Now that the election is over, Donald Trump has returned to one of his most cherished pastimes: filing nuisance lawsuits. Abusing the legal system was a key precept of Trumps decades-long career as a celebrity business tycoon, and he kept it up, out of habit or perhaps enjoyment, during his first term as president.
The newest round of litigation is different. Trump has broadened his targets to include not just reporters and commentators but pollsters. On Monday, his lawyers filed an absurd lawsuit against the pollster J. Ann Selzer, accusing her of election interference and consumer fraud for a now-infamous poll released on the eve of the election that showed Trump losing to Kamala Harris in Iowa. (The lawsuit also names The Des Moines Register, which published the poll, and its parent company, Gannett, as defendants.) An even more important difference is the behavior of the targets of his threats. Unlike during his first term, when they mostly laughed off his ridiculous suits, much of the medias ownership class now seems inclined to submit.
Last Saturday, ABC News revealed that it had decided to settle a Trump lawsuit, donating $15 million to a future Trump presidential museum and paying $1 million in legal fees. The pretext for Trumps suit was an interview by George Stephanopoulos, a frequent Trump target, with Representative Nancy Mace, in which he said Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. Stephanopoulos was describing a lawsuit in which the jury found that Trump had forcibly penetrated the writer E. Jean Carroll with his hands, but not with his penisan act that is currently defined as rape under New York law, but that was not at the time the assault happened. This is an exceedingly narrow ground for a libel suit, not to mention an odd distinction upon which to stake a public defense. According to The New York Times, ABC decided to settle in part because Disney, its parent company, feared blowback.
ABC may not be alone in this. Since the prospect of a Trump restoration began to seem likely earlier this year, corporate titans have been transparently sucking up to him. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, not only spiked that newspapers endorsement of Harris, but since the election has demanded that an editorial expressing concern over Trumps Cabinet choices be balanced with opinions expressing the opposite view, according to multiple reports. The Washington Posts owner, Jeff Bezos, notoriously overruled his papers planned endorsement of Harris as well. Bezos defended this decision as merely a poorly communicated and clumsily timed choice to halt presidential endorsements on journalistic principles that had nothing to do with Trump.
Paul Farhi: Why Trump wont stop suing the media and losing
This would have been a reasonable editorial decision in the absence of context. The context, however, is that Trump intervened to stop the Pentagon from awarding a $10 billion contract to Amazon during his first term, and is in a position to dish out additional punishments to Bezos, including to his space business, during his second. Bezos has showered Trump with praiseIm actually very optimistic this time around, he said at an event earlier this monthwhich seems to undermine the rationale for stopping endorsements. How is it that a newspapers editorial page endorsing a candidate exposes it to charges of bias, but public support by the owner for the presidents agenda does not?
Amazon has pledged $1 million to Trumps inauguration committee. So has Meta, whose founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, recently stood respectfully, with his hand over his heart, at a gathering at Mar-a-Lago as a recording of The Star-Spangled Banner performed by imprisoned defendants accused of participating in the January 6 insurrection played over the speakers. (According to reports, the identity of the singers was not announced, if you happen to think that would have made any difference in his behavior.)
The leverage point Trump has recognized is that most major media properties are tied to some larger fortune: Amazon, Disney, NantWorks (the technology conglomerate owned by Soon-Shiong), and so on. All those business interests benefit from government cooperation and can be harmed by unfavorable policy choices. Trump can threaten these owners because he mostly does not care about policy for its own sake, is able to bring Republicans along with almost any stance he adopts, and has no public-spirited image to maintain. To the contrary, he has cultivated a reputation for venality and corruption (his allies euphemistically call him transactional), which makes his strongman threats exceedingly credible.
What about the billionaires who dont own a legacy-media property? The idea of Resistance has fallen deeply out of fashion at the moment. But if any wealthy donors still care about defending free speech and democracy, they might consider a civil-defense fund for the less well-resourced targets of Trumps litigation spreewith the potential to expand into criminal defense once Trump officially takes over the Justice Department. The Register is unlikely to be the last small publication targeted by Trump. During the campaign, his mainstream Republican supporters explained away his repeated threats of revenge against his perceived enemies by insisting that he didnt really mean them. The latest flurry of absurd lawsuits makes clear that he very much does.
