US Politics

Lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems had planned to put media mogul Rupert Murdoch on the stand to testify this week before it reached a $787.5m settlement with Fox for its broadcasting of false claims about the company’s voting equipment after the 2020 election, according to a person familiar with the matter.Dominion was going to call the 92-year-old Murdoch as its second witness, forcing him to appear in person for cross-examination before the end of the week. He would have followed Tony Fratto, a crisis communications consultant who represented Dominion after the 2020 election and contacted Fox many times to inform them they were making false claims.The settlement reportedly does not include a provision that Fox apologize on air or retract any of its statements. The network acknowledged in a statement that the court had found it broadcast false claims.Murdoch’s live testimony was one of the most hotly anticipated moments of what was scheduled to be a blockbuster six-week trial. Murdoch, his son Lachlan, as well as the Fox stars Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiromo, Sean Hannity, and Jeanine Pirro were all expected to appear on the witness stand, where they would be forced to answer uncomfortable questions under oath about their role in spreading false information.As part of the lawsuit, Dominion unearthed and published a stunning trove of internal communications from Fox showing the Murdoch and those stars, among others, were aware the claims were false and broadcast them anyway.The case attracted much attention, both in the US and around the world, because it was seen as a chance to hold Fox accountable for its spreading of misinformation after the 2020 election and the network’s longstanding willingness to distort the truth in service of its conservative base and profits.“Money is accountability, and today we got that from Fox,” Stephen Shackelford, one of Dominion’s attorneys said after the settlement was announced.The settlement, the largest publicly disclosed payout to settle a media libel case in the US, came together relatively quickly and on the brink of trial.Lawyers for Dominion and Fox were emailing over the weekend but were far apart on an agreement hours before the trial was set to begin on Monday, the person familiar said. A mediator got involved on Sunday afternoon and that evening. Eric Davis, the Delaware superior court judge overseeing the case, pushed back the start of the trial until Tuesday. But on Monday night, settlement talks still seemed dead.Attorneys went to court on Tuesday morning prepared to give opening statements after jury selection was complete. As lawyers prepared for trial, the mediator brokered the settlement. When Davis reconvened court on Tuesday afternoon, he abruptly left the bench and there was an unexplained two-and-a-half-hour delay in the proceedings. Reporters, lawyers and members of the public who had gathered for curiosity stretched their legs and chatted in anticipation over what was going on.Eventually, Davis returned, called the jury in and said unceremoniously: “The parties have resolved their case.”Despite the monumental dollar amount, some questioned why Dominion would settle the case without a public apology when it had the opportunity to skewer Murdoch and other Fox stars at trial.Even though experts said Dominion had strong evidence to clear the high “actual malice” standard required to prove defamation in the US, a jury could have balked at awarding the relatively obscure company $1.6bn. As enticing as days of testimony from Murdoch and other Fox stars would have been, Dominion had already published the most damaging information ahead of trial. And even if Dominion had won the case at trial, it would not have received an apology from Fox.“What would you say to those who are disappointed that Dominion didn’t go to trial and get the full vindication of making Fox’s lead anchors get on the stand and admit what they did to the company?” Joy Reid, a host on the left-leaning MSNBC, asked Justin Nelson, one of Dominion’s lead lawyers, on Tuesday evening. “If you don’t get an on-air apology and Fox News doesn’t correct what they said about Dominion to their own viewers, they may never know any of this happened.”“Whatever else happens, you can’t hide from paying almost $800m and having that in a public settlement,” Nelson said in response. “The civil litigation can only do so much and what we have done is hold Fox accountable.” More

