Profane Politics

Polite politics is an oxymoron -- Pug Mahoney

   There was a time when news media almost never printed or broadcast profanity, or used the L-word in reference to politicians.
   Now we have a president who regularly uses, in public, at campaign rallies and on live television terms that used to be deemed not usable in polite society, much less printable in daily newspapers.
   But "polite" no longer seems to be an apt term to describe the current president of the United States of America.
   He routinely insults, disparages, demeans and dismisses as unworthy of polite treatment anyone who disagrees with him on anything, in any detail, ever.
   Yet he objects when journalists report accurately what he says and does, especially when it conflicts with truth, reality and the American way.
   As if presidential threats -- even real, physical threats -- will stop reporters from doing the job guaranteed them by the Constitution.
   He routinely threatens reporters with lawsuits alleging libel, and demanding huge sums of money in compensation.
   Oddly, these threats are often empty, since such libel suits are seldom filed. As if threats are enough for a bully to get his way.
   While that may work with contractors in the private sector, it does not work with journalists whose typical reaction is, "Bring it on."
   In any case, the laws of libel vary by state, and in general are far more loose when it comes to public figures. There is also the principle of fair comment.
   No figure is more public than the president of the United States, and more open to comment on what he says and does. Moreover, when the reporting is true and accurate, and the commentary is based on verifiable fact, no one has a supportable base for a libel suit.
  As for the $20 million lawsuit filed against actress-porn star Stormy Daniels in an attempt to prevent her from talking publicly about what she says is an affair she had with Trump, that opens a major legal can of worms.
   For one thing, unless it goes to arbitration, which is not likely, the president will be subject to discovery questions by lawyers as to who paid Ms Daniels $130,000 in hush money, and why. For another, that information could detail and support allegations of conspiracy to cover up the issue and to obstruct the judicial process.
   And there is also the question of whether CBS News can broadcast its interview with Ms Daniels on the 60 Minutes television interview program. In turn, that raises a First Amendment freedom of the press issue.
   The days of a woman's allegations being dismissed simply because she is a woman, beautiful, and an actress, are long gone.