Thursday, September 18, 2025

I’m confused about child sex trafficking: Happy birthday, Jeffrey

[The original version of this blog can be found here.]

ICE and the Hestafo seem intent on going after child sex traffickers and their kind. Sensible. 

I check out the ICE twitter site regularly and receive updates from Homeland Security’s Office of Public Affairs. Child sex traffickers are at the core of the “Worst of the Worst,” just the types of immigrants whose arrests are ballyhooed, sometimes with Kristi Noem on horseback, to take attention off the wholesale roundups of immigrants, lawful permanent residents and visa overstayers. 


Last week, for instance, the headline for one of Homeland Security’s updates read: “Pedophiles, Abusers, Rapists, and Other Violent Thugs Arrested in Operation Midway Blitz.” I paid particular attention because Operation Midway Blitz is the code name for the infiltration of the sanctuary city of Chicago, my hometown. 


Among the worst of the worst who were arrested are Carlos a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, arrested for aggravated sexual assault of a child family member; Hector, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, arrested for domestic battery; Bernardino, a criminal illegal alien and registered sex offender from Mexico, convicted of aggravated sexual assault victim 13-17, and a sex offender registration violation; Bolotbek, a criminal illegal alien from Kyrgyzstan, previously charged with domestic battery/bodily harm; Juan, a 41-year-old sexual predator from Mexico, convicted of criminal sexual abuse of a child; and Jose, a 39-year-old criminal alien from Guatemala, who has pending charges for domestic violence. Again sensible. 

Still, I’m confused. In a speech last week at the Religious Liberty Commission’s meeting at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., President Trump downplayed the severity of domestic violence crimes, saying that were it not for “things that take place in the home they call crime,” the deployment of National Guard troop in DC would have resulted in a bigger statistical reduction in crime. 

“They said, ‘Crime’s down 87 percent.’ I said, no, no, no — it’s more than 87 percent, virtually nothing. And much lesser things, things that take place in the home they call crime. You know, they’ll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime. See? So now I can’t claim 100 percent, but we are. We are a safe city,” Trump said. 

 Click here to go to story 

I can’t tell if I should take child sex trafficking, sex with minors, and domestic violence seriously or not. 

Most of us recall the Access Hollywood video, with transcript, of Trump bragging to TV host Billy Bush about trying to have sex with a woman, whom he moved on “like a bitch.” It was leaked right before the 2016 election. 

“I couldn't get there and she was married. Then all-of-a-sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look. 

“When you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." 

That was different. The woman wasn’t an underage girl and he apologized for what he and others, including his wife Melania, called “locker room talk" or boy talk. 

“No one has more respect for women than I do,” said Trump. 

Jeffrey Epstein is a sex-trafficker of a different color. 

In July 2019, he was arrested in New York and charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. That was more than 10 years after he pleaded guilty and was convicted in Florida for procuring a child for prostitution. His plea deal allowed him to be released after 13 months in custody, with extensive work release. He never went to trial in NY. He died in his jail cell a month after his arrest. Medical examiner’s conclusion: suicide by hanging. Almost three minutes of cell block footage of the time of death is missing. 

On the other hand, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, his long-time associate, who recruited young girls for him, did go to trial. She was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking and conspiracy for helping him procure girls, for child sexual abuse and prostitution. She’s served about three years of a 20-year federal prison sentence and is counting on Trump to do something about it

In 2003, before Epstein served any time, when he was living the high life, with a net worth at about $300 million, he turned 50. He celebrated. Many luminaries celebrated with him and conveyed their wishes. The wishes were compiled by Maxwell in a 238-page birthday book that is now in the possession of Epstein’s estate. The book is replete with photos, poems and doodles. Much has been redacted, in particular, but not only, to protect the identities of underage girls. 








Epstein's birthday book, pages 94, 96, 112, 208, 216 & 217


 

 












Page 165 is Trump’s page. It is not redacted. It comes right after some guy named Stuey’s page of limericks: “Jeffrey at half a century, with credentials plenipotentiary, Though up to no good whenever he could has avoided the penitentiary.” Locker room humor. 

Trump’s page, signed at the bottom of a creative doodle of a woman’s body, frames a pretend transcribed exchange between Epstein and Trump. It is more locker room humor, with a wink: 


They agree there’s more to life than having everything. Trump offers that “enigmas never age,” that a pal is a wonderful thing, and “may every day be another wonderful secret.” 

Epstein’s dead, so your secret’s safe with him. 

Trump has protested that it’s not his signature. Handwriting experts beg to differ. So too does a recent Fox News panel. Trump’s also said he doesn’t doodle. That’s odd. In one of his books, he’s quoted as saying: “It takes me a few minutes to draw something. In my case, it’s usually a building or a cityscape of skyscrapers, and then I sign my name.” 