CCTV and police bodycam footage allegedly showing three police officers being assaulted at Manchester Airport has been played to jurors.
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and his brother, Muhammad Amaad, 26, are said to have struck out after police were called to the airport on 23 July last year, following Amaaz allegedly headbutting a customer at a Starbucks in Terminal 2.
Minutes later, three police officers approached the defendants at the paystation in the terminal’s car park.
A jury at Liverpool Crown Court today watched CCTV footage from opposite angles, which captured what the prosecution says was a “high level of violence” being used by the siblings.
The prosecution says Amaaz resisted as officers tried to move him to arrest him, and Amaad then intervened.
Junior counsel Adam Birkby suggested Amaaz threw 10 punches, including one to the face of PC Lydia Ward, which knocked her to the floor.
His brother Amaad is then said to have aimed six punches at firearms officer PC Zachary Marsden.
Amaaz also allegedly kicked PC Marsden and struck firearms officer PC Ellie Cook twice with his elbow.
He is said to have punched PC Marsden from behind and had a hold of him, before PC Cook discharged her Taser.
Image: Mohammed Fahir Amaaz (left) and Muhammed Amaad (right) arrive at the court with their lawyer. Pic: PA
The bodycam and CCTV footage, submitted as evidence by the prosecution, allegedly shows the officers’ arrival in the Terminal 2 car park and their attempts to arrest the siblings, as well as their exchanges with them.
PC Ward can be heard saying “Oi, you b*****d” in footage from her bodycam, the prosecution evidence appears to show.
She then appears to fall to the floor and screams.
PC Cook, who is pointing her Taser at one of the defendants, then allegedly says: “Stay on the floor, stay on the floor whatever you do.”
“Get back, get back,” PC Ward appears to say.
The bodycam footage, shown to the jury by the prosecution, shows PC Marsden, who is also pointing his Taser, appear to approach the defendant who is lying on the ground and kick out at him.
Mr Birkby said: “Mr Amaaz, while prone, lifts his head towards the officers. PC Marsden kicks Mr Amaaz around the head area.
“PC Marsden stamps his foot towards the crown of Mr Amaaz’s head area but doesn’t appear to connect with Mr Amaaz.”
Amaaz denies three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the three police officers and one count of assault to Abdulkareem Ismaeil, the customer at Starbucks.
Amaad denies one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to PC Marsden.
A paramedic who secretly gave a pregnant woman an abortion drug during sex has been jailed for more than 10 years.
Stephen Doohan, 33, was married when he met the woman on holiday in Spain in 2021 and began a long-distance relationship.
The High Court in Glasgow heard how the victim travelled to Edinburgh in March 2023 to visit Doohan after learning she was pregnant.
During consensual sex, Doohan twice secretly administered the tablets which led to the woman suffering a miscarriage.
In May, Doohan pleaded guilty to sexual assault and causing the woman to have an abortion. He returned to the dock on Monday where he was jailed for 10 years and six months.
Lord Colbeck said Doohan caused “long-term psychological injury” to his victim.
The judge said: “You put her through considerable pain over a number of days and left her facing a lifetime of pain and loss.”
More on Edinburgh
Related Topics:
The court heard how the woman found tablets hidden under the mattress after she became suspicious over Doohan’s behaviour in bed.
Lord Colbeck said: “The complainer then carried out an internet search for abortion tablets and confronted you over your actions.”
After the woman fell ill, Doohan convinced her to lie to medics at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh amid fears he would be arrested if she told the truth.
The victim later attended another hospital with her sister and was told she was having a miscarriage.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said Doohan sent the woman gifts including perfume, socks, facial cleansing oil, money to get her hair done and bought tickets for them to attend a football match.
The woman complained to the Scottish Ambulance Service in May 2023, sparking an investigation.
The court heard that on 14 March 2023, the day the woman told Doohan she was pregnant, the paramedic used a work intranet to search for abortion drugs.
Lord Colbeck said: “You planned out what you did to your victim using resources available to you as a paramedic.”