A Florida judge rejected by voters after denying a teenage girl an abortion citing her poor school grades is in line for a seat on the state supreme court as the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, continues to turn the bench to the right.Jared Smith will be interviewed alongside 14 others next month by a nominating commission that will make recommendations to DeSantis, who last week signed a six-week abortion ban into law.The governor appointed Smith to the newly established sixth district court of appeal in December, four months after voters in Hillsborough county ousted him from the circuit court following his controversial ruling.Smith said the 17-year-old was unfit to obtain an abortion as he questioned her “overall intelligence, emotional development and stability”. The decision was overturned by a three-member appeals court that said Smith abused his judicial discretion.DeSantis’s decision to disregard that rebuke was the second time he had looked favorably on Smith, having first appointed him to the circuit court in 2019.The Florida supreme court seat opened up last month when the long-serving justice Ricky Polston announced he was standing down. Filling the vacancy will mean DeSantis will have picked five of the court’s seven members, a potentially crucial factor for the future of abortion laws in the state.The panel is expected to hear arguments later this year in a lawsuit challenging the validity of Florida’s existing 15-week abortion limit. A ruling to endorse it would open the way for the more extreme six-week ban to take effect.The Tampa Bay Times on Wednesday named other candidates vying for the seat, including Meredith Sasso, chief judge of the sixth district court of appeal, of which Smith is a member; and another appellate court judge, John Stargel, a Republican state representative.Significantly, Stargel was the only dissenting vote in the 2-1 decision that overturned Smith’s ruling blocking the teenager’s abortion.DeSantis began his transformation of the Florida supreme court immediately after taking office in 2019, appointing three justices in his first month. John Stemberger, president of the Florida family policy council, said at the time the court had “the potential to have the most reliably consistent and conservative judicial philosophy in the country”.DeSantis’s fourth pick, in August last year, was Renatha Francis, a Jamaica-born immigrant whose first judicial appointment was under DeSantis’s predecessor, Rick Scott, now a Republican US senator.DeSantis tried and failed to elevate her to the supreme court two years earlier, with justices ruling he exceeded his authority by naming a judge lacking the 10 years’ membership of the Florida Bar required by the state constitution.According to the Times, only three candidates applied after Polston, who the newspaper described as “reliably conservative”, announced his resignation in March.A slew of other judges and experienced prosecutors put their names forward on 4 April, when the nominating commission decided to extend the deadline. More

Are Americans really as politically polarized as they seem – and everybody says?

It’s definitely true that Democrats and Republicans increasingly hate and fear one another. But this animosity seems to have more to do with tribal loyalty than liberal-versus-conservative disagreements about policy. Our research into what Americans actually want in terms of policy shows that many have strong political views that can’t really be characterized in terms of “right” or “left.”

The media often talks about the American political landscape as if it were a line. Liberal Democrats are on the left, conservative Republicans on the right, and a small sliver of moderate independents are in the middle. But political scientists like us have long argued that a line is a bad metaphor for how Americans think about politics.

Sometimes scholars and pundits will argue that views on economic issues like taxes and income redistribution, and views on so-called social or cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage, actually represent two distinct dimensions in American political attitudes. Americans, they say, can have liberal views on one dimension but conservative views on the other. So you could have a pro-choice voter who wants lower taxes, or a pro-life voter who wants the government to do more to help the poor.

But even this more sophisticated, two-dimensional picture doesn’t reveal what Americans actually want the government to do – or not do – when it comes to policy.

First, it ignores some of the most contentious topics in American politics today, like affirmative action, the Black Lives Matter movement and attempts to stamp out “wokeness” on college campuses.

Since 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency while simultaneously stoking racial anxieties and bucking Republican orthodoxy on taxes and same-sex marriage, it has become clear that what Americans think about politics can’t really be understood without knowing what they think about racism, and what – if anything – they want done about it.

‘Racial Justice Communitarians’ have liberal views on economic issues and moderate or conservative views on moral issues; some Black evangelicals supported Barack Obama but were troubled by his support for same-sex marriage.
Charles Ommanney/Getty Images

Recently, some political scientists have argued that views on racial issues represent a third “dimension” in American politics. But there are other problems with treating political attitudes as a set of “dimensions” in the first place. For example, even a “3D” picture doesn’t allow for the possibility that Americans with conservative economic views tend to also hold conservative racial views, while Americans with liberal economic views are deeply divided on issues related to race.

A new picture of American politics

In our new article in Sociological Inquiry, we analyzed public opinion data from 2004 to 2020 to develop a more nuanced picture of American political attitudes. Our aim was to do a better job of figuring out what Americans actually think about politics, including policies related to race and racism.