Old pal, you sell yourself short. Before you spent your loose time on social media post ranting, you doodled. 
Click here to go to website 

In the face of the many photos of Epstein and Trump together, Trump has conceded they once were friends but that Trump broke off the relationship. The reasons for and timing of the fallout are somewhat fluid, according to Poynter’s Politifact in July 2025: 
  • He barred Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club for poaching spa staffers. 
  • In 2020, Miami Herald and The Wall Street Journal reporters reported that the rift dated to late 2007, when Trump told reporters he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after Epstein behaved inappropriately toward a club member’s teenage daughter. 
  • A 2019 Washington Post article cites a 2004 bidding war between Trump and Epstein over a Palm Beach oceanfront mansion as driving a wedge in their relationship. 
It is understandable that any mention of Epstein in relation to Trump angers Trump. His MAGA base has never turned on him before. He characterized the Epstein hubbub as a hoax started by Democrats and called the MAGA base that falls for it “stupid people” and “weaklings” whose support he doesn’t want anymore. 
 Trump's July 16 post on Social Truth 

Stalwarts in the MAGA base and Democrats have zeroed in on Epstein and the release of the Epstein files as the holy grail, presumably to access the scourge of child sex trafficking in high places. The almost singular obsession with the documents, though, has allowed Trump and Senate Republicans to thwart disclosure and buy time. With time, Trump can claim through his Attorney General that almost everything’s been released, Ghislaine Maxwell can cleanse her testimony and erase her memory in exchange for lenient treatment and a pardon (which she’s already done), the sex trafficking victims can be intimidated, Trump can come up with endless distractions, like blowing up one or two Venezuelan ships, to divert attention from the annoyances of the women and girls he respects so much, and the documents can be converted into redactive art pieces. 
 Redactive art-Epstein's birthday book-p. 96 

In dismissing Britain's ambassador to the U.S. the other day, The Brits seem to have enough information to turn their indignation into action. 


In a blockbuster series last week, the New York Times documented how JPMorgan enabled Epstein’s crimes by “supporting — and profiting from — the notorious sex offender, ignoring red flags, suspicious activity and concerned executives.” 

At Epstein’s behest, JPMorgan set up accounts — into which he routinely transferred huge sums — for young women who turned out to be victims of his sex-trafficking operations. In his 50th birthday year, “Epstein withdrew more than $175,000 in cash from his JPMorgan accounts — a huge haul, even for someone with millions at the bank. Outside investigators later found that Epstein paid almost that exact amount to women that year,” the story reported. Epstein’s huge cash withdrawals continued — a total of more than $1.7 million in 2004 and 2005, much of which, according to the NYT, were used to procure girls and young women. 

A spokesman for JPMorgan told the NYT in a statement that the bank’s relationship with Epstein “was a mistake and in hindsight we regret it, but we did not help him commit his heinous crimes.” He added: “We would never have continued to do business with him if we believed he was engaged in an ongoing sex trafficking operation.” Of course not. Who would? 

To my knowledge, no one at JPMorgan has suffered a similar indignity to Britain’s US ambassador. 

Also the other day, an appeals court decision affirmed an $83 million award to writer E. Jean Carroll that reinforced court findings that Trump in fact sexually abused her during a brief encounter with him in a department store dressing room in the 1990s and that he lied by saying he’d never met her, according to Fox News. To date, Carroll has not received any payment. No doubt, Trump is appealing to his Supreme Court. 

So, in some ways, the specter of sexual abuse and sex trafficking in high places is very much alive. In other ways, the consequences of sex trafficking are dormant except for the sustained commitment against immigrants by ICE, the Hestafo, and now Republican South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace who’s introducing legislation - “No More Missing Children Act,” which she says is designed to protect underage minors from trafficking, kidnapping and exploitation. 

She blames the Biden Administration for reckless negligence that left minors “to roam a lawless system, preyed upon by traffickers, predators, and cartels,” Mace said in a statement. She adds that the bill builds on Trump’s mission to rescue missing children and “takes the fight to the criminals exploiting our immigration system,” according to the Daily Caller, the right-wing news and opinion site founded by Tucker Carlson. 

For her part, Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, an unflinching Trump defender and open supporter of QAnon, is having none of it (make that some of it). As reported in The Hill, she recently complained to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the GOP’s old boys club. “They want women just to go along with whatever they’re doing and basically to stand there, smile and clap with approval, whereas they just have their good old boys. 

Along with others in the MAGA base, she’s found herself in Trump’s crosshairs for supporting a discharge petition to release more of the Epstein files. Hedging her bets, she said she doesn’t think Trump is personally involved in the pushback. She’s suggested she's willing to take advantage of the constitutional speech or debate clause to reveal on the House floor sex offenders from Epstein's trafficking ring. 

For Trump’s part, he was deep into the underage girl racket long before Epstein’s 50th birthday. By Trump’s accounts, he got to know Epstein in the late 1980s. “He’s a lot of fun to be with,” Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” 

In 2020, the British daily, The Guardian, published a revealing story with plenty of unredacted photos: Teen models, powerful men and private dinners: when Trump hosted Look of the Year. It recalled Trump’s life in the 1990s when he judged the world’s biggest modelling competition. 

The story includes an account by a young reporter for a magazine in Tel Aviv, who covered Elite’s Look of the Year competition and its after-parties in 1991 and 1992. He remembered seeing girls drinking alcohol, and at one particularly debauched party: “I saw girls sitting on guys’ laps, and I remember one guy putting his hand down a girl’s top. I remember thinking they were younger than me, and I was 17 going on 18.” 

