NBC News reports.
The suit, filed Monday night in Polk County, Iowa, says it seeks “accountability for brazen election interference” over a Nov. 2 poll that showed Kamala Harris up 3 percentage points in Iowa. Trump ultimately won the state by double digits, a difference that his lawyers argue in the suit constitutes “election-interfering fiction.” The president-elect is making the claim under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits deceptive advertising....Well, it's not just advertising. It covers "advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the solicitation of contributions for charitable purposes." But still, it's hard to see how that could cover deceptions in the form of political polls — however dishonest — published — however corruptly — in the news portion of a newspaper. I'm not looking at the complaint, however. I understand the outrage, and maybe there oughta be a law, but how can it be the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act? Who was to be bamboozled out of anything? The Trump campaign? (That is: Come waste time and money in Iowa and stay out of those blue-wall states that will actually determine the election.)
পোস্টগুলি
১০১টি মন্তব্য:
Lawfare leads to tit-for-tat trench warfare. Expect many hostiles to crawl away very soon.
So? Democrats twisted the law to screw Trump... turnabout is fair play.
"it's hard to see how that could cover deceptions in the form of political polls — however dishonest — published — however corruptly — in the news portion of a newspaper."
It is hard to see. Perhaps this is just to discover/expose a big payment to Selzer. That's something I'd like to know.
Where there's "with malice" smoke, there's probably "with malice" fire.
what were his damages? sounds like not much
Don't they have to have some basis for pleading deception? It's hard to see why Selzer would have deliberately torched her own credibility by being so far wrong. If they get to discovery, my guess is that they'll just find that she made a huge mistake.
I wonder if Trump has evidence that the poll was intentionally misleading in some way?
No damages? Statute doesn’t really cover it? Easy solution, sue them in New York.
Obviously, the sports desk should take over for the news dept.
"It's hard to see why Selzer would have deliberately torched her own credibility by being so far wrong."
The Harris campaign blew through $1.5 billion in 15 weeks, including for things seemingly as frivolous as $1.5 million for set design (for Oprah) and $815,000 for a week long run at The Sphere in Las Vegas.
If Selzer had a price, how much would it be? Sounds like a job for discovery!
The process is the punishment. Ms. Selzer is (probably) going to win but the costs involved will be tremendous.
Something about bringing a gun to a knife fight. The process is the punishment as we have seen with countless republicans.
No, he does not. He is abusing the legal system in an effort to suppress the press, not quite in direct violation of the first amendment (as he is currently a private citizen) but come January 20, it will certainly will be, especially if he uses the Justice Department to bring such nonsense suits.
Not sure why Trump would care about Selzer. But maybe this is to discourage future shenanigans.
The statute in question prohibits (among other things) fraud in connection with the solicitation of contributions for charitable purposes, so there may be an angle that the poll was designed to fool people into donating to the Harris/Dem campaigns.
"It's hard to see why Selzer would have deliberately torched her own credibility"
She was retiring. Combine that with a big payoff…
Can it be argued that a poll like that had the intent of boosting campaign contributions? If folks knew the actual numbers they likely would have not thrown more money the D way.
"He is abusing the legal system"
Your rhetorical Rubicon was crossed quite some time ago.
Dismissed for failure to state a claim, with sanctions for filing a legally frivolous lawsuit.
It would interesting to find out if Selzer was paid by the Harris Campaign for the erroneous poll.
Using consumer protection laws to attack political speech. That’s exactly what people have been calling for right? To regulate truth?
This new free speech absolutism sure is complicated. The process is the punishment. The merits don’t matter one bit, it’s all about causing expense and stress.
When ABC settled a defendable lawsuit, they opened the doors to more of this.
Polling is mathematics/statistics-adjacent. There is no black box. It's psuedo-scientific, but it's not magic.
Make her show her work.
And you objected strongly to Biden's use of lawfare (even though there is zero evidence that Biden encouraged or ordered the various lawsuits and convictions), but now it is okay.
Perhaps, Althouse's "hypocrisy" tag should be attached to all future posts about Trump.
Democrat big donors were probably the main victims with provable damages. Of course, the Harris campaign was defrauding them even more directly, as Plouffe's admission that none of their internal polling showed them leading in any of the swing states showed.
Who was to be bamboozled out of anything? Anytime the media manipulates data and lies to the public, the public is bamboozled. It's fraud. This woman KNEW her poll was fake, and agreed to carry Kamala's water and publish it.
There should be raw data behind her poll, and her methodology should be clear. Maybe it doesn't violate the law. Good for Trump going after this type of shit.
Now go after Marquette's manipulated polls in Wisconsin.
Or the poll could have just as easily reduced contributions because people thought, "we got this, no need to contribute more".
The ad on the sphere was not exactly a "week long run"
It was 5 days, 90 seconds per day for $815m. About $1,800 per second
John Henry
This lawsuit is ACLU or NAACP quality
Be careful with italics! Don't leave them open.
