Losing $1.6B lawsuit wouldn't kill Fox Corp: experts

Travis Gettys
April 17, 2023

Rupert Murdoch (AFP)

Fox Corporation could likely withstand any financial penalty from the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit, experts say.

The defamation trial, which is scheduled to start Tuesday after a one-day delay, will decide whether the company can be held liable for false claims by Fox News broadcasters about Donald Trump's election loss in 2020, but experts believe the $1.6 billion sought in compensatory damages will eventually be reduced by a jury or in an out-of-court settlement, reported NBC News.

The jury will almost certainly not award Dominion all of that money in damages, according to Lyrissa Lidsky, a constitutional law professor at the University of Florida, but could impose punitive damages against Fox for “extremely wrongful conduct," adding that she has not yet seen any evidence the full amount would be awarded.

“There’s a litigation strategy to ask for more than you think you can really get to anchor the number high,” Lidsky said.

Even in the unlikely event the full amount was levied against Fox, financial experts say that wouldn't be the end of the world for a company with $4 billion in reserve at the end of last year, although stock market analysts say its stock would likely take a hit due to the lawsuit.

The company's stock was trading at $33.62 late Monday morning but has fallen more than 10 percent since Dominion filed the suit in March 2021.

“At a minimum, the constant barrage of negative headlines should be an overhang on near-term investor sentiment,” wrote Bank of America Securities analysts in an estimate last month.

Fox News should have settled Dominion's 'killer case' long ago: legal experts

Matthew Chapman
April 17, 2023

Fox News (Shutterstock)

A sudden one-day delay in the Dominion Voting System's defamation suit against Fox News has led many to speculate that the parties could be trying for a last-minute settlement negotiation. The Washington Post reported that this was the purpose of the delay, although on Monday Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis told jurors to expect to return tomorrow for proceedings.

Still, Salon reported, legal experts argue Fox News could be feeling the heat — and the rational decision would have been to pursue a settlement a long time ago, which they failed to do during mediation last December and, as recently as a few weeks ago, it appeared an option that didn't appear to be remotely on the table.

"Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman tweeted that the case could be a candidate for a settlement because 'Dominion has a killer case on liability but seeking damages that are hard to justify.' A big settlement offer from Fox 'could make sense for both," he wrote," reported Salon.

"Attorney Bradley Moss added that 'trials are a wild card' and there is a 'non-trivial chance the pre-trial rulings get reversed on appeal and the whole thing is tossed.' Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote that Fox 'should have pursued this strategy long ago, settling before damaging emails and texts became part of the public record.' Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst, said on Sunday that 'there's something about being on the eve of trial that can really sober up both parties.'"

Dominion was accused repeatedly by guests on Fox News of being part of a secret scheme to rig the election, with little to no pushback from hosts, even as many behind the scenes said in private communications they knew there was no evidence for it. The lawsuit was originally seeking $1.6 billion in damages, but a Fox email over the weekend indicates Dominion may no longer pursue the $600 million lost-profits component of the damages at trial.

Fox's legal problems were complicated even further by a lawsuit from a former Tucker Carlson producer, Abby Grossberg, who alleges the network's lawyers counseled her to mislead investigators in a deposition on the Dominion case.

The outcome of the case, or a settlement that resolves it before trial, would have significant implications for the right-wing cable network. Another elections equipment company, Smartmatic, has a $2.7 billion lawsuit ready to go against Fox, and it would likely be influenced by the outcome of the Dominion lawsuit. Meanwhile, this all comes at a time when Fox is seeking to renew and increase its licensing fees with major cable service providers, which constitutes the bulk of the network's revenue, and their current legal problems could jeopardize their leverage in these talks.

Fox News takes out full-page ad boasting it's 'trusted more than ever' ahead of defamation trial

Brad Reed
April 17, 2023

Protesters rally against Fox News outside the Fox News headquarters at the News Corporation building, March 13, 2019 in New York City. On Wednesday the network's sales executives are hosting an event for advertisers to promote Fox News. Fox News personalities Tucker Carlson and Jeanine Pirro have come under criticism in recent weeks for controversial comments and multiple advertisers have pulled away from their shows. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

A Fox News barrels toward a potentially perilous defamation courtroom battle with Dominion Voting Systems, the network is nonetheless acting with defiance by taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times boasting of its purported trustworthiness.

NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik on Monday posted a photo of the ad on Twitter, and it showed that Fox claims that it is "trusted now more than ever" based on a YouGov poll showing the network easily besting rival networks in terms of viewer trust.

Despite Fox News' boasts, however, many legal experts have said that the network is in significant jeopardy thanks to internal messages unearthed by Dominion's lawyers that they say present real evidence of malice.

Among other things, Dominion found that former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell got her false theories about Dominion rigging the election for President Joe Biden from a woman who claimed to have learned it from the wind.