Using a new analytic method that doesn’t force us to think in terms of dimensions at all, we found that, over the past two decades, Americans can be broadly divided into five different groups.

In most years, slightly less than half of all Americans had consistently liberal or conservative views on policies related to the economy, morality and race, and thus fall into one of two groups.

“Consistent Conservatives” tend to believe that the free market should be given free rein in the economy, are generally anti-abortion, tend to say that they support “traditional family ties” and oppose most government efforts to address racial disparities. These Americans almost exclusively identify themselves as Republicans.

“Consistent Liberals” strongly support government intervention in the economy, tend to be in favor of abortion rights and pro-same-sex marriage and feel that the government has a responsibility to help address discrimination against Black Americans. They mostly identify as Democrats.

But the majority of Americans, who don’t fall into one of these two groups, are not necessarily “moderates,” as they are often characterized. Many have very strong views on certain issues, but can’t be pigeonholed as being on the left or right in general.

Instead, we find that these Americans can be classified as one of three groups, whose size and relationship to the two major parties change from one election cycle to the next:

“Racial Justice Communitarians” have liberal views on economic issues like taxes and redistribution and moderate or conservative views on moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. They also strongly believe that the government has a responsibility to address racial discrimination. This group likely includes many of the Black evangelicals who strongly supported Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, but were also deeply uncomfortable with his expression of support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

“Nativist Communitarians” also have liberal views on economics and conservative views on moral issues, but they are extremely conservative with respect to race and immigration, in some cases even more so than Consistent Conservatives. Picture, for instance, those voters in 2016 who were attracted to both Bernie Sanders’ economic populism and Donald Trump’s attacks on immigrants.

“Libertarians,” who we find became much more prominent after the tea party protests of 2010, are conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues and have mixed but generally conservative views in regard to racial issues. Think here of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who think that the government has no business telling them how to run their company – or telling gay couples that they can’t get married.

Three groups of Americans have a difficult time fitting in with either of America’s two major parties.
Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images

Five groups – but only two parties

These three groups of Americans have a difficult time fitting in with either of the two major parties in the U.S.

In every year we looked, the Racial Justice Communitarians – who include the largest percentage of nonwhite Americans – were most likely to identify as Democrats. But in some years up to 40% still thought of themselves as Republicans or independents.

Nativist Communitarians and Libertarians are even harder to pin down. During the Obama years they were actually slightly more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. But since Trump’s rise in 2016, both groups are now slightly more likely to identify as Republicans, although large percentages of each group describe themselves as independents or Democrats.

Seeing Americans as divided into these five groups – as opposed to polarized between the left and right – shows that both political parties are competing for coalitions of voters with different combinations of views.

Many Racial Justice Communitarians disagree with the Democratic Party when it comes to cultural and social issues. But the party probably can’t win national elections without their votes. And, unless they are willing to make a strong push for promoting “racial justice,” the Republican Party’s national electoral prospects probably depend on attracting significant support from either the economically liberal Nativist Communitarians or the socially liberal Libertarians.

But perhaps most importantly, these five groups show how diverse Americans’ political attitudes really are. Just because American democracy is a two-party system doesn’t mean that there are only two kinds of American voters. More

