A CNN reporter used profane language during a live report Tuesday about President Biden’s campaign strategy as his campaign looks ahead to a potential general election showdown with former President Trump.
“President Biden himself personally instructed at some of his top campaign aides to be even more aggressive in highlighting some of President Trump‘s more inflammatory and wild comments,” CNN reporter MJ Lee said live on CNN. “We‘re told that the thrust of the president‘s direction was to significantly ramp up the campaign‘s efforts to highlight the crazy shit that Trump says in public.”
Lee noted what she said the Biden campaign sees as “the black and white contrast” between the president and Trump.
Her “crazy shit” language is attributable to the sources who spoke with CNN about Biden’s direction to his campaign, as highlighted in a story she published on CNN.com.
They’ve almost certainly considered doing that but I suspect it’s a legal thing. Saying “Trump is a rapist” can be seen as claiming that “Trump was convicted of rape” which is not true so it gives them space to sue over a knowingly false defamatory statement (whether he’d win or not, it would be expensive and might halt the ads while it was being litigated)
Saying “Trump was found liable in a civil sexual assault case” doesn’t have as snappy a ring to it and leaves Republicans saying bullshit like “well if he was really a rapist he’d be in jail/it’s just corrupt civil court judges trying to make him look bad.”
But saying “look at this silly footage showing that Trump is a numpty. What a silly crazy clown man” is depressingly more effective at making swing voters not want to vote for him. “Trump is evil” works for people who know he’s evil but “Trump is a fool” works better for people who are willing to believe that the “evil” stuff might be overblown lies from his opponents’ smear campaigns.
The judge said Trump committed rape. I don’t see where there is defamation there.
There absolutely isn’t a good case and he’d probably lose because he’s a rapist, but there’s potentially enough wiggle room there that such a lawsuit might not get thrown out immediately which is potentially expensive and could get ads taken down while it proceeds.
I could be wrong, maybe they do run ads based on the rape but they might not think it’s worth the risk for the reward if ridicule is more effective in their research.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf
From the pen of the judge who handed down the verdict:
Yep, 100%. It’s probably safe to call it like it is and he doesn’t have a great track record with lawsuits at the moment. That said, they might still just not want to take the risk if their research is showing that painting him as a fool who you wouldn’t want in the job is more effective with people who might change their minds.