Welcome to the Mafia Presidency
As I said: theoretically. On Tuesday, the media-and-entertainment conglomerate Paramount announced a $16 million payment to President Donald Trump's future presidential library. The payment settled a lawsuit that Trump had filed against the Paramount-owned broadcaster CBS because he was unhappy with the way the network had edited an election-season interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris.
Trump's lawsuit was about as meritless as a lawsuit can be, for reasons I'll explain shortly. If CBS were a freestanding news organization, it would have fought the case and won. But like the Disney-owned network ABC, which also paid off Trump for an almost equally frivolous lawsuit, CBS belongs to a parent corporation with regulatory business before Trump-appointed agencies. Paramount is pursuing an $8 billion merger that requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission. In November 2024, then-incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr warned that merger approval would depend on satisfying Trump's claims against CBS. Carr told the Fox News interviewer Dana Perino, 'I'm pretty confident that that news-distortion complaint over the 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of that transaction.'
'News-distortion complaint?' What's that? Nearly a century ago, in 1927, Congress empowered a new Federal Radio Commission to police the accuracy of news broadcasts. In the preceding decades, the airwaves had become a chaos of transmissions interfering with one another. The right to use any particular frequency was a valuable concession from the federal government, the owner on the public's behalf of the nation's airwaves. Congress felt that it could impose conditions in return for such concessions. One condition was a duty to meet public-interest standards in broadcast content, which included giving equal time to opposing political candidates in an election. In 1934, the Federal Radio Commission evolved into the Federal Communications Commission. As television technology spread, so did the FCC's ambition to police the new medium, resulting in 1949 with its power to compel the fairness doctrine on ' all discussion of issues of importance to the public.'
The fact that opinions can differ about what counts as 'accuracy' and what counts as 'distortion' rapidly became obvious. Government efforts to police the boundary between fair reporting and unfair scurrility create conflicts with First Amendment rights. For print media, the courts have been very clear: Editing, even arguably unfair editing, is protected free speech, subject only to the laws of defamation. In the 1960s and '70s, the FCC groped its way toward a similar rule for broadcast media. Interestingly, some of the crucial milestones involved CBS News.
In the early days of color television, CBS News pioneered the use of aggressive editing to tell powerful stories in dramatic ways. In 1971, for example, CBS broadcast a documentary, The Selling of the Pentagon, that accused the Department of Defense of manipulating public opinion. To amplify the argument, the producers cut and reassembled questions and answers. Some of the affected individuals filed complaints against CBS, and the matter was taken up by members of Congress. Yet the FCC declined to get involved in the case on free-speech grounds.
Before the end of the first Nixon administration, the FCC had generated a series of precedents that more or less nullified the agency's Calvin Coolidge–era status as a monitor of broadcast accuracy and a potential censor. The whole issue soon became moot, because the FCC had no jurisdiction over cable television or the internet. As Americans drew more of their information from sources outside the FCC's domain, the very idea of content regulation by the agency came to seem absurd to all parties, including the FCC itself. Who would think of invoking a doctrine that originated in 1927 to police speech in the 21st century?
Then came Trump and the loyalty-above-law appointees of his second term. Evident from the Trump legal filing against CBS is that not even the president's own lawyers took his complaint seriously. Three whopping clues give away the game about the filing's farcicality.
The first is where the lawsuit was brought: the Amarillo division of the U.S. district court for the northern district of Texas. CBS is not domiciled in Amarillo. Neither is Trump or Harris or any person significantly connected with the 60 Minutes segment. What is located in Amarillo is America's premier pick for right-wing forum-shopping, a practice criticized not only by liberal counterparties but also, at least implicitly, by The Wall Street Journal and National Review. Amarillo is the court where a partisan-conservative plaintiff goes with a case that would be summarily thrown out elsewhere.