Jack Teixeira, the 21-year-old Massachusetts air national guard member who was charged on Friday with leaking classified Pentagon documents, has joined a long list of individuals who have been prosecuted for allegedly disclosing sensitive US national security intelligence.Previous leaks have ranged from information about US wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to details of Russian interference in American elections. Despite the diversity of the subject matter, the treatment of the leakers has shared a common relentlessness on the part of the US government in pursuing those it accuses of breaching its trust.Daniel EllsbergIn March 1971, Ellsberg, a military analyst, leaked a top-secret study to the New York Times. The document, which became known as the Pentagon Papers, spanned US involvement in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967 and exposed covert efforts by successive US presidents to escalate the conflict while hiding deep doubts about the chances of victory.Ellsberg was prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act – a law designed to catch first world war spies – and faced a maximum sentence of 115 years in prison. All charges were dropped after the FBI’s illegal wiretapping of Ellsberg was revealed.Early last month, the 92-year-old Ellsberg, who has become revered as the doyen of whistleblowers, revealed that he has terminal cancer and has months to live.Jeffrey SterlingSterling, a former CIA operations officer, served more than two years of a 42-month sentence after he was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking information about a botched covert US operation with Iran to the then New York Times journalist James Risen. In 2003, Risen published details of the operation in a book, State of War.It was not until 2011, under Barack Obama’s administration, that Sterling was arrested. Federal prosecutors accused him of leaking details of the Iran engagement out of “anger and resentment” – a reference to an earlier claim from Sterling, who is Black, that he suffered discrimination while at the CIA.Sterling has denied ever talking to Risen about Iran.Thomas DrakeA former senior official with the National Security Agency (NSA), Drake was charged in 2010 with leaking classified information to the Baltimore Sun. He faced 10 counts with a possible 35-year sentence, though the charges were whittled down to a single misdemeanor for which he was given a year of probation.Drake has always insisted that he had no intention of harming national security, presenting himself as a whistleblower who had been trying to sound the alarm on technical flaws in NSA programs that were wasting billions of dollars.Chelsea ManningAs a former intelligence analyst posted outside Baghdad during the Iraq war, Manning had access to classified information that shone a light on the vagaries of war there and in Afghanistan. She leaked hundreds of thousands of military records and diplomatic cables via the open information site WikiLeaks in 2010 in one of the largest disclosures of military secrets in US history.Three years later, she was convicted under the Espionage Act. She was given a 35-year sentence, of which she served seven. In a memoir published last year, README.txt, she wrote: “What I did during my enlistment was an act of rebellion, of resistance, and of civic disobedience.”John KiriakouKiriakou, a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, was sentenced to two years in prison in 2012 for leaking the identity of a covert operative to a journalist. He was the first CIA officer to be imprisoned for doing so.Prosecutors insisted that they went after Kiriakou to protect the safety of undercover government agents. He countered that he was a whistleblower attempting to expose the use of torture in the so-called “war on terror”.Kiriakou was the first former government official to talk in public about waterboarding, the form of controlled drowning used against terrorism suspects in the aftermath of 9/11.Edward SnowdenIn 2013 Snowden disclosed inside intelligence about the US government’s dragnet surveillance of the digital communications of millions of Americans through the Guardian and Washington Post. Working at the time as an NSA contractor, he fled to Hong Kong and from there to Russia, where he was granted asylum.After he outed himself through the Guardian, a raft of Republican politicians demanded that Snowden be extradited back to the US to face trial as a traitor. Donald Trump called for his execution three years before he was elected US president.In his support, a number of prominent public figures, including Ellsberg, have lauded Snowden as a pro-democracy hero who should be allowed to come home with a pardon.Reality WinnerThe former NSA intelligence contractor and air force linguist was sentenced to more than five years under the Espionage Act in 2018 for leaking a top-secret document on Russian interference in the US presidential election. She pleaded guilty to having handed a copy of a classified report about Russian hacking of voting software suppliers in the 2016 race.She was released after three years. Having regained her freedom she told CBS: “I am not a traitor, I am not a spy. I am somebody who only acted out of love for what this country stands for.”Julian AssangeThe WikiLeaks founder was initially charged in 2019 with conspiring to hack into a military computer – an accusation arising out of the massive leak by Manning to WikiLeaks nine years earlier. The seriousness of prosecutors’ case against him was dramatically expanded later that year to include 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act.Assange has been held for the past four years in Belmarsh prison in London as extradition proceedings work their way through British courts. The Joe Biden White House has come under mounting pressure to drop the charges, including from leading news outlets, on grounds that the prosecution is putting a chill on press freedom.Jack TeixeiraThe air national guardsman now finds his name added to the list. He was charged in a Boston federal court on Friday with two counts under the Espionage Act, each carrying a possible 10-year sentence.Prosecutors allege that they have evidence to prove that Teixeira unlawfully retained and transmitted hundreds of classified defence documents. The FBI has indicated that he enjoyed security clearance for sensitive intelligence marked “top secret/sensitive compartmented information”.The leak of the Pentagon documents is believed to have started on the social media platform Discord. Teixeira reportedly visited the platform over several years posting about guns, online games and racist memes, though any motive for the alleged leak remains obscure. More