They also obtained multiple internal messages from Fox News hosts and producers showing that they weren't buying bogus claims about Dominion conspiring with dead Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez to rig the 2020 election, although they seemingly did nothing to stop such claims about Dominion from being shown on air.

The Fox-Dominion trial is set to begin on Tuesday, although reports have indicated that the network is seeking to come to a last-minute settlement with the firm.

Former Fox News host begs Dominion not to settle and drops hints about network's sleazy tactics

Brad Reed
April 17, 2023

Traffic on Sixth Avenue passes by advertisements featuring Fox News personalities, including Bret Baier, Martha MacCallum, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity, adorn the front of the News Corporation building, March 13, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

At least one former Fox News host is hoping that Dominion Voting Systems does not settle its $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the network.

Writing on Twitter Sunday night, former "Fox & Friends" cohost Gretchen Carlson reacted with alarm to reports that her one-time employer was making a last-minute push to settle the lawsuit.

"PLEASE Dominion --- Do not settle with Fox!" she wrote. "You're about to prove something very big."

While Carlson didn't explain directly what the "something very big" was, she did drop hints about it in a follow-up tweet elaborating her feelings on the case.

"Here's my take on Fox-Dominion case-(as I'm sending telepathic messages to Dominion to not settle!) I can talk about the current case-but I can't then answer next logical question (b/c of my NDA) -- 'Did Fox ever ask you to make up sh*t when you were there?'" she explained. "Therein lies the problem."

In other words, it appears Carlson is hinting that Dominion's case has the potential to show that Fox News may have deliberately instructed its hosts to mislead viewers over the years.

Carlson was a fixture on Fox News' flagship morning show for years until 2016, when she filed a bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit against network founder Roger Ailes alleging that she was fired for refusing his sexual advances.

GOP is 'never going back' from Trump and party's future 'isn’t likely to be pretty': pollster

Brad Reed
April 17, 2023, 

Donald Trump at MAGA rally in support of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach in 2018. (mark reinstein / Shutterstock.com)

Pollster Sarah Longwell has a dire message for Republicans who insist the party is ready to "move on" from former President Donald Trump.

Writing in The Bulwark, the anti-Trump strategist says that conversations she's had with GOP base voters have shown no appetite for going back to the way the party was before Trump's 2016 election campaign, and she noted that even Trump imitators such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are having trouble convincing the GOP base of their bonafides.

In fact, Longwell says that recent focus groups with GOP voters have shown them souring on DeSantis in the wake of Trump's attacks.

"Voters I talked to recently say they’re 'a little concerned' about DeSantis 'because he’s still establishment,' and that 'he seems like more of an open-borders, Paul Ryan kind of guy,'" she writes. "Others called him 'more of a politician than Trump is' and said 'he is very much one of those political, swampy guys.' Words that stood out when we asked voters to describe DeSantis: 'wishy-washy' 'a little shady,' and 'not trustworthy.'"
The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard

Although many Republicans are in denial about Trump's iron grip on their party, one clear-eyed GOP strategist acknowledged to Longwell the party is "never going back" from him.

Longwell predicts that this reality will finally sink in for Republicans as Trump systematically stomps out more mainstream favorites throughout the 2024 primary.

"The question, then, will be what... Republican politics evolves into once everyone in the Republican party understands that [Trump] is the future," she concludes. "The answer isn’t likely to be pretty."

'I don’t need statistics': GOP rep. says locking up her guns will not make her children safer

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
April 17, 2023

Victoria Spartz (Photo via AFP)

U.S. Rep. Victoria Spartz unleashed a loud anti-gun-control rant during Chairman Jim Jordan‘s field trip to lower Manhattan Monday, where he and his Judiciary Committee held a hearing wrongly alleging violent crime in the nation’s largest city – and the fifth-safest among all of America’s big cities – is out of control, in an effort to attack Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for prosecuting Donald Trump. The Indiana Republican lawmaker claimed safe storage of guns in the home does not make her or her children safer, then appeared to suggest children and young adults are the main perpetrators of violent crime, while saying schools should be reformed so children can be “taught some values.”

“I just don’t see how am I, how I am and my kids are going to be safer if I lock up my guns,” Rep. Spartz said, referring to safe storage of firearms in the home. A study published in 2020 found 2500 lives could be saved by stricter laws requiring safe firearm storage.

“I just feel actually as a female I feel not as safe,” if her guns were to be locked up, Spartz continued, complaining that she’s unsure how long it would take the police to come to her home.

According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Indiana, Rep. Spartz’s home state, “has no law that imposes a penalty on someone who fails to secure an unattended firearm and leaves it accessible to an unsupervised minor.” Moms Demand Action adds: “Guns are the leading cause of death among children and teens in Indiana, and an average of 110 children and teens die by guns every year, of which 31% are suicides and 63% are homicides.”