In 1991, as detailed in The Guardian, Trump was a headline sponsor for Look of the Year, throwing open the Plaza, his lavish, chateau-style hotel overlooking Central Park, transforming it into the main venue and accommodating the young models. In 1992, Trump hosted the competition again. 

One of the girls on one of the chartered boats was Shawna Lee, then a 14-year-old from a small town outside Toronto. She recalled how the contestants were encouraged to parade downstairs, one by one, and dance for Trump and others. Lee, an introverted teenager who loved to draw but hated school, was in New York for the first time. “A woman at the agency was pushing me,” she recalled. “I said to her, ‘I don’t see why me going down the stairs and dancing” in front of the men has anything to do with me becoming a model. The agency woman said, ‘No, you look great, take off your blazer and go and do it.’ So I walked down the stairs. I didn’t dance – I blew a kiss at them, spun around and walked away.” 


 Donald Trump with contestants in
1991’s Elite Look of the Year 

A still photo from previously unseen footage
of the 1991 Look of the Year finale 

To take ICE’s p-r campaign at its words, as I’ve written before, instead of using government resources to round up immigrants, lawful permanent residents and visa overstayers, and paying outsized bonuses to attract Hestafo forces, why not zero in on THE WORST OF THE WORST? 
Not hard to find or round up. The evidence of child sex trafficking is in plain sight. Don’t even need more Epstein files. 

Or they can return to reeling in the big fish like Lucino, a 44-year-old sexual predator from Mexico, who’s been convicted of assault with intent to sexually abuse a child in Franklin County, Iowa. 

 ##### 




Tuesday, September 9, 2025

Looking out for my self-interest: How you too can appreciate Trump

[The original version of this blog can be found here.]

I am Jewish, so I support Donald Trump’s still existing Department of Education for its investigations of 60 universities for antisemitic discrimination and harassment. In the meantime, in a show of fierce determination, the Trump administration has frozen more than $1 billion in funding for Cornell and $790 million for Northwestern as the investigations proceed. 

I am over 65 years old, so I’m relieved that Trump decided to not restrict Medicare reimbursement for skin-substitute bandages. He made the decision decisively after meeting at Mar-a-Lago with the head of the biotech company that produces the bandages donated $5 million to MAGA Inc

I live outside Chicago, our kids live in the city, we visit often, hear music, go to plays, eat out and the other day we walked along the 606 trail in the middle of town, so I’m comforted that Trump is intent on summoning the National Guard to take Chicago out of its hell hole while he continues to defund hundreds of organizations across the country haplessly directed at reducing crime and promoting public safety
“Chicago is a hell hole right now” - NBC News 

I am the son of an immigrant who entered the U.S. on a false Polish passport after living in hiding during the Holocaust and preserved the lie for the rest of her life because she feared being deported, so I am impressed at how effective instilling fear in immigrants can be

I studied history in college, where exposure to slavery, reconstruction, segregation, and redlining left me feeling that American exceptionalism isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, so I’m looking forward to Trump making sure that museums like the Smithsonian eliminate exhibits that have me feeling inferior. 

I was a college professor who taught diverse students from all over the world, so I rally behind Trump’s efforts to limit student visas so we can return to classrooms with more recognizable cultural homogeneity. 

I am male, and I realize I’m behind the curve. By last count, 149 of the 155 mass (and school) shootings since 1982 have been perpetrated by men; 43% of men and only 22% of women report owning guns, so I have ground to make up. I don’t own a gun. In the aftermath of the recent Minneapolis Catholic church shooting, an attack that police say was carried out by a 23-year-old transgender woman, I’m relieved that the Trump Justice Department is looking into ways to get to the root of the mayhem by banning transgender Americans from owning weapons

I can get tongue tied. I lose track. I forget words. I am encouraged that when Trump speaks, prepared or not, his “very good brain” seeps out in erratic, incomprehensible bursts. And millions of people lap it up. Oh, to have that secret sauce. 


I am a writer. Brevity matters. I am inspired by the terse ways he expresses essence: “Washington DC is a totally safe zone; it’s called a safe zone…What they’re doing with the Epstein hoax, I think it’s enough….“I ended seven wars.” All separate thoughts spoken to leave a lasting impression. 

I finally have family money, thanks to 35+ years of employee-based savings, so I’m counting on that One, Big, Beautiful Bill giveaway to cut my taxes and reduce my estate taxes so I can be rich, wealthy, yahoo!!

I never served in the military or fought in a war. In I971, I had a draft lottery number of 335. Now that I’m too old to serve, I’m relieved that a president who avoided the draft by having a doctor attest he had bone spurs, and who called soldiers losers and suckers, in particular GOP Arizona Senator John McCain, still has enough warrior in him to change the name of the Defense Dept to the Department of War in time to get people to fear he’s going to invade Chicago with napalm before it was pulled from social media under a cover of darkness: 


The kidder. 

I love music, feature a music trivia site, Lines n’ Lyrix, so I’m atwitter that Trump is taking such an active interest in the Kennedy Center that he’s chosen his headlining cultural alterego to host the Kennedy Center Music Awards, which is likely to attract the largest combined viewing and boycotting audience in its history. 

