Newsom’s Defamation Suit is a “Publicity Stunt”
Transcript
Title: Laura Coates Live
Description: Laura Coates goes inside the story with a relentless pursuit of the facts.
Transcript Generated by SnapStream Enterprise TV Search
case if fox retracts these claims and issues a formal apology. Joining me now, CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter, along with attorney Ken Turkel, he successfully represented Hulk Hogan in his defamation suit against Gawker. Good to see you both, Brian. I’ll begin with you. The $787 million figure is no coincidence. That’s how much fox settled for their defamation suit from dominion. Listen to what Newsom had to say earlier.
[00:00:31]
>> Right. >> This. >> Organization needs to be held to. >> Account. >> I think what’s so frustrating. I think., for all of us is. They learn no. >> Lessons from. >> That defamation case. >> As it relates. >> To dominion. >> Nothing. >> They continue. >> The practices. >> That led to that. >> Record breaking settlement. >> And that’s why this needs to be filed. That’s why we felt compelled to make this case. >> Brian, what’s your reaction? >> This performance by Newsom? Well, that’s what it is. It’s a performance. And your review of his performance depends on your
[00:01:03]
feelings about fox. You know, I read this lawsuit, and legally, I thought, give me a break, because it is true that fox made some misstatements about Newsom. That is true. But it’s a narrow complaint. And the real tell here is the dollar figure you. Mentioned by invoking dominion. By invoking those lies that fox aired for a matter of weeks, actually for months, about dominion back. >> In 2020. >> Causing real harm, you know what Gavin Newsom is doing here is sending a signal to. Democrats that he’s willing to fight. And every Democrat that
[00:01:33]
wants to have a future in elected office is supposed to be a fighter. Right now, a fighter against trump, a fighter against fox. So that’s what Newsom is doing. Whether you think it’s a smart or a weak performance, I think depends on your view of Newsom and fox. And ultimately, you know, he wants that apology. He wants that retraction. He probably won’t get it. But I would be surprised to see this go very far in court. >> Ken, do you see any merit to this case having handled cases similar no. >> I mean, Laura, no. >> I don’t we’re fighting over a couple days, you know, it’s a
[00:02:03]
president. He’s got a busy schedule. Could be an honest mistake. There’s a zillion ways to explain. >> Why he says. >> Yesterday, not two days ago, what I’m more disturbed about, to be honest with you, is the tweet by Newsom that says there was no call. Not even a voicemail, which implies that he never spoke to him. In other words, if you’re going to stand on that high and mighty podium and seek doctor evil damages, you know, 787 million and you’re not clean, you could very easily put there was no call on, you
[00:02:37]
know, June 9th, right. There was a call on June 6th and seventh, if we’re going to speak truth, let’s speak truth. And then if you read the next line, Americans should be ashamed that a president deploying Marines on our street doesn’t even know who he’s talking to. Doubling down as if now he’s flipping the script. But that’s a more dangerous statement. I’m more inclined to take that one to trial than the two day discrepancy. You know, all day. >> Let me ask. >> You. >> 700. >> I hear you on one point, though. You know, his lawyers are arguing not only that that
[00:03:08]
this happened, but that people who heard fox’s statements that there’s damage to him, that there may be less likely to support him in future elections or donate to his causes. And I wonder if that in any way changes your assessment of the merits? >> No, it’s an actual malice case. Walters is sourced. He’s literally relying on what trump said. I mean, I tried Palin’s case twice now where they admitted the lie the last time and couldn’t get a verdict out of it, and it was a real lie.
[00:03:39]
Okay. Like, you know, accusing someone of inciting a murder. And we’re going to talk about a couple days here, just, you know, destroying a life. Come on, let’s get real. >> Well. >> This is not what we should. >> Be doing. >> Let me ask you, Brian, at that point, because I want you to weigh in to that point because the landscape has changed in a sense of the way in which defamation cases are coming up and against the media. I mean, trump is suing CBS news after accusing them of deceptively editing a 60 minutes interview with Kamala Harris. This lawsuit also involves accusations of deceptive
[00:04:11]
editing. That’s the accusation. Do you see a correlation on that path, or is this standing alone in that way? >> I do. >> That 60 minutes lawsuit is ridiculous. Parent company of CBS paramount is trying to settle it in order to get a merger through the trump administration. But that’s a baseless lawsuit. And I think what Newsom is doing today is actually trying to make a statement about the ridiculousness of trump’s legal attacks against news outlets. He’s trying to make a statement about the hypocrisy of the right wing media machine. The reality is that when fox talks about
[00:04:42]
Newsom, Newsom benefits. He wants that attention. He’s a student of fox, so he knows exactly what he’s doing by picking a fight here. It’s not really a legal play, but it’s a political play. >> Ken, really quickly, do you agree? >> Yeah. I mean, I would as Brian, I think we’re on the same page on this. It’s not a particularly good one. There’s nothing salacious about it. It doesn’t stir up any emotion. It’s like we’re arguing over a phone call that we all know occurred, and we’re debating whether he was accurate when he recalled it happening. It’s you don’t even sense trump’s trying
[00:05:12]
to do you know one of those things. Right. Like an honest mistake there. And, you know, it’s easy to make mistakes like I do it all the time these days. A week feels like a month or well, we’ll see how it happens. >> Given that, you know,