“It’s really strange for me, we tried to take, you know, protection from law-abiding citizens and believe that criminals are not going to get guns?” she said, relying on NRA and right-wing talking points that criminals don’t obey laws.

Spartz then went on to attack children and young adults, suggesting they are the real criminals, as she advocated for tax-payer-funding of private schools.

“Maybe we should reform education and have some wraparound preventive services and have more competition in education [so] that these kids [are] actually taught some values,” she railed, claiming that low reading scores force children into gangs.

“That [they] don’t have a 10% or 8% literacy rate that they have to get into gangs.”

“Is there anything else you can say except ‘gun control’?” she asked, chastising a witness invited by Democrats, and mocking the fact that more guns mean more violent crime.

“So, comprehensive solutions to reducing violence in New York City have actually been incredibly effective,” the witness responded.

“If I set the record straight,” the witness continued despite Spartz talking over her, “because we’ve been talking a lot about statistics, the NYPD’s own data has shown that shootings are down –” she said before Spartz cut her off.

“I think I don’t need statistics,” Spartz declared, cutting off the witness who was trying to answer her question.

Spartz then turned to another witness, totally changing the topic.

“I’m going to talk about child trafficking, human trafficking and drug trafficking [at] the border and cartels,” before claiming that Mexican cartels are trafficking guns, “and now it’s subsidized with taxpayers money.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene ad taps 1960’s anti-war movement in attack on President Biden

Gideon Rubin
April 17, 2023


Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Monday released a new ad that taps themes from the 1960s anti-war movement and uses strikingly similar imagery from one of the most famous political ads of that era.

The far-right congresswoman’s ad titled “Stop World War III” intersperses news clips with Greene’s statements asserting President Joe Biden is bungling America into potential nuclear catastrophe.

Although the ad doesn’t specifically mention Ukraine or Russia’s unprovoked invasion, Greene refers to the conflict as “this war” that she claims Biden is mishandling.

“Our enemies see through the saber-rattling,” she said, adding that “Biden’s sanctions aren’t working. They’re just pushing Russia even closer to China.
The video player is currently playing an ad.

“Under Biden, America’s no longer in charge on the world stage,” Greene asserts.

Greene says in the ad that America's military is weakened under Biden and that “our supreme leaders in the Biden administration are so clueless that they are literally going to lead us into World War III.”

“Stop this war and bring peace,” Greene says at the end of the ad alongside images of a mushroom cloud.

The ad features hauntingly similar imagery as the 1964 “Daisy” ad President Lyndon Johnson ran that depicted his Republican opponent Barry Goldwater as a dangerous extremist who could plunge America into nuclear war.

"These are the stakes!” Johnson says in the 1964 ad.

“To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die.”

Watch video below or at this link.

New rule threatening Missouri library funding over ‘obscene’ kids books is approved

2023/04/17

The Kansas City Public Library has announced that it will no longer charge overdue fines as of Monday, July 1. - File photo/Kansas City Star/TNS

Despite strong opposition, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s new rule governing libraries will go into effect later this spring, threatening public libraries’ state funding over providing minors with books deemed pornographic or obscene.

Ashcroft, a Republican who recentlylaunched a campaign for governor, last fall proposed the rule, barring public library employees from granting minors access to materials without first receiving parental permission. His office received 20,000 public comments on the proposal, including criticism from librarians across the state who argue it amounts to an attack on intellectual freedom and will lead to book banning and political censorship.

“The MO govt decided to ignore its citizens’ protest in order to pass rules to censor what libraries buy and share,” the Missouri Library Association said in a tweet. “The goal was never to protect kids bc libraries ALREADY DO THAT. It’s more an attempt to get notice before election season ...”

Ashcroft’s office has pushed back, stating in the Missouri Register on Monday: “The proposed rule is not a ‘book ban.’ ... Put simply, refusing to subsidize a particular activity with public monies does not violate the First Amendment.”

Under the rule, which will go into effect May 30, libraries are prohibited from using state funds to purchase materials for minors that could be considered pornography or obscene under state law. A previous version of the rule stated funds could not be used to purchase materials that appeal to the “prurient interest of a minor,” but Ashcroft’s office revised the language after receiving criticism that it was too vague.

“It’s already illegal by state law to provide those kinds of materials to minors, and no library is making those materials available to their communities,” Cody Croan, chair of the Missouri Library Association Legislative Committee, said in an email. “So this revision leaves one to wonder what the point of the rule is in the first place since it’s already prohibited by state law elsewhere that providing such materials is illegal.”

Conservative parents and lawmakers have attempted to remove several school library books they call pornographic, ranging from classics such as Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse-Five” and Margaret Atwood’s bestselling “The Handmaid’s Tale,” to books with LGBTQ themes, including “Flamer” by Mike Curato and “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson.

The rule requires libraries to adopt written collection development policies addressing the age appropriateness of materials. And libraries must allow parents to limit their children’s access to materials.

