Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump’s VERY OWN Appointed Judge DISMISSES His Lawsuit

Episode Date: July 3, 2024

Trump MAGA world just lost again in another defamation court case as Trump’s CEO of his Truth Social media company just had his defamation case against the Washington Post dismissed on summary judgment by a Trump-appointed federal judge no less. Michael Popok explains how MAGA world is about 0-80 in lawsuits at the trial and appeal level starting in 2020 to date, including Trump’s losses in state and federal civil and criminal and appellate courts, and the loser streak continues. Sign up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF and get FREE BACON for a YEAR Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Look for new value programs when you shop at Loblaws, like Hit of the Month. So you get the best deals and low prices on amazing products every month. And did you know? PC Optima members save more. For exclusive offers and members-only pricing, just scan and save. And don't forget in-stock promise, where you can count on great offers being in-stock or get a rain check. Discover more value than ever at Loblaws, in-store and online. Conditions apply. See in-store for details. Make your nights unforgettable with American Express. Unmissable show coming up? Good news. We've got access to

pre-sale tickets so you don't miss it. Meeting with friends before the show? We can book your reservation. And when you get to the main event, skip to the good bit using the Card member entrance. Let's go seize the night. That's the powerful backing of American Express. Visit amex.ca slash ymx. Benefits vary by card, other conditions apply. Travel better with Air Canada.

Enjoy free beer, wine, and premium snacks in economy class. Now extended to flights within Canada and the U.S. Cheers to taking off this summer. More details at aircanada.com. So Michael Popak, Legal AF. I never understood how Devin Nunes, who used to be a congressperson, ended up the head of Trump Truth Social, especially after he in the past had denied a fundamental article of faith of the Trump and Trump world that Barack Obama illegally wiretapped Trump Tower in 2016 and improperly surveilled him. How could that guy who said out loud while he was the head of some intelligence committee

that there was no evidence of a wiretap, how could he later end up the head of Trump social media? And it didn't get any better for Nunes today because then he decided to sue the Washington Post for defamation because he claimed that the paper back in 2020 in an article had made the inference or at least the statement that he believed that there was wiretapping inside of Trump Tower

by the Obama administration. He's like, I said the opposite. Now, with all defense to him, he did say the opposite. During his testimony and during his interactions with the head of the NSA, he actually said, Devin Nunes, that there was no evidence of Barack Obama wiretapping Donald Trump. This is all part of the Russia collusion investigation culminated in the appointment of a special counsel and all of that. But Nunes decided he wanted to make it front page news by suing the Washington Post for defamation.

Now, in order to succeed on defamation, he's got to show that the statements tend to disparage or undermine the reputation of the person. They have to be defamatory in nature. And because he's a public figure, or was at the time, he has to also show that the paper, in this case, the Washington Post, ran its article in 2020, claiming that he had bolstered the claims of Donald Trump of wiretapping, when in fact he hadn't, with actual malice, which is a term of art under our Supreme Court principles, starting with a case called Sullivan versus the New York Times, a case that the Maga Wright hates, a case that the Maga Wright led by Clarence Thomas, maybe Gorsuch, and Aleta, who have joined together a number of times this past term, may try to join together again

and get six votes to rip away actual malice as a standard. It's a heightened burden that a person who's been defamed has to meet in order to prove defamation when the person that they are talking about, writing about and purportedly defaming is a public figure. It requires that the person know or should know or have a reckless disregard for whether what they are saying, publishing, writing is defamatory or not.

If they know it's defamatory and they write it anyway, actual malice established, public figure can win on defamation. That's sort of what happened with the Westmoreland General, Westmoreland against the New York Times ruling many years ago, when they claimed that he, you know, was bombing Cambodia when he was. But in any event, he won on that grounds

because public figure, actual malice has to be shown or reckless disregard for the truth. I don't want to know the truth about whether this guy or this person did or didn't do this thing. So I'm going to cover my ears and cover my eyes and ignore the facts and have willful blindness. And therefore that can also constitute actual malice as well. But if you make a good faith mistake about a public figure where public speech is really important to a robust assertion of our First Amendment as a guiding principle that undergirds our entire constitutional republic, you're given a pass. Now, if you do it about your neighbor, if I say about the blue house behind me,

it about your neighbor, if I say about the blue house behind me, they are cheating on their taxes. By the way, I don't know if that's true or not. I'll just say that out loud. But if I do it, it could be found for defamation, especially if it's untrue. But if they're a public figure living in that, like I live across the river from the governor of New Jersey. If I say it about the governor of New Jersey, and I've got some basis, and I don't have a reckless disregard for the truth, or I don't do it with actual knowledge that what I'm saying is true or false, I say, governor Murphy's cheating on his taxes.

He, governor Murphy has to prove a higher standard in order for me to be liable for defamation. That's the way our government works since the 1960s, since that case, or since 1972, since that case, I talked about, which is Sullivan versus New York Times. Precedent, now look, this Supreme Court has been doing like a going out of business sale for precedent this entire term.