The shooting of a Black teenager who rang the wrong doorbell in Kansas City, Missouri, has renewed scrutiny of “stand your ground” and other self-defense laws, which have proliferated in the US and been used to justify the killings of Black Americans.Ralph Yarl, a 16-year-old high school junior, was going to pick up his younger twin brothers from a friend’s house on Thursday when he approached an incorrect address. The white homeowner, 84-year-old Andrew Lester, came to the door and shot Yarl in the head, before shooting him a second time, according to authorities. Yarl suffered a traumatic brain injury, but survived and was recovering, his family said.The case sparked intense local protests and widespread outrage across the country after police released Lester from custody, saying investigators were considering whether his actions were protected by self-defense laws. Late Monday, however, prosecutors announced armed assault charges against Lester, who surrendered on Tuesday.It remains to be seen how Lester may defend himself in court. But the shooting, and another over the weekend in which a New York homeowner killed a woman who entered the wrong driveway, appeared to be part of a disturbing pattern in the US where, experts say, the dramatic expansion of self-defense laws has been linked to increased homicides and racist violence.“Black people are still suffering from laws in this country that are not moral and not just – and ‘stand your ground’, as it is applied to Black people, is one of them,” said the Rev Vernon Howard, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City.‘Authorizing violence’The first “stand your ground” law was adopted in 2005 in Florida after a homeowner fatally shot a man who had wandered on to his property. The shooter did not face charges, but the National Rifle Association argued he’d been treated unfairly while under investigation and pushed the passage of “stand your ground”, which solidified that people have the right to kill if they believe they’re faced with a grave threat, even if they could have retreated or de-escalated the confrontation.“Castle doctrine” laws in the US have long allowed people to kill intruders threatening their homes, but stand-your-ground policies extended that self-defense concept to the wider public sphere – with deadly consequences.By 2012, the year 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was killed by a neighborhood watch captain, 24 states had versions of “stand your ground”. Now, 38 states have similar statutes or equivalent legal precedents, according to a 2022 Reveal investigation. That’s despite one poll showing a decline in public support for the laws.“The legacy of ‘stand your ground’ is this wild west mentality that everything can be resolved with guns,” said Thaddeus Hoffmeister, University of Dayton law professor.An analysis last year found “stand your ground” laws were linked to an 8% to 11% increase in homicide rates, or roughly 700 additional deaths each year. Florida’s “stand your ground” law has increased both justifiable and unlawful killings, with one study finding a 32% increase in firearm homicide rates; and another analysis showed that in 79% of cases, the assailant could have retreated to avoid confrontation. And research on “stand your ground” laws has found huge racial disparities, with white Americans much more likely to find success with self-defense claims, particularly when they kill Black people.“We have so much data showing these laws do not make us safer. And in fact, they authorize so much unnecessary violence that disproportionately harms Black and brown people,” said Caroline Light, Harvard senior lecturer and expert on “stand your ground” laws.Robert Spitzer, political science professor emeritus at the State University of New York, Cortland, noted that “stand your ground” laws discourage prosecution and impede investigations into homicides, which is why some law enforcement leaders oppose them: “The laws are written in a way that quite clearly provides for the prospect of legalized murder. And it actually encourages people to make sure their opponents are dead so that they cannot make a counter ‘stand your ground’ claim.”The laws have also contributed to an increasingly violent culture, added Kenneth Nunn, law professor emeritus at the University of Florida: “The presence of a ‘stand your ground’ law in the public’s mind generally means, all you have to say is, ‘I was in fear for my life’, and no charges will be brought, and I think a lot of police officers tend to believe that, too.”Missouri passed a “stand your ground” law in 2016. Decried by critics as “shoot first laws”, the state’s self-defense statutes say people can use deadly force and have no duty to retreat if they “reasonably believe” it was necessary to prevent death, or in any case in which a person enters or “attempts to unlawfully enter” someone’s home.Ari Freilich, state policy director for the Giffords Law Center, said the self-defense laws would not justify the shooting of Yarl: “There’s no state in the country where the existing laws are such that you can lawfully shoot someone for ringing the doorbell at the wrong house.” Still, he said, the case appeared to “fit the pattern we’ve seen over and over again of racist fear intersecting with really widespread unvetted firearm access, combining in our country to make gun violence the leading cause of death by far for young Black men”.‘Traumatized and infuriated’Residents of Kansas City – who protested over the weekend with signs saying “ringing a doorbell is not a crime” and the “shooter should do the time” – said they were relieved charges were filed, but that the shooting had escalated fears of racist violence.“Missouri and the Kansas City metropolitan area is one of the most unsafe places for Black people in America,” said Rev Howard, citing homicide rates, police brutality, mass incarceration and infant mortality rates. “I put this shooting within that context. This is par for the course. There’s a severe lack of protection for Black life and equal justice under the law.”He said he hopes laws like “stand your ground” are repealed, adding of the shooting, “We are not surprised, we are traumatized. We are infuriated. And we are determined to take steps to receive justice that is necessary here.”“This is a city that has deep racial tensions bubbling constantly,” added Theo Davis, a pastor at the Restore Community Church, who attended recent protests, noting recent incidents of racism in local high schools as well as times he’d been racially profiled by police and others.He said he was disappointed prosecutors did not file hate crime charges and was worried that decision would allow people to claim racism was not a factor. The local prosecuting attorney said there was a “racial component” to the shooting, but said hate crime statutes would carry a lesser penalty than the assault charge.Davis said he was also anxious about the suspect’s likely self-defense argument in court: “We’ve seen so many cases of ‘stand your ground’ laws benefiting white people in this country. It’s very scary, and I’m deeply concerned. Even though it seems like a slam-dunk case, we won’t hold our breath until we see a conviction.” More