Parents are emboldened to challenge materials, displays or events if they think they’re not age appropriate. And the result of any challenge must be displayed on the library’s website.

The rule was approved as Missouri lawmakers have advanced a budget that would eliminate state funding for libraries. Missouri House Republicans last month agreed to cut the entire $4.5 million in state aid that public libraries were slated to get next year, in retaliation for Missouri librarians suing over a new state law banning sexually explicit materials from schools.

The state’s spending plan will still need to be approved by the Missouri Senate before it heads to Gov. Mike Parson’s desk. The state Senate is poised to restore the state funding for libraries.

Libraries risk losing state funding by violating Ashcroft’s rule.

After receiving criticism that a previous version of the rule would have allowed anyone to restrict children’s access to library materials, Ashcroft’s office revised it so that only a parent of a minor can limit access.

“Glad to see our efforts to protect children from obscene materials move forward,” Ashcroft said in a tweet. “We are not defunding libraries and we are not banning books, contrary to what the left and MSM say. We are merely asking our libraries to shield our kids from inappropriate content.”

Croan argued the rule creates “confusion and concern around how it will be enforced” and that “the rule could be enforced differently from one administration to the next.”

Kansas City area libraries already have policies for determining what materials go into their children’s sections. And they have processes for allowing residents to challenge materials. Kansas City Public Library, for example, has those policies already available on its website.

Librarians say they vet books based on content, publisher guidelines, maturity levels and a code of ethics, to ensure materials are age appropriate. Many say they fear prosecution and harassment in response to the rule.

“Telling libraries to choose books carefully is like telling a grocery store to sell fruit. They already do that. You don’t get to act like you won the War on Nutrition by ordering people to do what they are already doing,” the Missouri Library Association tweeted.

The association said the new rule will especially overburden small, rural libraries that do not have the funds or staff to maintain separate profiles on every child or websites to post policies.

“No library can monitor the guidelines for hundreds of individual students,” the Missouri Library Association said in a tweet. “Clearly the goal is to get us to remove any objected-to titles from the start. But that’s not how responsibility works. If YOU want to monitor what YOUR kid reads, then YOU need to monitor it. Not us.”

JoDonn Chaney, a spokesman for Ashcroft, previously told The Star that those state dollars are “generally a small portion” of a library’s budget. Librarians argue the cost to comply with the rule would be greater than the state funding received.

“We still are left in the dark on how to determine that a material is approved or not approved by the minor’s parent/guardian,” Croan said. “Either there are major costs and barriers to access involved in implementing a system for every single parent/guardian in our communities or we continue with what MO libraries have always said, that it’s the parent’s/guardian’s right and choice to be involved in what their child checks out but not that of another parent’s/guardian’s child.”

Ashcroft has promoted the new rule as GOP lawmakers push a deluge of legislation curbing LGBTQ rights, curriculum on race and diversity and equity initiatives. And it comes as conservative groups and lawmakers attempt to ban children’s books, mostly featuring LGBTQ characters or themes about race, across the state and country.

Several Kansas City area schools this fall pulled books off of library shelves, in response to a new Missouri law banning sexually explicit material from schools. Librarians or other school employees who violate the law could be charged with a misdemeanor, risking up to a year in jail or a $2,000 fine.

Missouri librarians are suing over the law, leading House Republicans to push for eliminating their entire state aid.

Locally, the Lee’s Summit school district has spent nearly $19,000 reviewing the first half of the 90 books challenged this year by a small group looking to ban library materials. The district has decided to retain all 52 books reviewed so far.

And the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri has sued the Independence school district over its book removal policy, after the school board banned the children’s book “Cats vs. Robots #1: This Is War” from elementary school libraries because it features a nonbinary character.

\-------

(The Star’s Kacen Bayless contributed reporting.)

Republican Paul Gosar promoted an antisemitic website that praised him for condemning ‘Jewish warmongers’
Jerod Macdonald-Evoy, Arizona Mirror
April 17, 2023, 6:57 PM ET

Paul Gosar (AFP)

Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar on Sunday promoted an antisemitic website that denies the Holocaust, praises Adolf Hitler as “a man of valor” and features a large number of admittedly false articles.

In Gosar’s weekly newsletter to constituents, he included several links to stories about himself, one of which was titled “Congressman Gosar: Warmongers Nuland & Blinken ‘Are Dangerous Fools Who Can Get Us All Killed,’” referring to the on-going conflict in Ukraine.

But the headline of the actual article was edited by Gosar’s staff to remove obvious antisemitism. The article the congressman linked to was headlined “Congressman: Jewish warmongers Nuland & Blinken ‘Are Dangers Fools Who Can Get Us All Killed,’” and was published by a far-right website well known for publishing antisemitic content that includes Holocaust denialism and conspiracy theories around 9/11.