In addition to his prison sentence, Doohan was also added to the sex offenders’ register and banned from contacting his victim.
Fiona Kirkby, procurator fiscal for high court sexual offences, said: “Stephen Doohan’s calculated and heinous actions caused the loss of the victim’s pregnancy, robbing her of plans she had for the future.
“He has now been held accountable for this fundamental breach of trust.
“While offences like this are thankfully rare, I hope this prosecution sends a clear message to all those who seek to inflict sexual harm towards women.
“Our thoughts remain with the victim, who must be commended for reporting her experience and seeking justice.
“We recognise that reporting sexual offending can be difficult but would urge anyone affected to come forward and seek support when they feel ready to do so.”
The Scottish Ambulance Service branded it an “appalling case”.
A spokesperson added: “We recognise the courage it must have taken for the victim to come forward and speak out.
“As soon as we learned of these very serious allegations and charges, we immediately took action, providing ongoing support to her whilst liaising with Police Scotland throughout the investigation.
“We know nothing will change what has happened to the victim and all we can hope is this sentence provides some comfort to them.”
UK farmers have “nothing more to give” as they fear the government will use agriculture to further reduce US tariffs in a trade deal with the White House.
The UK is trying to reduce steel tariffs to zero, from a current reduced rate of 25%, but Downing Street refused to confirm if it was confident ahead of Donald Trump’s deadline of 9 July.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), said UK agriculture had already been used to reduce Trump-imposed tariffs on cars but any other concessions would have serious repercussions for farmers, food security and the UK’s high animal welfare standards.
He told Sky News: “It just feels like we, as the agricultural sector, had to shoulder the responsibility to reduce the tariffs on cars from 25%.
“We can’t do it anymore, we have nothing more to give.
“It’s clear the steel quotas and tariffs aren’t sorted yet, so we just want to be very clear with the government: if they’re sitting around the negotiating table – which we understand they are – they can’t expect agriculture to give any more.”
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Image: Tom Bradshaw, the head of the NFU, said farmers cannot give any more
‘Massively undermine our standards’
Since 30 June, the US has been able to import 13,000 tonnes of hormone-free British beef without tariffs under a deal made earlier this year, which farmers feel was to reduce the car import levy Mr Trump imposed.
The UK was also given tariff-free access to 1.4bn litres of US ethanol, which farmers say will put the UK’s bioethanol and associated sectors under pressure.
Allowing lower US food standards would “massively undermine our standards” and would mean fewer sales to the European Union where food standards are also high, Mr Bradshaw said.
It would leave British farmers competing on a playing field that is “anything but fair”, he said, because US food can be produced – and sold – much cheaper due to low welfare which could see a big reduction in investment in UK farms, food security and the environment.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:08
Can the UK avoid steel tariffs?
‘The US will push hard for more access’
He said the US narrative has always suggested they want access to British agriculture products “as a start and they’ll negotiate for more”.
“The narrative from the White House on 8 May, when a US-UK trade deal was announced, was all about further access to our agriculture products – it was very different to what our government was saying,” he added.
“So far, the UK has stood firm and upheld our higher welfare standards, but the US will push very hard to have further access.
“No country in the world has proved they can reduce the 10% tariffs further.”
Image: US poultry welfare is lower than the UK, with much more intensive farming that means the meat has to be washed with antimicrobials. Pic: AP
US ‘will target poultry and pork’
The Essex farmer said he expects the US to push “very hard” to get the UK to lower its standards on poultry and pork, specifically.
US poultry is often washed with antimicrobials, including chlorine, in an attempt to wash off high levels of bacteria caused by poor hygiene, antibiotic use and low animal welfare conditions not allowed in UK farming.
US pig rearing methods are also quite different, with intensive farming and the use of feed additive ractopamine legal, with both banned in the UK.
A government spokesperson told Sky News: “We regularly speak to businesses across the UK to understand the impact of tariffs and will only ever act in the national interest.
“Our Plan for Change has delivered a deal which will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market for the first time ever and all agricultural imports coming to the UK will have to meet our high SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) standards.”