My family has taken many trips to national parks. My anticipation is mounting that there will a be a new park and monument as soon as the Trump selection committee chooses from among the finalists in an illustrious list- Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping, Bashar al Assad, Nicolás Maduro, Jair Bolsonaro, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Whom to honor in stone just lower than Trump? Construction on Mount Dictators can begin any time. Those nominated need not be deceased no matter how many people wish it were so.

                                                                            #####

Monday, September 8, 2025

Update: Sarah Palin and The New York Times is gone but not forgotten

Update: The two posts I've published on Sarah Palin and The New York Times need another update. The first was on Feb. 8, 2023  - "The New York Times has a way out of its lawsuit with Sarah Palin. Throw the case." With the other, an Aug. 2024 update -"Sarah Palin and The New York Times to go at it again" - they are history; the kind of history that the Supreme Court has the itch to repeat, so keep reading.

In April of this year, a jury in Manhattan did what an earlier jury also did, and concluded that the NYT did not libel Palin in a 2017 editorial. The first verdict didn't stop Palin from appealing so the case stayed alive. About all she said this past April was on a social post: She planned to "keep asking the press to quit making things up." With the Supreme Court's 2025-26 term less than a month away, and the Court digging deep into its summer shadow docket cases for Trump presidency cases, neither the Court nor Palin has hinted that libel is on the horizon, though libel cases pepper other court dockets here and there.
---

Aug. 29, 2024 update: "Sarah Palin and The New York Times to go at it again"

Neither we nor the New York Times has seen the public passing of Sarah Palin. We may have thought we had in Nov. 2022 when she lost an election bid for Congress in Alaska under a pathfinding ranked choice voting system, depicted in the new documentary, Majority Rules. Not so fast. Her potential blockbuster libel suit, that I wrote about 1-1/2 years ago before it was dismissed, is back. A federal appeals court, in a 56-page decision, remanded the case for re-trial. 

Click here to read the NYT story
Its significance rests on it being a vessel for the U.S. Supreme Court to get the case and overturn the landmark 1st Amendment decision in NY Times v. Sullivan. That 1964 ruling has made it much harder for public figures like Palin to win libel lawsuits. The Court's conservative justices have signalled an urge to overturn it, as they've done with Roe v. Wade, and Donald Trump pledged on the campaign trail in 2016“We’re going to open up those libel laws...So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.” 
----
To appreciate the stakes involved, read my original story below that concerned me so deeply that I recommended that the Times throw the case.     

The New York Times has a way out of its lawsuit with Sarah Palin. Throw the case.

Originally published on Feb. 8, 2023 

The New York Times is locked in courtroom battle with Sarah Palin. It might be framed as the titanic clash between the newspaper of record and the Alaskan Russia watchdog. At stake is a bedrock foundation for the First Amendment, through the landmark 1964 case of NYT v. Sullivan

The Times appears to be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It can lose the case, with Palin conceivably being awarded millions in punitive damages. It can win, in which case Palin will appeal all the way to a salivating Supreme Court, risking the rarified preferred position the press has held since 1964. 

I offer an unorthodox third option. From where I sit in the city of the 1919 Chicago Black Sox scandal, I’m rooting for the New York Times to throw the case. Unheard of, so hear me out. 

I can find no mention in the press or public record of an attempt to settle the case as the customary way out for both sides. Maybe it’s out there, but if not, it’s not unusual. Settlement negotiations tend to be closely held secrets from the public and from the jury. 

It’s possible Palin has offered to settle. I doubt it. She’s crusading for the political right that understandably knows a windfall when it drops not far from the fake news tree. The Times may have, and certainly should have, tried to settle. Possibly blocking the way, though, are the paper’s hubristic century-old memory that its publisher chided the paper’s lawyer “to never settle a libel lawsuit to save a little money” entrenched by the paper’s claim to an uninterrupted 50-year-old streak of libel wins. In any event, had the Times tried to settle, there isn’t a chance in this hellish case that Palin would have agreed. 

What’s left? Throw the case. That’s not easy. As the Wicked Witch of the West said in planning how to dispense with Dorothy to capture the ruby slippers: “These things must be done delicately.” Here’s why. 

On a good day, if there were such a thing with this Trump-infused Supreme Court, I’d worry about the Court’s impartiality in a case featuring an iconic GOP standard bearer vs. the paragon of the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!, as Donald Trump has referred to America’s media

And libel is its own kettle of fish. There are two distinct and overlapping strains of vocal Supreme Court logic on libel that have been floated uncharacteristically from the Court as trial balloons. 

In a case from 2019 in which a rape victim had accused Bill Cosby’s attorney of defaming her, Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the Court’s decision to not take the case. He chose to elaborate. Classifying the rape victim as a “limited purpose public figure” needing to prove by clear and convincing evidence, like public officials must, that Cosby’s lawyer had acted with reckless disregard was not, according to Thomas, grounded in the original meaning of the 1st Amendment. 