A review of the authors on the website by the Arizona Mirror found that one is currently promoting a book in which he claims the Holocaust was a “fraud,” and many of the site’s articles spread common antisemitic tropes.

The site is also heavily pro-Kremlin, often republishing articles from the Russian state-run propaganda websites Russia Today and Sputnik. The story shared by Gosar was originally published by Sputnik, but had its headline changed to reflect the antisemitic tone of the site.

Rory McShane, a spokesman for Gosar, said that the congressman uses a “third-party aggregating service” for headlines, and claimed that the website changed the article’s headline on April 17.

That’s the day Media Matters for America published a piece about Gosar’s promotion of the site, and the day the Mirror sought an explanation from Gosar’s camp. The article does not say it was updated on April 17, only that it was published on Feb. 26. McShane did not respond to follow up questions asking how Gosar knew it the headline was changed on April 17.

“We will not be using this website as a reference for any future articles,” McShane told the Mirror. He added that Gosar “is well known as one of the top advocates of the State of Israel and a defender of those of the Jewish faith across the world and has regularly been asked to speak to Jewish advocacy groups like the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation.”

But this is not the first time Gosar has promoted content from websites that are connected to white supremacists who traffic in antisemitism.

In 2021, Gosar promoted the work of known white nationalist Vincent James Foxx, who became the unofficial propagandist for a neo-Nazi fight club. Gosar spoke at the same white nationalist conference as Foxx a few years earlier, alongside Holocaust-denier and antisemite Nick Fuentes, the first sitting politician to do so.

That work mentioned the “great replacement theory,” the idea, popular among white supremacists, that white Americans are being replaced by immigrants. It has been seized upon by extremist groups such as the American Identity Movement and Generation Identity.

It has also inspired violence. Fears of immigrants undermining his vision of a white Christian Europe motivated Anders Behring Breivik’s murderous rampage in 2011 at a Norwegian youth summer camp.

In the U.S., the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh in 2018 was the deadliest attack against the Jewish community in United States history. Just before it took place, the killer took to right-wing social media site Gab to say he believed that immigrants were being brought in to replace and “kill our people.”

The next year in New Zealand, 51 people would be killed and 40 injured but not before the shooter would post a 74-page manifesto titled “The Great Replacement.”

Again in 2019, in El Paso, Texas, a shooter who would kill 23 in a Walmart would cite the manifesto in one of his own saying it was a response to the “hispanic invasion of Texas.” Then again in 2022 in Buffalo, New York, where a shooter killed 10 people, most of them black.

Gosar has frequently seized on meme culture used by white supremacists and neo-nazis on his Twitter account, including the #DarkMAGA movement, which has roots in accelerationist neo-Nazi meme culture and many memes related to it often express a desire for violence against perceived enemies. In many cases, they are accompanied by neo-Nazi imagery.

Gosar’s staff said they were unaware of #DarkMAGA until it was brought to their attention by the Mirror.

“Congressman Gosar continues to show us exactly who he is and what he stands for. The man has no shame, and remains a stain on Arizona’s political landscape,” Paul Rockower, executive director for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Phoenix, said in a statement to the Mirror.

Neither the Arizona Republican Party nor the Mohave County Republican Party responded to questions about Gosar’s promotion of an antisemitic website.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

Black Tennessee Democrats blast Republican meeting audio
Sam Stockard, Tennessee Lookout
April 17, 2023

Bill sponsor Rep. Scott Cepicky, R-Hohenwald, with hand raised on House floor. (Photo: John Partipilo)

Black lawmakers are denouncing secretly-recorded statements made by House Republicans, calling them “false” after the comments went public following the expulsion of two young Black legislators.

In the audio initially reported by the Tennessee Holler, Republican Rep. Jason Zachary of Knoxville said he was tired of being called a racist and “white supremacist” by Black lawmakers and telling his colleagues they and other Democrats “are not our friends.”

Black Caucus Chairman Sam McKenzie of Knoxville and Reps. Antonio Parkinson and Jesse Chism, both Memphis Democrats, targeted in Zachary’s comments, said they were “disappointed” to hear them.

McKenzie challenged all lawmakers to turn up a statement in which he called anyone a racist.

Rep. Sam McKenzie, D-Knoxville, said House Republicans were trying to “drum up their base” in making accusations of Black lawmakers during a leaked GOP caucus audio. (Photo: John Partipilo)

“You can’t find it. It didn’t happen,” McKenzie said, describing the audio as a case of a Republican lawmaker “trying to drum up their base.”

“To tell flat lies is wrong. I value my relationships, and I’ve tried to build relationship all across Cordell Hull Building, and for someone just to randomly tell a lie like that is disappointing, disingenuous and speaks to their character,” McKenzie said.

Parkinson held the same view but said he wouldn’t take the matter personally.