They're tossing precedent out the window like it's like Amazon Prime week. It's not only 50% off, it's 100% off all super precedent. 50 years, 40, it's like it's on a shelf and they're selling it. Like we're throwing it out. 50 years, it's too old. That's too old. Why do we still have that as precedent? Get rid of it. We don't like the administrative state and the way that the executive branch uses it. We don't like the administrative state and the way that the executive branch uses it. We don't like administrative agencies. Let's toss out the Chevron decision from 1984 upon which our entire agency and regulatory framework for every industry in every area of our lives is rested, is based. Throw it out. What do we need it for? What do we need it for? You know, they threw out the

Dobbs decision two years ago almost to the day, which enshrined in the Constitution a woman's right to choose and have reproductive rights and not be a second-class person. Throw it out. It's too old. I thought that was the point. Precedent transcends time and space, not to this United States Supreme Court. What if you could support small family farmers and reduce your environmental imprint all while enjoying the highest quality meat on earth? When you join the monk movement, you can. Moink delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild-caught salmon straight to your door. Moink farmers farm like our grandparents did.

And as a result, Moink meat tastes like it should because the family farm does it better and the Moink difference is a difference you can taste. Unlike the supermarket, Moink gives you total control over the quality and source of your food. You choose the meat delivered in every box, like rib-eyes, to chicken breasts, to pork chops, to salmon filets, and much more.

Plus, you can cancel any time. Moink is helping save rural America. I love it, and you will, too. Join the Moink movement today. Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's bacon the best bacon he's ever tasted. And Ring Doorbell founder Jamie Siminoff, he jumped at the chance to invest in Moink.

Plus, they guarantee you'll say, Oink, oink, I'm just so happy I got Moinked. I know I do, and you will too. Keep American farming going by signing up at MoinkBox.com slash Legal AF right now and listeners of this show get free bacon for a year. That's one year of the best bacon you'll ever taste but for a limited time. Spelled M-O-I-N-K Box.com slash Legal AF. That's Moinkbox.com slash Legal AF. So right now, I believe that the Sullivan case about actual malice is on life support,

but it still applies and it's still law for right now, which means that Judge Nichols, he now infamous because of what he did in the Bannon decision, appointed by Donald Trump, just ruled against the head of Trump social media, Devin Nunes, and found that he has not established actual malice about an article that the Washington Post ran in 2020 because the reporter in her affidavit admitted that she made a mistake. That in doing her research, and yes, much to the chagrin of MAGA,

the First Amendment reporters do research and corroborate their stories and have editorial processes to make sure that they don't defame public figures or others on a regular basis. She said she made a mistake. She did the research. She attributed something that Donald Trump always said. I've been wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration and she attributed it to Kevin Nunes. All right. And then she also thought that the time that he met with the head of national security in the White House to talk about the wiretapping, I'm talking about Nunes now, was at midnight when it was earlier in the day,

which seems to be harmless error anyway. But the reporter filed her affidavit, and the reason we're here, just to give a little bit of a tutorial, is we're doing a summary judgment at this point. The judge, you might've heard two years ago, denied Washington Post's motion to dismiss on defamation grounds at the pleading stage when the complaint was filed. Then we got to get to look at the evidence. Well, after the evidence was developed

and he looked at the reporter's transcript of her, well, she wasn't deposed, but her actual affidavit. Then Ellen Nakashima wrote in her affidavit, it was not successfully challenged, she made a mistake. And the judge said, that's enough. There's no actual malice when the reporter says, oops, that's the way it runs under the analysis that has to be properly applied. And the judge says, without actual malice,

we never get there after he goes through in a 17 page decision, he goes through all of the, kind of what happened here and the procedural history. And here's what the judge said in particular. Let me just get it right for you here. To succeed on a claim for defamation under DC law, because he sued under the District of Columbia law, not federal law, but DC law, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff. The defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party. That would be the publication of the article by the Washington Post. That the defendant's fault in publishing the statement met the requisite

standard and that the statement was actionable as a matter of law and citing a case from the District of Columbia. But also the court goes into the analysis about actual malice. And having read the Nakashima Declaration or affidavit, decides that it is missing actual malice as required under the Supreme Court precedent. And so based on that, now on summary judgment, meaning all material facts that are not in dispute

lead inexorably to a judgment as a matter of law in favor of one party or the other without the need for a trial, right? No reasonable jury on these undisputed facts would find differently, would find that there was actual malice, that's what the judge ruled. And now Nunes can go back and tell his boss, Donald Trump, that he's lost yet another litigation in Trump world.

There are very few wins. The only one I can think of is half of a case involving Mary Trump, a niece of Donald Trump. Everything else has just been a string of losses, civil and criminal, for Donald Trump and those around him and through appeal. It's probably over a hundred, hundred and twenty total losses for Trump world in lawsuits. And that's just the way it is. We've got to continue to report it right here in the Midas Touch Network and on Legal AF. I do it every Wednesday and Saturdays. It's a podcast.

We curate the top four or five stories at the intersection of law and politics and bring it to you right here. The only way we know how uncensored, unfiltered, unhinged and unplugged. And we don't blow smoke or sunshine. And if you like what we're doing here, you're going to love that podcast Wednesday, Saturdays

called Legal AF and then on audio podcast platforms of your choice. So until my next hot take, until my next Legal AF, this is Michael Popock reporting. Heary, heary. Legal AF Law Breakdown is now in session. Go beyond the headlines and get a deep dive into the important legal concepts you need to know And we discuss every day on Legal AF. Exclusive content you won't find anywhere else, all for the price of a couple of cups of coffee. Join us at patreon.com slash Legal AF. That's patreon.com slash Legal AF.