Donald Trump sued The New York Times for an astronomical $15 billion, alleging it defamed him. While it doesn't sound like it will win in court, Trump's lawsuits have pressured anti-Trump media companies to produce documents or move to settle. On CNN's The Situation Room on Tuesday, Brian Stelter produced the usual litany about how Trump is "silencing" the "independent" media and that's "dangerous."
Translation: How dare you attempt to call Democrat-repeating media outlets publicity arms of the Democrat Party!
STELTER: The 85-page lawsuit, it says that Trump is trying to -- quote -- "restore integrity to journalism." But I think people should read it for themselves and recognize that it's really part of a presidential strategy to silence critical news coverage and try to curb free speech by filing these sorts of lawsuits.
We have seen this against ABC, against CBS, against The Wall Street Journal and now against The New York Times. And here's what renowned First Amendment attorney [ahem, and Democrat donor] Floyd Abrams told CNN this morning after he read the lawsuit.
He said -- quote -- "This suit is ridiculous as a matter of law, but it's extraordinarily dangerous as a matter of national policy." He says; "It threatens core First Amendment principles in a manner unique in our history."
As for The New York Times, the company says: "The lawsuit has no merit, it lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting." The Times says it will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. In other words The Times not going to settle like ABC and CBS did last year and earlier this year.
This is rich, not only because The New York Times is a pile of leftist partisans, not "independent." The idea that they never use "intimidation tactics" is hilarious. All of the left-wing lawfare attempts against Trump trying to ruin his fortune and put him in jail were "intimidation tactics," in which they were willing participtants.
But the leftist media routinely demonstrate they think what they do is never "dangerous" or "intimidating." Everything they do is a gloriously independent defense of democracy. And if you think they're not partisan, you probably also believe Jimmy Kimmel when he says Charlie Kirk's killer is MAGA.
Then they asked Stelter about Trump's insults at ABC reporter Jonathan Karl, who asked him about Attorney General Pam Bondi drawing criticism for conservatives for her proclamations to go after "hate speech." Trump just shot back "You have a lot of hate in your heart," and maybe he should be sued.
As usual, Stelter equates anti-Trump bias with the First Amendment, suggesting that opposing the press and calling them jerks is not the First Amendment.
STELTER: Trump is speaking emotionally there, not legally, but his comments show a total lack of respect and understanding of the First Amendment in the United States.
This is really about constitutional law. So telling a reporter -- quote -- "Maybe they will have to go after you" is an abuse of power by the president. While it may seem like par for the course from Trump, we have heard his anti-press commentary for many years now, it is still notable today, and it's part of the chill in the air, especially in the aftermath of the Kirk assassination.
We see a real argument, a real debate about free speech emerging in recent days. And just to be clear, hate speech, although quite objectionable, oftentimes gross and grotesque, hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air laid out the stakes for The Times and "the real fulcrum of Trump's legal successes" -- the possibility that the stacked New York Times v. Sullivan precedent is in some peril.