“It’s a little disappointing that my name was called when I’ve never called any individual in the Tennessee House a racist publicly, never,” Parkinson said. “For them to say that, it’s unfortunate, and it’s false. It’s just not the truth.”

Parkinson contends House Republicans have “some soul searching” to do after expelling two Black lawmakers and then blaming some within their caucus as well as members of the Black Caucus.

He points out the House has a long list of Republican actions that appear to be “racist in nature,” including objections to removing the bust of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Capitol, attacking Tennessee State University and President Glenda Glover for problems with housing a student overflow, comments from Rep. Paul Sherrell about renewing “hanging by a tree” as a form of capital punishment, comments about a Black lawmaker eating fried chicken, and, finally, the expulsion of Reps. Justin Jones of Nashville and Justin J. Pearson of Memphis for starting a protest of lax gun laws on the House floor days after the Covenant School mass shooting.

Chism notes he never called anyone a racist but in a press conference by the Black Caucus gave a replay of what took place publicly.

“It came off as (having) racial undertones, even to the point where it’s kind of funny, because in the video they confirmed what I said in the press conference,” Chism said.

He recalled the emotionally draining moment two weeks ago when the House Democratic Caucus, some with tears in their eyes, led one member out of the chamber after expulsion.

“Some of their people were smiling and cracking jokes … so it did come off that way,” Chism said.

In the audio, Zachary complained about being called a racist by Black lawmakers and then contended that Republican Reps. Jody Barrett of Dickson and Bryan Terry of Murfreesboro hung them out to dry by flipping their votes and going against expelling Johnson, who survived by one vote.

In the audio, Rep. Johnny Garrett also said he thought he had all the votes lined up to expel Johnson and was “shocked” when Barrett told him he was uncertain. Garrett said he felt the three should be kicked out simply for walking to the well without permission.

Rep. Scott Cepicky of Culleoka took things further by saying if the caucus failed to unify in the aftermath, Republicans could lose a war for Tennessee, which could open the door for Democrats to take the entire Southeast.

“Even if you think it might be wrong, you gotta do what’s right, and you gotta protect the freakin’ republic here in Tennessee, or you know what, let’s all go the hell home. I’m getting gray hair sitting here listening to this bull—-,” Cepicky said.

McKenzie blasted Cepicky’s statement in which he compared the situation to a “war,” calling it inaccurate. The Republican Caucus shouldn’t have expelled the two lawmaker because their protest didn’t rise to the level of expulsion, he said.

“They’re dealing with their mistakes. Take their medicine and do better next time,” he said.

The House Republican Caucus declined to comment about the audio.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

West Texas A&M University president faces no-confidence vote from faculty after canceling drag show

Kate McGee, The Texas Tribune
April 17, 2023, 5:13 PM ET

West Texas A&M University students rallied against the university president’s decision to cancel a drag performance on March 23, 2023. (Credit: David Bowser for The Texas Tribune)

West Texas A&M University faculty leaders have called for a vote of no confidence this week to condemn President Walter Wendler less than a month after he came under fire from students and free speech groups for canceling a campus drag show.

In a resolution obtained by The Texas Tribune, faculty senate leaders accused Wendler of abusing his role as president by running the university based on his own religious ideology. They said he has exhibited a pattern of “divisive misogynistic, homophobic and non-inclusive rhetoric that stands in stark contrast with the Core Values of the university.”

They also argued that Wendler has presented his personal opinions and religious beliefs in online blog posts as the official position of the university. Faculty leaders said those opinions go against the university’s mission, violate state and federal law, damage the university’s reputation and hurt fundraising efforts.

“We do not take this step lightly,” Ashley Pinkham, faculty senate president, wrote in a letter to all professors Monday announcing the vote. “However, we believe that the mission to provide intellectually challenging, critically reflective, and inclusive academic programs at a well-respected, high-quality institution of higher education is at jeopardy. We believe we must act now to restore the reputation of West Texas A&M University.”

The vote started Monday morning and will go through Friday afternoon. A university spokesperson confirmed the vote is in progress but declined to comment. The no-confidence vote is nonbinding and largely symbolic, but faculty hope it will send a message to the Texas A&M System Board of Regents and Chancellor John Sharp.

In a letter to the campus community last month, Wendler canceled a student drag show fundraiser and drew criticism from students when he argued that the performances are “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny.”

Student leaders in a campus LGBTQ group sued Wendler, the university and the Texas A&M System, alleging he violated their First Amendment rights by canceling the show.

Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk denied the students’ request to immediately reinstate the student event. The case is still pending. Sharp declined to comment on the resolution, citing pending litigation.

But the no-confidence vote goes beyond the recent fracas over the campus drag show. Faculty who spoke to the Tribune and requested to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation say Wendler’s handling of the drag show was the last straw for many of them who feel he has exhibited poor leadership with other issues.