The next clue is the language of the filing, which reads like direct dictation from the president:
As President Trump stated, and as made crystal clear in the video he referenced and attached, 'A giant Fake News Scam by 60 Minutes & CBS. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election interference. She is a Moron, and the Fake News Media wants to hide that fact. AN UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!! The Dems got them to do this and should be forced to concede the election? WOW!' See President Donald J. Trump, TRUTH SOCIAL (Oct. 10, 2024).
And so on, through 65 paragraphs of irrelevant name-calling and Trump-quoting obsequiousness.
The final clue lies in the carelessness of the complaint's quoted sources, two of which actually argue against the Trump claim. A cited law-review article concluded that 'the reinvented news distortion doctrine would undermine the very democratic norms marshaled in its defense.' Similarly, an FCC decision referenced found against taking action (in another case involving CBS)—explicitly on free-speech grounds: 'In this democracy, no government agency can authenticate the news, or should try to do so.'
One has to wonder whether Trump's lawyers even read the texts they cited. The complaint's flimsy legal basis—including Trump's claim of standing under a Texas consumer-protection law—indicates its pure-nuisance quality. And yet, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a case that it could almost certainly have won for a fraction of the price.
U.S. law forbids both accepting a bribe and soliciting a bribe, yet they're not exactly the same offense. There is an important difference between a police officer who takes money to let a criminal escape and a police officer who uses the threat of arrest to extort money from an innocent citizen. Paramount did not come up with the idea to pay Trump $16 million; Trump decided to squeeze Paramount for the money. What's going on here is extortion—and it does not get any less extortionate for being laundered through Trump's hypothetical future library. A systematic pattern has emerged: shakedowns of law firms, business corporations, and media companies for the enrichment of Trump, his family, and his political allies. Every time targets yield, they create an incentive for Trump to repeat the shakedown on another victim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Lutnick Steps in After Trump Appears Clueless on Latest Tariff Drama
President Donald Trump's commerce secretary had to step in after he appeared lost on the latest development in his sprawling trade war. Speaking to reporters in New Jersey on Sunday, Trump announced that the administration would be sending out about a dozen letters throughout the week warning other countries that tariffs will be reinstated if they don't close a trade deal soon. Treasury Scott Bessent said earlier in the day that the tariffs would come back into effect on Aug. 1, effectively extending the original July 9 deadline. When a reporter asked Trump when the tariff rates would change—if at all—the president didn't seem to have a clue. 'What are you talking about?' he said, prompting the reporter to repeat herself. 'They're going to be tariffs. The tariffs are going to be the tariffs. I think we'll have most countries done by July 9, either a letter or a deal.' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick then swooped in to clarify: 'Tariffs go into effect Aug. 1, but the president is setting the rates and the deals right now.' The administration's 90-day pause on its tariff rollout is set to expire on Wednesday, meaning that countries may soon face levies of 10 to 70 percent, as announced in April. Bessent told CNN's State of the Union, however, that it remains to be seen what happens next. 'President Trump is going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on Aug. 1st, you will be boomerang back to your April 2nd tariff level,' he said. 'I think we're gonna see a lot of deals very quickly.' The announcement postpones the original July 9 deadline, but Bessent refused to call it an extension. 'It's not a new deadline,' he argued. 'We are saying this is when it's happening. If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to go back to the old rate, that's your choice.' Asked whether the administration was expecting to sign any deals this week, Lutnick played it vague. 'Well, the president is right in the midst of discussing all sorts of deals with all sorts of countries,' he said. 'And I'm going to be with him when he makes that decision.' The first batch of letters is set to go out at noon Eastern Time on Monday, Trump said in a Truth Social post. The president also issued a veiled threat against any country that cozies up to BRICS, a group of countries composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. 'Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy,' Trump wrote, without offering any further details. The on-again, off-again tariff rollout has earned the president a moniker among Wall Street brokers: TACO, which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. The nickname angered Trump, who countered that 'it's called negotiation.' But an unnamed White House insider told Politico that the tariff chaos is all just part of a show. 'Trump knows the most interesting part of his presidency is the tariff conversation,' the insider said. 'It's all fake. There's no deadline. It's a self-imposed landmark in this theatrical show, and that's where we are.'