Thomas, who has become the Court’s most unrepentant cherry picker of strict construction obstructionism, sees the seminal 1964 case of NYT v. Sullivan and the Court’s decisions extending it as “policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.” In his concurrence, Thomas listed a carefully selected catalogue of the nation’s years of historical antecedents. They left him unconvinced that the 1st and 14th Amendments should be interpreted to mean that Congress and the states shall make no laws abridging freedom of the press even if those laws allow public officials to financially shut down the press so the officials can continue to use their badges of honored service to beat the dickens out of protesters in the South. As Thomas wrote, “We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified.” 

Justice Neil Gorsuch released his own libel trial balloon last July in a case in which the son of a former Albanian prime minister was implicated in a U.S. defense contract to supply ammunition to the Afghan military by procuring weapons from stockpiles in Albania. The case was dismissed because the lower courts concluded that such a public figure couldn’t possibly prove that the book publisher had acted with reckless disregard by contriving to manufacture the truth. 

Gorsuch’s reservations about NYT v. Sullivan differ from Thomas’. Gorsuch’s stem from the out of control evolution of media in a digital age. "Not only has the doctrine evolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods on a scale no one could have foreseen, it has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted," Gorsuch wrote. Now, "virtually anyone in this country can publish virtually anything for immediate consumption virtually anywhere in the world." The Supreme Court didn’t take that libel case either. 

Thomas and Gorsuch have thrown down the gauntlet. The Court is primed to take on the New York Times and to drag down with it the all too often overlooked role of an indispensable free press in a country teetering on the brink of a frayed democracy if not autocracy. A recent empirical study of “The U.S. Supreme Court's Characterizations of the Press” by a University of Utah professor found “a substantial correlation between ideology and the Justices’ attitudes toward the press” that “reveal troubling trends at the Court, with widespread implications for any discussion of contemporary press freedom.” 

Here’s why Palin v. NYT is just the right trojan horse at the right’s time. 

NYT v. Sullivan cannot be appreciated without some recall of the Civil Rights movement in the South in the ‘60s. In taking laws into their own hands, lawmakers from legislators to sheriffs imposed their will on blacks and on protesters. The whole world was watching thanks to the free press, local and national, that is until lawmakers filed smothering libel suits. To win, the lawmakers needed to prove to a local jury only that something reported was false even in the most negligible way, like reporting that protesters marching to the state capitol were singing My Country Tis of Thee, not the Star Spangled Banner, and that the stories referring to the lawmakers put them in a worse light to some people after reading the stories. That’s it. Not even financial damages were needed. That’s what state laws could and did allow until the Supreme Court began “meddling in this area” in 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified,” as Justice Thomas wrote. 

In contrast to Thomas’ predetermined reading of history, the Court’s unanimous opinion in Sullivan, which was issued when Thomas was 16 years old, addressed posterity in framing the case “against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. 

In concurring, Justice William O’ Douglas, often the ornery conscience of the Court in such matters, combined with Justice Hugo Black, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, in writing: “This Nation, I suspect, can live in peace without libel suits based on public discussions of public affairs and public officials. But I doubt that a country can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer physically or financially for criticizing their government, its actions, or its officials.” 

”It was a majestic opinion,’ summarized Floyd Abrams, a prominent 1st Amendment lawyer who’s represented the Times. “It had a command of American history that is rare in a judicial opinion. It reminded us of how young we are as a country.” 

NYT v. Sullivan has often been regarded as one of the most enduring exports of American democracy. 

Or you can value Thomas’ veneration for justice and American history. 

A critical and at the time heralded historical misdirection came later in the ‘60s and in the ‘70s when a series of Supreme Court decisions extended NYT v. Sullivan’s carefully circumscribed applicability of the protective 1st Amendment freedom that liberated breathing room to cover the actions and misdeeds of “public officials. The opinions applied the same rigorous “reckless disregard for truth or falsity” standard to the bottomless public arena that tracks in “public figures” whose special sauce is that they can commandeer microphones and sound systems that resemble the social media influencers of today. Trouble is that has allowed all breeds of media, often as crude as the self-serving celebs they cover, to have a preferred, almost exalted, position when they cover the territory with bravado and one-upmanship that relegates truth to a commodity indistinguishable from clickbait or promotional loss leaders. That is more to Judge Gorsuch’s point and it’s a nettlesome one at that.

Once the province of vigilant watchdogs of governments, public officials and democracy devolved into the hobnobbers with public figures and into the makers and breakers of celebrities, it’s a slithery slope to get to Donald Trump, the real estate mogul, but not yet ignominious public official. No wonder that the pre-public official Trump emerged from his real estate-TV Apprenticeship period into the political arena already committed publicly to eviscerating the 1st Amendment. At about that time, public figure and Trump’s wife Melania pursued a lucratively successful series of libel suits that stemmed from stories brazenly reporting of rumors of her involvement in a high end escort service. She reaped a huge, though undisclosed, settlement, because the lead case targeted the British press, which is unprotected by NYT v. Sullivan and the 1st Amendment. 

Just as Trump has set the table for the public to distrust election results and fake news, he descended the escalator into electoral politics in June 2015 toting a resolute agenda to undermine NYT v. Sullivan, the 1st Amendment and libel. “We’re going to open up those libel laws,” Trump pledged on the campaign trail. “So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.” 