In the resolution, faculty accused Wendler of actively encouraging prospective students to avoid attending a four-year university immediately after high school and encouraging them to attend community college first, which they say has led to enrollment declines.

They point to Wendler’s “Your Community, Your University” tour, in which he visited 66 high schools in the Texas Panhandle, telling students to start at a community college first, rather than borrowing money to attend a four-year university. Faculty leaders say in the resolution that Wendler has continued to encourage prospective students to start at a community college, even as the number of community college transfers to the university has declined.

According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, enrollment at the public university in Canyon dropped between fall 2019 and 2022 by nearly 700 students to 9,275 at the start of this academic year.

The resolution also pointed to a spring prospective student event where only 32 potential students registered, calling it a “significant decrease.”

The faculty senate argued Wendler’s actions as president are part of a larger pattern, citing issues at his prior position as chancellor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, where he was removed for a communication breakdown with university leadership.

Wendler was also criticized at the time for pushing back on the SIU Board’s decision to extend certain medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees several years before Illinois legalized gay marriage in 2014. A Southern Illinoisan article quoted Wendler as saying the measure would encourage “sinful behavior.” In 2018, Wendler told the Tribune the quote was taken out of context.

Chicago-area protesters march in Washington for federal assault weapons ban

2023/04/17

Kitty Brandtner at her Winnetka home on July 9, 2022. 

- Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune/

Fed up with repeated mass shootings, hundreds of people from the Chicago area took part in a march in Washington, D.C., Monday to call for a federal ban on assault guns.

Among them was Lindsey Hartman, who survived the Fourth of July mass shooting during a parade in her hometown of Highland Park last year. She and her husband threw themselves on top of their 4-year-old daughter to protect her, as people next to them were shot and killed.

The Save Our Students march was organized by March Fourth, a nonpartisan group founded by Kitty Brandtner of Winnetka.

Brandtner and her children were at the July Fourth parade in neighboring Winnetka when the Highland Park shooting occurred, and they had to run and take cover because the gunman was on the loose.

Seven people were killed and dozens injured in the Highland Park shooting.

Demands for stronger gun control have continued since, Brandtner said, including recently after a shooting in March that killed six people at a Christian school in Nashville.

“I can’t understand why we decided this was OK,” she said Monday of the repeated mass shootings. “We are simply asking for a federal assault weapons ban now.”

While Americans differ over gun control measures, marchers said, everyone wants to prevent mass shootings. Sixty-seven percent of Americans support an assault weapons ban, according to a 2018 poll by the Pew Research Center, while a Gallup poll last year put the support at 55%.

Mass shootings in the United States have been increasing in recent years, nearly doubling since 2018, to about 700 last year, GunViolenceArchive.org reported.

Gun rights advocates say the term assault weapons is vague and misleading. Proposed federal bills to ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, such as Senate Bill 25, define them by various criteria, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns that take more than 10 rounds.

Illinois lawmakers passed an assault weapons ban this year. A federal judge heard arguments last week about a challenge to the constitutionality of the law by the Illinois State Rifle Association and others. A federal judge previously upheld the law in another case.

Some state court judges have prevented the law from taking effect against more than 1,000 plaintiffs who filed suit, and one case is pending before the Illinois Supreme Court.

Also Monday, a bipartisan group of 162 mayors in the United States Conference of Mayors sent a letter to Congress urging action on gun safety legislation. Among the mayors who signed were Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot and Highland Park’s Nancy Rotering.

Todd Vandermyde of Yorkville, a former lobbyist for the National Rifle Association in Illinois, said state and federal bans are unconstitutional under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, because they attempt to prohibit commonly used weapons.

Socioeconomic factors, such as a lack of parents with good jobs, failing schools and poor mental health treatment, are the root causes of most gun violence, he said.

Citing long-running gun violence in the city of Chicago despite its handgun ban that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2010, Vandermyde said, “Bans don’t work.”

Christopher Koper, author of a U.S. Department of Justice report on the prior federal ban, said a new ban would not be a panacea for gun crime but could reduce some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.

____

Lindsey Hartman, a survivor of the July Fourth parade shooting, at home in Highland Park on April 16, 2023, before traveling to Washington for a gun legislation march.

 - Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/

'He needs to be investigated': Abortion case judge potentially hid law review article from Senate

Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams
April 17, 2023

Matthew Kacsmaryk

Calls for an investigation into Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk mounted Saturday after The Washington Post revealed that the U.S. judge behind a temporarily blocked ruling against an abortion medication may have taken his name off of a controversial law review article as he sought a nomination to the federal bench from then-President Donald Trump.

In February 2017, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel for the Christian conservative legal group First Liberty Institute and sent an application to the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, established by U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both Texas Republicans, to vet potential nominees from their state. He was interviewed by the committee in March, the two senators in April, and White House and Justice Department offices in May.