In a blow to Ron DeSantis, a prominent ally of the rightwing governor was on Tuesday one of two Florida Republicans in Congress to back Donald Trump for president, the latest in a string of such defections.The news came amid reports that DeSantis’s team has pressured US representatives from his state not to endorse Trump.Brian Mast told CNN he planned to endorse the former president and would chair a veterans committee in support of his re-election bid.Peter Schorsch, publisher of FloridaPolitics.com, said: “This is right up there with Byron Donalds picking Trump over DeSantis.”Donalds introduced DeSantis for his election night speech in November, after his landslide win over the Democrat Charlie Crist. Last week, though, Donalds told NBC he plumped for Trump because he was a candidate “ready for prime time”.Schorsch added: “Brian Mast has been DeSantis’s ally on environment and water issues in South Florida. Mast is at DeSantis’s hip during press conferences. They’re both veterans, too. Wow.”Mast and John Rutherford were the sixth and seventh congressional Florida Republicans to endorse Trump. Rutherford announced his decision in a tweet.“As a former sheriff,” he said, “I understand the importance of a fair and impartial system of justice. The systematic targeting of Americans with conservative ideals, especially our 45th president of the United States, disgraces our nation’s legacy.”He was referring to Trump’s criminal indictment in New York this month, on 34 counts of falsification of business records relating to his hush money payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels.Trump also faces legal jeopardy over his election subversion and incitement of the deadly January 6 attack on Congress, his handling of classified material, his business and tax affairs and an allegation of rape. He denies all wrongdoing.His sheriff-turned-congressman supporter added: “As strong Republicans, we must restore law, order and justice to our country … under President Trump’s leadership, America was more safe, more secure, and more prosperous.”Trump lost conclusively to Joe Biden in 2020, a year of chaos amid the Covid pandemic and protests for racial justice.For inciting an insurrection in his attempt to overturn that defeat, fueled by the lie that Biden won thanks to electoral fraud, Trump was impeached a second time. But he escaped conviction and is now the clear leader in the race for the GOP nomination, leveraging his legal predicament to boost fundraising and support.DeSantis has not declared his candidacy but is widely expected to do so. He is Trump’s closest challenger but his numbers have stagnated as he has come under fire for extreme policies including a six-week abortion ban, school book bans and a drawn-out fight with Disney. Last week, a major donor said he was pausing support.By Tuesday, Trump had secured endorsements from one governor (Henry McMaster of South Carolina), nine senators and 47 House members. Lance Gooden, a Texas Republican, released his endorsement of Trump shortly after what he called “a positive meeting” with DeSantis in Washington.NBC first reported DeSantis allies calls to Florida Republicans. An unnamed source said: “There is clearly some angst from the DeSantis camp that so many members of the state’s congressional delegation are throwing their support behind Trump.”Rutherford and Mast were not among Republicans named. The New York Times, however, cited an official “familiar with the effort” when it said “others in the 20-member Republican delegation from Florida are almost certainly on the call list”.One Republican named by NBC, Laurel Lee, endorsed DeSantis on Tuesday. Another, Greg Steube, declared for Trump on Monday. More