******

So here we are now back in Manhattan in week 2 of Palin v. NYT. If you were to follow the American press and its naïve, complacent, even blind, over-reliance on the onerous reckless disregard standard appended to the 1st Amendment, you might think, I believe potentially disastrously, that Palin and her lawyers’ admission to an “uphill fight,” as the Politico headline read last week, means that the Times has the upper hand as is typical in libel cases. Or as the Times’ own coverage reported Jan. 23, “Though defenders of broad First Amendment protections for the media have said Ms. Palin’s evidence is weak, they also acknowledged that a jury could decide otherwise.” 

The basis for the complacency has been pierced. More than five years ago, in Aug. 2017, the trial judge in the case dismissed Palin’s suit, ruling that under no set of facts could Palin meet the high burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the Times had published the facts in the editorial with reckless disregard for their truth. Palin appealed. It took two years for the appeals court in 2019 to reverse and send the case back to the trial court where it is now. 

In issuing its opinion, the unanimous appeals panel provided an unusual sneak peek at some of the evidence. 

The dispute is over an editorial published by the Times on June 14, 2017, the same day that a gunman opened fire at a baseball field in Virginia where Republican congressmen were practicing. GOP Congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana was among those injured. The editorial, headlined “America’s Lethal Politics,” asked whether the Virginia shooting was evidence of how vicious American politics had become. It recounted another incident from six years earlier when in 2011 Democratic Congresswoman Gabby Gifford of Arizona suffered severe brain damage and partial paralysis during an attempted assassination in which six others were killed by the gunman. 

The editorial page editor assigned the editorial to an established editorial page writer. After the draft was written, it went back to the editorial page editor who inserted a reference dating back to the 2011 massacre that added the context that the earlier shooting occurred after Palin’s fundraising political action committee had circulated a map putting Gifford and 19 other Democrats under “stylized cross hairs.” 
The revised editorial made a distinction between the two shootings. In the earlier shooting, “the link to political incitement was clear.” No one reviewed the editorial after the revisions and it was published. 

Almost immediately that day it became apparent that the gunman in 2011 had no access to the Palin committee map putting Gifford and 19 other Democrats under “stylized cross hairs.” Therefore there was no “link to political incitement.” Moreover, the claim of a link to political incitement had been debunked years earlier. 

The Times changed the editorial text online by deleting “the link to political incitement was clear” and toning it down to: “But no connection” to the shooting and Palin’s PAC’s map “was ever established.” 

By morning with a firestorm gathering even within the paper, The Times published two separate corrections. 

From basically those facts, the trial judge had concluded that no matter what other facts might be introduced at trial, the actions of the Times and its staffers would at most amount to an unintentional screw up of a severity rising merely to negligence, as the law calls it, insufficient for the higher threshold of “reckless disregard” for arriving at the truth. 

The appeals court must have used a more refined lens than the trial judge. Among the facts the panel summoned in sending the case back for trial, it noted that a jury might see “reckless disregard,” knowing that: 

1. The editorial page editor who single-handedly inserted the revisions that brought Palin into the story and linked her committee to political incitement, was James Bennet. 

2. Bennet had previously been editor-in-chief at The Atlantic during which time the magazine had published a number of stories about the Gabby Gifford shooting, including one entitled, “Ten Days That Defined 2011,” which read in part, “the bad thing to come out of this already terrible story was a round of blame hurling, with people rushing to point at Sarah Palin’s infamous target map.” That story clarified that the gunman was clinically insane and the atrocity was “not really about politics at all.” 

3. Bennet has staked out the position under oath that he has no recollection of the content of the story in The Atlantic. The appeals panel considered two options a jury might conclude from that; either he was reckless when he published the editorial without reacquainting himself with the contrary articles published in The Atlantic six years earlier, or he’s lying. 

4. Bennet resigned from the Times in June 2020 under a cloud because of “a significant breakdown in our editing processes” relating to the publication of an op-ed entitled “Send In the Troops” by a GOP senator from Arkansas who was advocating for a military response to civic unrest. 
 
5. Bennet’s brother, Michael, has served as a Democratic Senator from Colorado since 2009 and is a strong proponent of gun reform legislation. The appeals panel wrote that the Bennet brothers are both “outspoken advocate[s] for gun control” and raised the possibility that a jury might find that Bennet had “reason to be personally hostile toward Palin, her political party, and her pro-gun stance. 

6. The appeals panel gave weight to the Times’ argument that the paper couldn’t have acted with reckless disregard for the story’s truth in that it published corrections the day after the editorial ran. Yet the panel concluded that it’s also “plausible that the correction was issued after a calculus that standing by the editorial was not worth the cost of the public backlash.” 
 
7. Part of the backlash came from The Times itself. One of the paper’s opinion columnists, Ross Douthat, emailed Bennet at about 10:30 the night story posted: “I would be remiss if I didn’t express my bafflement at the editorial we just ran…There was not, and continues to be so far as I can tell, no evidence that (the gunman) was incited by Sarah Palin or anyone else, given his extreme mental illness and lack of any tangential connection to that crosshair map.” Bennet responded about a half-hour later that he’d look into it in the morning. 

In case you’re curious as I was, the three-judge panel was composed of two judges who were appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan and one by Barack Obama. The trial judge was appointed by Bill Clinton. 