32 minutes ago
Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is 'solidly' pro-Trump: ANALYSIS
President Donald Trump may not have a perfect rubber stamp in the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is finding little willingness by the six-justice conservative majority to stand in his way. As the justices begin the traditional summer recess, the sweeping impact of their judgments from the recently concluded term -- in 56 cases argued and more than 100 matters from the emergency docket -- is coming into focus for the administration and the country. Despite the nation's narrow political divide, the court delivered rulings disproportionately advantageous to interests of the Republican political establishment in power. "Time and again, the Supreme Court came down on one side, and solidly so -- on the very conservative side," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Most notably, the court imposed dramatic new limits on the ability of federal judges to check presidential power, coming one year after it established sweeping, presumptive immunity for presidents engaged in "official acts." "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies," explained Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her historic opinion allowing Trump to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, which has been the law of the land for more than a century. In 14 other emergency appeals Trump brought to the high court, the justices granted his request -- at least in part -- on 12 occasions. The conservative majority gave the green light to the Trump administration's mass layoffs of federal workers, the removal of openly transgender service members from the U.S. military, deportation of noncitizens to third countries with little due process, and access for DOGE staffers to Americans' most sensitive information held by the Social Security Administration. The court did narrowly block Trump's request to continue a freeze of $2 billion in foreign aid money owed to nonprofit groups for services rendered and denied a bid to dismiss the legal case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland migrant and alleged gang member whom the administration deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order, and other alleged Venezuelan criminals. The successive decisions have increasingly incensed the court's liberals. "Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote bluntly Thursday in a dissent from the court's decision clearing the way for the government to send eight migrants to South Sudan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in extraordinarily stark and impassioned language in dissent in the birthright citizenship case, accused her conservative colleagues of creating an "existential threat to the rule of law" by frequently overriding lower court judges. "This Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise," she wrote. Many legal scholars don't share Jackson's ominous view, including several critical of Trump. "I'm pretty confident that within a matter of weeks … there's going to be basically nationwide coverage of declarations or injunctions making clear that the birthright citizenship contention of the government is just absolutely absurd, insane, and unlawful," said George Conway III, a prominent conservative lawyer who now leads a coalition of attorneys opposed to actions of the Trump administration. As for a broader fear about the erosion of judicial authority, Conway suggested fixation on the court system as a check on the president might be misplaced. "We can't expect the courts to save us. Even if every district judge in the country and every appellate court in the country, and every justice … on the Supreme Court agrees that this administration is violating the law, left and right," Conway said. "They can't save us. The people have to save themselves here." Still, the Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is giving Trump significant leeway -- with potentially more to come headed into the summer. The justices will soon decide whether to roll back a temporary nationwide injunction currently barring the Trump administration from moving forward with large-scale reductions of the federal workforce across 19 agencies and offices. They are also expected to weigh in on whether to let the president move forward with elimination of most employees at the Department of Education in an effort to dismantle the agency while litigation over its future continues in federal court. Many veteran court watchers have decried a lack of explanation from the justices for its decisions in these consequential cases. "This court not only militantly refuses to talk about the effect of their decisions, they kind of gaslight us into pretending that the effects of their decision won't be what they are," said Sherrilyn Ifill, Howard University law professor and former director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Chief Justice John Roberts -- who was the justice most often in the majority last term at 95% of the time -- was the first member of the court to speak out publicly after the flurry of controversial decisions. In rare televised remarks at a federal judicial conference in North Carolina, Roberts confronted what he called "some sharp adjectives" directed at the court amidst a wave of critical public opinion. "The idea that we're responsible for whatever somebody is angry about -- it just doesn't make any sense, and it's very dangerous," Roberts said of the critics. "What they're angry about or upset about is probably not that you applied the principle … It's that they lost whatever they were looking for." A judge's role, Roberts said, is to "interpret the law to the best of our ability," not to write the laws.
USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
As a veteran, I used to be proud to be an American. I'm not sure anymore.
What does being an American mean at this moment in our story, and where do you think our country goes from here? Here's what readers told us. Are you proud to be an American? Many Americans aren't. Or at least, that's what a new poll from Gallup found. The survey, released June 30 before the Independence Day holiday, found 58% adults in the United States consider themselves "extremely" (41%) or "very" (17%) proud to be an American. That's a record low. Patriotism had a particularly steep decline among Democrats, with only 36% saying they are "extremely" or "very proud" – down from 62% a year ago. A similar drop has been reported among younger Americans, Generation Z and millennials. Less than half of Gen Z adults, 41%, describe themselves as "extremely" or "very proud" to be Americans, compared with 58% of millennials. That's a sentiment members of our USA TODAY Opinion staff share – though a number of our colleagues feel the opposite, and have said as much. But we wanted to know what you think. What does patriotism look and feel like to you in 2025? What does being an American mean at this moment in our story, and where do you think our country goes from here? We heard from readers all across the country and political spectrum for this installment of the Opinion Forum. Read a collection of their responses below. I'm a veteran. I'm not sure what being American means anymore. For me, patriotism meant serving as a Navy officer for over a decade. I used to be proud to be an American. After traveling to Europe since this administration started, it has become embarrassing. The Europeans I met now hate Americans for reelecting Donald Trump. After I explained that he didn't get my vote, they liked me much more. This president is destroying our democracy. Being an American used to mean pride in how this country works together to benefit all citizens and protect freedom, personal and otherwise. Now that we have a president who is a convicted felon and pardons other felons, who is rich and protects other White rich males, I'm not sure what being an American means. Our only hope is our balance of power, which now seems unbalanced. I'm not sure how so many Republican lawmakers can be so cowardly and demonstrate fear against one man they are supposed to keep in check. The Supreme Court actions have been disappointing, too. Our rights are being whittled away while we watch. — Debra Tinker, Springfield, Virginia Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum Please, let's go back to civility and respect for each other People cannot claim to be patriotic if they vehemently reject America any time their preferred party isn't ruling. Being a patriot is more than accepting only one's preferred leadership. Patriotism is the belief that in America, we work together regardless of temporary policies. Unfortunately, so many in government practice anti-patriotism when they viciously attack fully half of America, based on party lines. Patriotism cannot be disguised as hate, nor can it be merely internal feelings. We are civilized Americans who should respect our system no matter who wins what, but we are being plagued by political lifers who want to vilify you and me, depending on whom we vote for. As a nation, we have gone from being able to discuss and formulate our future to outlawing others' views. It is pitiful and anti-patriotic. Educated office-holders are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but now they are specifically inserting suggestions of impropriety to both incite hate and violence, while claiming exemption from it. Please, let's get back to civilized patriotism and mutual respect as a nation. — Paul Thurman, Zeeland, Michigan I love America. But in all my 80 years, I've never seen this. I love America, not because my family fought in both world wars and Korea, but because of the freedom that those who have fought so bravely for, and some gave their lives for. There is no such thing as MAGA. America has always been great since the Mayflower landed. Sure, we have some problems, but we always find a way to correct them, and the life that we have today is proof that America is not only great but has never had to prove this. I am very much proud to be an American. America has been good to me and my family and to others who have worked hard to achieve their dream and make a good life for their family. I worked in health care as a registered nurse and have seen people at their lowest, but the health care that our country has provided to all has helped them through a lot and helped them return to their families. As to whether our country is headed in the right direction, it's a definite no. We are losing small pieces of our freedom every day. I am 80 years young and have never seen anything like what we see every day when we turn the news on or hear about some freedoms that are being removed as if there was never a thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. Americans and others need to protest peacefully, but let their voices be heard. That's patriotism. — Stella Searcy, Canton, North Carolina 'There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America' Patriotism means to love your country, along with its many traits like