Trump nominated Kacsmaryk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in September—the same month that the journal Texas Review of Law and Politics, which Kacsmaryk led as a University of Texas a law student, published "The Jurisprudence of the Body," an article criticizing Obama administration protections for transgender patients and people seeking abortions,with First Liberty lawyers Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub listed as the sole authors.



Kacsmaryk's nomination was sent back to the White House twice, but Trump renominated him both times and the judge was eventually confirmed by Senate Republicans in June 2019. Although judicial nominees are required to disclose any publication with which they are associated, the article is never mentioned in the questionnaire that Kacsmaryk filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.


When Kacsmaryk initially submitted a draft of the article to the journal in early 2017, Butterfield and Taub's names did not appear anywhere, including in the footnotes, the Post reported. On April 11, a week after he was interviewed by the GOP senators, Kacsmaryk—whose initials are MJK—emailed an editor an updated version and attached a file titled "MJK First Draft."



Later that month, Kacsmaryk, wrote in an email that after consulting with the editor in chief, "For reasons I may discuss at a later date, First Liberty attorneys Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub will co-author the aforementioned article."

According to the Post:

Kacsmaryk did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for First Liberty, Hiram Sasser, said that Kacsmaryk's name had been a "placeholder" on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a "substantive contribution." Aaron Reitz, who was the journal's editor in chief at the time and is now a deputy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said Kacsmaryk had been "our chief point of contact during much of the editing" and "was the placeholder until final authors were named by First Liberty."

On Saturday, after this story was first published, Sasser provided an email showing that Stephanie Taub, one of the people listed as an author on the published article, was involved in writing an early draft.


But one former review editor familiar with the events said there was no indication that Kacsmaryk had been a "placeholder," adding that this was the only time during their tenure at the law review that they ever saw author names swapped. The former editor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, provided emails and several drafts of the article.

Butterfield and Taub, who still work at First Liberty, did not respond to requests for comment, but Sasser told the Post that "Matthew appears to have not gotten to the project so Stephanie decided to do a first draft that Justin edited."

"It appears Matthew provided some light edits," Sasser added.

After the article was published, "Sasser sent what he said were emails showing that Taub, who was then associate counsel, was involved in writing the article as early as December 2016," the Post reported. "She sent an outline to Kacsmaryk, according to the emails provided by First Liberty, and then a first draft one month later."


As the newspaper noted:

When Kacsmaryk requested the authorship switch, the editor familiar with the events said they raised the issue with Reitz, the law review's editor in chief. The lower-ranking editor asked why Kacsmaryk was making the request.

Reitz smiled, the editor recalled, then said, "You'll see."

Reitz did not address the exchange with the editor in his statement to the Post. But he said that "because of their work on the article, Mr. Butterfield and Ms. Taub rightfully received credit as authors."


As a judge, Kacsmaryk has issued key decisions on both reproductive and trans rights. Earlier this month, he struck down the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 2000 approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs often taken in tandem for abortions, though his "junk science" ruling was temporarily halted by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

In response to the revelations Saturday, Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) urged Kacsmaryk to step down, tweeting: "Why did Judge Kacsmaryk mislead the American people during his confirmation hearing about his abortion views? Because he knew he wouldn't be confirmed if people found out he was a religious zealot. Judge Kacsmaryk made a mockery of the confirmation process and must resign."

U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), an attorney who served as lead counsel in Trump's first impeachment trial, called for a probe: "The judge hand-picked by the GOP to enjoin mifepristone withdrew his name from a law review article denouncing medication abortion *during* his confirmation process—and did not disclose the article. He needs to be investigated."

Federal judges serve lifetime appointments unless they retire or are removed from the bench—which requires being impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

"Unless there is some really surprising and persuasive innocent explanation for the sudden authorship swap, this is grounds for impeachment and removal," New York University School of Law professor Christopher Jon Sprigman said of Kacsmaryk.

Given that the House is currently controlled by Republicans, the reporting provoked some calls for a probe by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—who has openly criticized Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling and this week pledged to soon hold a hearing on "the devastating fallout" since the U.S. Supreme Court overruledRoe v. Wade last June.

"A functioning Senate Judiciary Committee could investigate this," declaredThe Nation's Jeet Heer.

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law professor and reproductive rights activist David S. Cohen agreed, arguing: "The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to call him in to testify and explain. Now."

Alex Aronson, a former chief counsel to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who questioned Kacsmaryk during his confirmation hearing, told the Post that not disclosing such an article is "unethical" and raises concerns about "the candor and honesty of the nominee."

"The Senate Judiciary questionnaire requires nominees to disclose all 'published materials you have written or edited,'" Aronson tweeted. "It's not a close call. Kacsmaryk needed to disclose this article he ghostwrote. What else did he bury?"

This post has been updated with information about emails that First Liberty Institute spokesperson Hiram Sasser shared with The Washington Post after the initial article was published.