*****
 
The trial is in New York City. The New York Times has home field advantage over Palin. If you are of the left, as New York culture is, you may regard Palin as a joke, the butt of spot-on Saturday Night Live skits by Tina Fey, the albatross running mate around the neck of John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, and as having finally gone away as Paul Waldman wrote recently in The American Prospect

Palin’s legal team are no one’s fools. To get the multi-million dollar jury verdict they covet, they need to neutralize the home field advantage. The “uphill fight” they cop to publicly and in front of the jury is scripted in bold letters suitable for a Times Square marquee: Super soaker celeb vs. big bad media

Some of you may recall a similar headliner event, Hulk Hogan (or should I say alter ego Terry Bollea) v. Gawker, that resulted in a 2016 jury verdict against the media for $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million more in punitive damages, all for the unauthorized release of a sex tape. 

The implicit question for the Palin juror is to whom do they want to teach a lesson? A much maligned, media-bashed celeb or the big bad media, keeping in mind that since the 2016 Hogan verdict, Trump and the right wing have fumigated the landscape with toxic fake news mantras so repellent that millions of people won’t touch the stuff or their information, vaccines, masks, or climate changes. 

The jury is obliged to color within the lines. It must conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the Times and its employees acted with “reckless disregard” for whether the facts included in the editorial were true when they were published. The states of mind of the players matter. 

When I teach libel law, I tend to deploy a gutteral device to get the point across to avoid, for instance, the diametrical interpretations used in this case by the trial judge and the ones enumerated by the three-judge appeals panel. 

Being Jack, I use the “Jack spit test.” If in publishing a story, you don’t really "give Jack spit" if the facts are true or false, then you’re acting with reckless disregard for their truth. Then for effect, I turn to the right (my favored direction) and let out a spitless chock-tooey. 

That will be the jury’s charge. Under the facts as I fear them now, with Bennet now testifying, I think the odds for journalism are painfully prohibitive. If the jury were to side with the Times, Palin will appeal and appeal again until the Supreme Court gets its crack at deciding that such jury instructions on reckless disregard should no longer be given involving public figures, maybe even public officials. The Court would then likely return the case to be retried, using a jury instruction more favorable to Palin and in the future, less favorable to well-meaning and industrious new outlets. 

With the facts as treacherous for the Times as they are in this case anyway, I counsel: Throw the case, if your liability insurance company lets you. You still have time to protect your flanks as you play out your trial strategy. Keep Palin from being portrayed either so sympathetically that she emerges as a victim indefensible to the rapacious powers of the big, bad media or villainously that you make her out to be a gold digger who needs this to revive her political career. As for how to present the Times, of course be remorseful but don’t go so far as to dig in your editorial heels that it was obviously an honest mistake because The New York Times never has libeled anyone and never will. 

If in the process, with James Bennet’s almost singular culpability for the edits in the Palin piece, it may appear that you’re throwing a fellow journalist under the bus. That’s always unseemly. If it comes to pass in throwing the case, I suggest a modest re-calibration of the saying that will reveal an ethical imperative. It’s revoking the license of a runaway bus driver. Ralph Cramden would approve

#####

Jack Doppelt is an emeritus professor of journalism at Northwestern University, who regularly taught Media Law & Ethics in which he characterized NYT v. Sullivan as one of the two most seminal cases for journalists to learn. Many of his writings are available on Substack at https://substack.com/@jackcdoppelt. He is a perennial subscriber to, and trusting reader of, the New York Times. 

Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Public notice for HESTAFO jobs: 10,000 jobs for the taking

[This essay was originally published on Substack here]

It’s your time, pardoned patriots, constitutional sheriffs, militia bros, dudes, and other DEI victims. 

The big, beautiful bill has your back and your future. The act President Trump signed into law on the 4th of July with full-throated support from the Republican Congress is about to open up 10,000 jobs for you and others wanting to fulfill his perceived mandate for mass deportations. 

 Team Trump Instagram page 

As the Heritage Foundation's Lora Ries, one of Fox News’ experts, told viewers, this is not about “just the worst of the worst but any kind.” Gone is that old, tired game plan. 

“The game changer is the resources for ICE,” she proclaimed. ICE, with the HESTAFO (Homeland Security Task Forces) behind it, can now go after “any deportable alien, whether they’ve overstayed a visa,” anything - 10,000 more agents and 100,000 more detention beds. $30 billion dollars. 

“Congress said ICE can use the money to hire additional deportation officers and other staff; retain current personnel through bonuses; increase transportation assets supporting deportation efforts; and expand and facilitate agreements that allow state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws,” according to CBS News. After all, immigrants are trespassers and squatters, all illegals either when they entered the country or when they overstayed their visas. Paying taxes doesn’t take that away. 

Like other trespassers and squatters, they must face the consequences, be rounded up and deported. To anywhere. 

There are thousands of people needing jobs. Maybe they’ll be decent folks whose MAGA pedigree can be vouched for, are trained in law enforcement or the military, and will find it wearisome to have to pledge allegiance to a government that dehumanizes immigrants and deifies their leader. I pray that will be the case. 