The staggering $787.5m settlement between Fox and the voting equipment company Dominion marked the end of one of the most aggressive efforts to hold someone accountable for spreading misinformation after the 2020 election.Dominion sued Fox for $1.6bn in damages for knowingly broadcasting false information about the company after the election. The money from the settlement, one of the largest libel payouts in media history, was just the icing on a cake Dominion had, in many ways, already won.And yet, while Fox doled out an unprecedented sum, they were able to avoid something priceless: the public humiliation of a trial and an apology.Over the last several months, Dominion has created a valuable historical artifact, publishing an internal trove of messages that showed Fox hosts and executives knew their claims about Dominion were false and advanced them anyway. It was cache that laid bare how America’s most powerful media outlet lies and distorts the truth to whip up its conservative base.“The interesting and important aspect of this settlement is that it came well after we might have expected Fox wanted it to occur. All of the sordid details from behind the scenes – about what key Fox players said about Fox sources, about Trump, and about the network’s own audience – came to light,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a first amendment scholar at the University of Utah.“It seems clear that Dominion was motivated not just to win compensation for its own injury but to have a public-facing accountability for election denialism and disinformation. The timing of the settlement reflects that.”But the lack of a six-week trial meant that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro would not have to own up to their role in spreading dangerous misinformation after the 2020 election. It suggests that lies, no matter how dangerous or insidious, are tolerable as long as you have the money to back it up. “You could argue that Dominion wins but the public loses,” Brian Stelter, the respected media reporter who has written extensively about Fox, tweeted after the settlement.Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars Fox will have to pay, it appears that it also won’t have to suffer an even more brutal penalty: while the full terms of the agreement were not disclosed, CNN, Axios and the New York Times reported that it reportedly does not contain a clause that forces the network to apologize on air for making false claims about Dominion. Such a statement would have forced America’s most powerful media organization to look its millions of loyal viewers in the eye and tell them that it lied about the 2020 election being stolen, a belief that has now become orthodox among Republicans.“I’d expected, given the wider public lesson that Dominion said it wanted to teach in this case, that it would have insisted on more acknowledgment or apology in the settlement,” Jones said. She said Fox’s tongue-twisting statement recognizing that the court found its statements about Dominion were false was likely the best concession Dominion was able to get.The settlement will not undo the damage done at the local level, where officials continue to face harassment and pressure to get rid of Dominion voting equipment. It’s also unclear if anyone at the network or its parent company will be fired for airing false statements. “The part that I’m interested in seeing is: what does the apology sound like? Who gets fired? What are the consequences inside the company?” said Chris Stirewalt, a former Fox News political director who was fired after correctly calling the 2020 election for Joe Biden, to Semafor after the settlement.Already, Murdoch and Fox seem to be brushing off the suit. In its own post-settlement statement, Fox half-heartedly acknowledged it had broadcast false claims about Dominion. “We acknowledge the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false,” the company said.Jane Kirtley, a media professor at the University of Minnesota, expressed doubts that the settlement would result in meaningful change at Fox.“I’m not saying it shouldn’t change things at Fox. But, they seem so convinced that their approach to news is the right one – some would call it arrogance – that I can’t imagine that they feel chastened,” she said.There were plenty of good reasons, however, why both sides settled the case. Fox was facing a swell of strong evidence against it – and Dominion may have had a hard time getting a jury to believe it had suffered the full $1.6bn worth of damage.Still, a settlement may reflect the limits of using defamation as a tool to police misinformation. Defamation law is a field that uses money to address an injury. It can protect an individual or organization that has been reputationally damaged, but may not get at bigger, societal issues.“We can’t get from this suit one clear answer about the so-called big lie,” Jones said before the trial. “This suit isn’t asking or answering the question, ‘Was the election stolen?’ ‘Did voter fraud take place?’ It’s asking the very specific question of ‘did this news organization tell knowing lies about this company in ways that hurt this company?’”Fox’s legal troubles aren’t over. It still faces a $2.7bn defamation lawsuit from Smartmatic, another voting equipment company. It also faces a shareholder lawsuit seeking damages for spreading false claims, as well as a suit from a former employee who says she was coerced into giving misleading testimony in the Dominion suit.Dominion isn’t ending its push for accountability for 2020 lies either. It has ongoing defamation lawsuits against some of the most prolific spreaders of election misinformation: Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, Rudy Giuliani, Patrick Byrne, as well as One America News Network and Newsmax.But will the landmark settlement change anything at Fox? Probably not, said Lee Levine, an attorney who has defended news organizations in defamation suits.“For Fox, this is, however sadly, a cost of doing business,” he said. More

