respond in due course,” Cooper said in an emailed statement early Monday. 

Simon & Schuster dismissed the lawsuit as “nothing more than the latest in a long running series of efforts by the Administration to quash publication of a book it deems unflattering to the President.” 

 “Ambassador Bolton has worked in full cooperation with the NSC in its pre-publication review to address its concerns and Simon & Schuster fully supports his First Amendment right to tell the story of his time in the White House to the American public,” the publishing company said in a statement. 

The move had been expected since Monday when reports surfaced that the administration was eyeing a lawsuit to prevent publication of the memoir, titled “The Room Where It Happened,” and comes exactly one week before it is due for public release. The book is said to offer a scathing account of the White House from the former national security adviser’s point of view.

“If he wrote a book, I can’t imagine that he can because that’s highly classified information,” Trump told reporters on Monday when asked about plans to file a lawsuit.

“I will consider every conversation with me as president highly classified. So that would mean if he wrote a book and if the book gets out, he’s broken the law and I would think he would have criminal problems,” Trump added, later claiming he hadn’t viewed the book’s contents.

The memoir’s release has been delayed for months as a result of a prepublication review process spearheaded by the White House National Security Council (NSC) that began when Bolton submitted the book for review in late December.

According to the Justice Department’s complaint, NSC official Ellen Knight had completed her review of Bolton’s book around April 27 “and was of the judgment that the manuscript draft did not contain classified information.” Knight informed Bolton that the process remained ongoing when he asked for an update thereafter, the complaint states.

It says that Michael Ellis, NSC’s senior director for intelligence, subsequently began a review of the manuscript on May 2 and raised concerns it contained classified information. An NSC attorney sent Bolton’s attorney Chuck Cooper a letter on June 8 saying the draft contained classified information and that the manuscript could not be published until the review was completed, after press reports said that Bolton planned to release the book on June 23.

After receiving that letter, Cooper penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal accusing the White House of a “transparent attempt to use national security as a pretext to censor Mr. Bolton, in violation of his constitutional right to speak on matters of the utmost public import.” 

The memoir is expected to contain details about Trump’s interactions with Ukraine related to his impeachment by the House of Representatives last December. Bolton has been an extremely controversial figure as a result of his refusal to testify before the chamber.

The former national security adviser later said he would testify before the GOP-controlled Senate if served a subpoena, but the upper chamber ultimately voted to bypass witnesses and eventually acquitted Trump of the impeachment charges in two largely party-line votes.

[The Hill]

Trump melts down demanding reporters return ‘Noble’ prizes he says they won for investigating him

President Donald Trump claimed on Sunday that members of the news media are getting “Noble Prizes” for investigating his administration.

The president made the assertion in an afternoon rant on Twitter.

Commenters quickly pointed out that Trump not only spelled “Nobel” incorrectly, but he also was mostly likely referring to Pulitzer Prizes that were awarded to reporters at The New York Times and Washington Post for their investigations into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

[Raw Story]

Trump campaign sues CNN for libel over opinion article

The Trump campaign announced Friday that it sued CNN for libel over an opinion article, saying it wants the network to be held “accountable for intentionally publishing false statements against” it.

The big picture: It’s the latest of a series of libel suits by the campaign aimed at media outlets’ opinion articles on issues linked to Russia. Over the last few weeks, the campaign has also sued the New York Times and the Washington Post, alleging similar motives.

  • While President Trump has often threatened to sue news organizations for libel, he has rarely followed through.
  • The efforts face a relatively high bar for proof compared to most lawsuits. In order for a public official to successfully sue for libel, they must be able to prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.”

The article named in the suit, written by CNN contributor Larry Noble and published in June, states that “the Trump campaign assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia’s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table.”

  • That assertion is backed up earlier in the piece by citing a Trump interview last year with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, where Trump said he’d “want to hear” information offered on political opponents by a foreign government. His statement in that interview was also used to support an argument in one of the Post pieces that resulted in a lawsuit.
  • The CNN piece also cites an “Axios on HBO” interview with White House adviser Jared Kushner, who said that he doesn’t know whether he’d call the FBI if he were to receive another email like the one before the campaign’s Trump Tower meeting, which had the subject line: “Re: Russia – Clinton – private and confidential.”

What they’re saying:

  • Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis: “The campaign filed this lawsuit against CNN and the preceding suits against The New York Times and The Washington Post to hold the publishers accountable for their reckless false reporting and also to establish the truth: that the campaign did not have an agreement, quid pro quo, or collusion with Russia, as the Mueller Report concluded.”
  • CNN declined to comment on the suit.

[Axios]

1 2 3 … 6