They may be up against a culture of pardoned January 6th insurrectionists (there are 1,500 of them), hundreds of constitutional sheriffs whose oaths give them supreme power over shepherding God's land, according to Jessica Pishko, author of The Highest Law in the Land, countless MAGAs who feel deeply that immigrants and those favored by diversity, equity, and inclusion have grievously cut in line ahead of them and need to be returned to where they belong, more than a hundred statewide and local armed militias, not even counting the national poster militiamen like The Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters, and regular Joes with histories of domestic abuse. 

No matter who’s hired, the mission is clear. Trump’s HESTAFO is committed to exponentially improving on its trumped up, grossly exaggerated, “preposterous,” and selective numbers of arrests and deportations. according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse’s (TRAC) report, Trump Claims on Immigration Enforcement: Rhetoric vs Reality, from May. 

The report came out weeks before Trump re-launched a tripled up trial balloon, pledging to deport 4 million people over four years. Fox News comforted its MAGA base that Trump directs ICE to expand deportation efforts in America's largest cities. For senior White House aide Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's immigration crackdown, do the math. It comes to 3,000 arrests per day

Trump is well aware that his drumbeat to dehumanize immigrants in order to ramp up mass deportations risks backfiring. “In general, Americans’ views of immigration policies have shifted dramatically in the last year,” Gallup’s most recent polling shows — “including among Republicans, who have become much more content with immigration levels since Trump took office but who have also grown more supportive of pathways to citizenship for people in the country illegally,” the Associated Press reported

A master of diversionary “look over there” techniques, Trump deployed the yearlong celebration of the nation’s 250th anniversary to wrap immigrant farm workers, the farmers who hire them, and immigrant hospitality workers in the flag he hugs. 

Yuri Gripas/REUTERS [click here to go to CNN story

The Hill quoted Trump extensively: “I cherish our farmers. And when we go into a farm and we take away people that have been working there for 15 and 20 years, who were good, who possibly came in incorrectly. And what we’re going to do is, we’re going to do something for farmers where we can let the farmer sort of be in charge,” Trump said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo. 

“The farmer knows he’s not going to hire a murderer.” During a speech in Iowa, the president warned that if the farmers do not do a “good job, we’ll throw them out of the country.” 

“We’ll let the illegals stay, and we’ll throw the farmer the hell out, okay? Get ready, farmer,” he said. 

Later in the month, the Hill reported, “Trump said during an interview on Fox News that a temporary pass would be issued to migrants in the hospitality industry and on farms to allow their employers to have more control.” 

Bunk, hokum. Or fast forward to now, a few weeks later, as undocumented farm workers feel “hunted like animals” amid Trump’s immigration raids. 

The farm system Trump, Miller, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem are investing in is the HESTAFO, which is about to be rife with as many pardoned patriots, constitutional sheriffs, militiamen and aggrieved DEI victims as they can cram into 10,000 jobs in a hurry. 

The refugee resettlement program, in comparison, that Trump suspended in his first weeks in office after accusing the agency of failing to have proper procedures to vet applicants could typically take up to three years and involved interviews, background checks, biometric screening, medical screenings, and multi-stage vetting processes designed to ensure the security of both the refugees and the U.S. Another for instance: 

The Chicago Police Department (CPD) vetting process for police officer applicants includes a comprehensive background investigation, a written exam, drug screening, interviews, a polygraph exam, and a physical test. They must also undergo psychological and medical screenings before receiving a formal job offer. If hired, they do not wear masks. 

Apparently, unlike the Hestafo, Chicago police are safe on the streets. The criminals they arrest are compliant. Nothing like the HESTAFO. One year ago, from Jan. 21, 2024, to June 30, 2024, Homeland Security reported only 10 assault events. Now, only a year later, with ICE and other federal agents rounding up and arresting people from city to city on a daily basis and pledging to tally 3,000 arrests a day, they’re shocked, shocked to find out there are people resisting indiscriminate arrests. By Homeland Security numbers, they’ve recorded 79 assault events. 

Whoa baby, as Homeland Security will tell Fox News, and Fox News will tell you in bold and exclusive fanfare: DHS: Assaults on ICE now up nearly 700% over same time last year: Assaults on ICE officers up 690% this year, DHS reports to Fox News. [Added: Within a week, ICE spiked the numbers to 830% over the prior year.]
Take your time, Homeland Security. The Trump mandate is entitled to vetting befitting a refugee resettlement program or city police departments. We don’t want illegals slipping into the mix, or we could have law enforcement officers who violate federal campaign disclosure laws by secretly siphoning $80,000 into their own companies or people who falsify business records as part of a hush money scheme to influence an election or people convicted of disorderly conduct or trespassing or assault on or interfering with law enforcement officers


The new 10,000 HESTAFO applicants will know going in that they’ve got pardons in their pockets. 

The jobs ad campaign writes itself. 

Applicants: You have the opportunity to work for a Homeland Security Secretary who cares about you and your opinions. When Kristi Noem was Governor of South Dakota, she asked her Instagram followers which of three photos of her on horseback should be hung as the official Governor’s portrait in the South Dakota State Capitol
[Cut to an AI version of Mae West saying, "Is that a pardon in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"] 
 Mae West


######