The United Nations has raised concerns with the United States over reports that it eavesdropped on the private conversations of the UN secretary general, António Guterres, and other senior officials.“We have made it clear that such actions are inconsistent with the obligations of the United States as enumerated in the Charter of the United Nations and the convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations,” said a UN spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, on Tuesday.The comments followed a number of articles reporting that leaked Pentagon files appear to show Washington was closely monitoring conversations between the secretary general and his aides.The Washington Post reported this week that the documents included embarrassing allegations that Guterres had expressed frustration with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and “outrage” when his plans to visit a war-torn region of Ethiopia were rebuffed.It followed a BBC report last week that the US felt Guterres was too sympathetic to Russian interests when he helped broker the Black Sea grain deal amid fears of a global food crisis. According to the broadcaster, one classified Pentagon file indicated that Guterres preferred to preserve the deal even if it meant accommodating Russian interests.The UN’s implied rebuke on Tuesday comes as Washington scrambles to contain the fallout of the worst leaks of US intelligence in at least a decade.The classified reports were part of a trove of hundreds of secret national security documents, published on the online gaming platform, Discord, and revealed secrets about US, allied and Ukrainian military deployments, US penetration of Russian intelligence and military networks, and US intelligence eavesdropping on key allies, including South Korea and Israel.Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old air national guardsman was arrested last week on suspicion of leaking hundreds of secret defence documents and charged under the Espionage Act. In response to the leaks, Pentagon has moved to tighten access to classified information while the Department of Defense reviews its security procedures.According to the BBC, a Pentagon assessment describing private conversations between the UN chief and his deputy, concluded: “Guterres emphasised his efforts to improve Russia’s ability to export,” and that he would do this, “even if that involves sanctioned Russian entities or individuals”.The secretary general’s approach, one document reportedly said, was “undermining broader efforts to hold Moscow accountable for its actions in Ukraine”.The documents viewed by the Post suggest that Guterres was “really pissed off” after an appearance with Zelenskiy in March. During the visit, Guterres was reportedly surprised Ukrainian officials photographed him at a public presentation of medals to uniformed soldiers and later shared the images in a way that suggested Guterres had congratulated Ukrainian military personnel.The secretary general, who has repeatedly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a violation of the UN charter and international law, “emphasized that he made a point of not smiling the entire time”, according to the leaked US assessment.Last week, Dujarric said Guterres was “not surprised” that he was allegedly spied on by the US. “Unfortunately, for various reasons, it allows such private conversations to be distorted and made public.”The US has a long history of eavesdropping on allied leaders, including United Nations officials.The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of dozens of world leaders, including the then German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and UN diplomats, according to revelations made public by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.And in 2003, a secret memo detailed an “aggressive surveillance operation” against UN security council delegations in New York as part of a campaign to win support for going to war against Iraq. More