history, identity, culture and more. It means to stand by your country through thick and thin, and above all other entities. But it also necessitates us to look at both the strong points and shortcomings in order to make our country better every day. To quote former President Bill Clinton, 'There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.' It does not mean believing that one's nation or state is perfect, free from any flaws. We see it through every element of our history, where brave men and women died on foreign lands to defend the very freedoms and way of life we cherish so dear. To me, being an American means working hard for what you believe in and chasing your dreams to make them come true in an environment where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. It means to champion freedom of choice and self-determination. It also implies the courage to defend one's convictions and country, and do what is morally just. If our armed forces aren't an example of this, I don't know what is! I am proud to be an American and believe that, despite some of the reputational decline seen recently, being a U.S. citizen is still a net benefit. The United States is going through a lot of rough waters. But make no mistake: Recent events have made us less complacent about protecting what we love. — Jay Deshpande, Buffalo Grove, Illinois Many days, this isn't the America I love. But we must keep fighting. The America I know and love cares for its people. It is inclusive and believes in the rights of its citizens. It is a long-standing republic that, like all nations, goes through times of trial and inward search of its convictions. This process of rediscovering our ideology and values is necessary. It brings issues to debate. It leads people to deeply consider what they want our country to represent. Being a patriot means contributing to this process. Whether it's by voting, writing your elected leaders, protesting, talking to your neighbors or just having a bumper sticker. It's our America. We determine what it is and what it isn't. Do I wear red, white and blue on the Fourth of July? You bet! I may not like where our country is headed in this short span of time, but I know that in the end our country will slingshot back, not because of its elected officials, but because of its people. WE THE PEOPLE. If I meet someone from Canada, Greenland, Ukraine, Europe or frankly anywhere else in the world, I feel I must apologize and let them know that not all Americans believe in what is happening in our politics. The constitutional rights of all American citizens are slowly being taken away under this administration. It is imperative that we realize what is happening. When you are afraid to go to the Capitol or on campus to protest U.S. actions, when you feel you have to take bumper stickers off your car, when you can no longer wear rainbow clothing, when people are being rounded up off the streets because of their skin color or looks or religion, this is no longer the America I know and love. WE THE PEOPLE must not let our constitutional rights be eliminated or subdued. We must stand up to do what we can before it's too late. — Lisa Helt, Apache Junction, Arizona I don't feel proud of my country. We're a laughingstock. Patriotism meant being proud of your country and welcoming to others. I never believed in "American exceptionalism." Now, I am not proud of my country, nor is it welcoming to others. I fear that all of my friends we've made in Europe will not come to visit us again because of the political climate here. And that makes us sad. My mother and father both gave up the best years of their lives to serve in World War II. This is not the country that they served for. I fear they are rolling over in their graves now. We are not headed in the right direction. This administration is nothing but chaos, day after day. Congress is feckless and unable to do its job. Some courts are rolling back years of gains made for everybody and following extreme interpretations of the law. Our economy is a house of cards and could collapse at any time. Guns are out of control. We are the laughingstock of the world. We are taking a step back in time instead of being progressive. We are not evolving with the changing of the times. — Brent Morrison, Columbus, Indiana I'm proud to be an American, even as it feels we're on the brink of ruin Patriotism to me means striving to make the United States live up to its promise of liberty and justice for all. The U.S. is currently in dire straits after decades of right-wing takeover of the government, the founding of right-wing think tanks and their calculated takeover of the judiciary, among other things. I am proud to be an American, but I am dismayed and embarrassed by millions of mean, stupid and/or ignorant people who blindly support the dismantling of anything good in the USA. It's mindboggling. Being an American used to mean something worldwide, but we are now the laughing stock. Trump has ruined so many things in such a short period, it's truly shocking. I am related to Nathan Hale, and people who fought for the Union in the Civil War, some of whom died on hospital barges on the Mississippi River. I'm also the daughter of a Marine who fought in the Korean War. I feel a responsibility to make this country what they fought and died for. — Kelley Snider, Urbana, Illinois