As for "It's hard to see why Selzer would have deliberately torched her own credibility by being so far wrong." There was a big prize to win. Tipping the election. It seemed like a last-ditch effort. And the credibility of this pollster was what made it thinkable. It might work. But maybe it was just blundering. Insane, huge, earthshaking... mistake-making.
You’ll know there was something to discover when the settlement is announced…
With liberal/leftwing judges justice and the law are irrelevant. All that matters is "who/whom". If this case comes before a Conservative justice, it will probably be given a fair hearing and dismissed for the reasons Althouse stated. If it comes before a leftwing judge it will instantly dismissed. For reasons of politics.
Freder is right. It is a bullsh*t suit, like the 34 felonies for "election interference" in New York were.
The woman is a leftist, and has been doing polling for sometime. Her bad result (she was off by 15 points) could only the through deliberate lying about the data. Trump wants to damage her reputation, which should be damaged. She's a propagandist for the Democrat Party, not a journalist or a pollster.
She did show her work in the aftermath of the election and the paper's embarrassment at being so far off.
"only our side gets to do this stuff! Unfair!" - shorter Freder
"Who was to be bamboozled out of anything? The Trump campaign? (That is: Come waste time and money in Iowa"
EXACTLY!
the ENTIRE SCAM, was to (try to) get the Trump campaign to spend money on Des Moines Register ads.
Trump had Iowa LOCKED UP, but when this "poll*" came out, the word on X was all: "OH! LOOK! They're not even ahead in IOWA! HAHAHAHAHAH"
poll* a "poll" that didn't report party registration.. Which meant that it was THE ONLY poll the Register did that didn't report that
Since America loves to reward useless parasites, aka lawyers, and judges, lets do this. This time make Democrats suffer for what they have done for decades.
Musk can afford to finance thousands of lawsuits. And the EPA, the IRS et al can help to ruin a huge number of people who spent the last 8 years trying to destroy Trump, and anyone who agreed with him.
The left will never agree to work together. Their entire existence is based on greed, power, and lies.
And yes, it is a disgusting way to run government. But I didn't make the rules, the left did.
As a Trump support since 2015, I've lost jobs, been assaulted, spit on- all because of my political beliefs.
You may call it revenge, retribution, justice- I could care less.
Milei President of Argentina , said it best. Leftist are sh+t. and should be treated that way.
“Solicitations of contributions for charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of a political organization as defined in section 13C.1
I wondered if maybe there was some argument that the, inaccurate as to reality, poll affected people's decision to donate or not donate to a political group, but that seems outside the scope of the law. Assuming that the motivation for publishing this poll was to try and depress Republican turnout and boost Democrat turnout, these are the sort of people that need to be targeted for lawfare in a tit-for-tat strategy. There will always be people at the top who are willing to press any avenue available to them to get more power, but if these mid-level operative types start experiencing negative outcomes for their actions they will be much more hesitant to engage in that behavior in the future.
"And you objected strongly to Biden's use of lawfare (even though there is zero evidence that Biden encouraged or ordered the various lawsuits and convictions), but now it is okay."
Who is this directed at? Me? I am aiming the same style of cruel neutrality at Trump that I aimed at Biden. I challenge you to quote statements from me about the 2 men on the subject of "lawfare" that shows me changing my attitude. The difference you're seeing is caused by your own distorted perspective of partisanship. I am not infected by that. Too bad you can't appreciate the what I am devoting myself to providing.
The "poll" intentionally oversampled Democrat Party voters, then HID this
Scott Adams read seltzers denial yesterday on the podcast.
Conspicuously missing was any actual denial that she jacked the poll results.
Discovery should be interesting. Was she asked to leave polling by the newspaper? Or did she really decide now is the time to hang it up?
John Henry
Embarrassment/being wrong ≠ "work shown"...should've used that one in grade school algebra though.
Yes.
"Don't they have to have some basis for pleading deception?"
Sure there is. All they have to do is admit that they conduct polls in an exercise to influence public opinion. 'See? Our polls are really just editorials !'. That's all they have to say.
If they ever get to discovery, it should be interesting.
Won't be cheap to defend and, as others have pointed out, Discovery could be a gold mine, but you have to have an open action for Discovery to be possible.
This is the best time in a long time to make the rubble bounce.
I can't see how this will be that productive. Selzer is retiring and her last hurrah was a huge joke.
the only liability I can imagine here is maybe that if Selzer jacked the poll in coordination with the Harris campaign to use to solicit further donations on the eve of the election.
This action follows the Texas Federal action using that state's consumer protection statute to sue CBS over a Kamala Harris interview. A motion to dismiss is pending arguing that the the statute is inapplicable. If that motion is granted I expect this lawsuit to go away.
As mentioned so often, the process is the punishment. Let Democrat activists feel the personal/financial pain that Trump supporters have felt.
"there is zero evidence that Biden encouraged or ordered the various lawsuits and convictions"
ummm - https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/nathan-wade-white-house-meetings-trump-georgia-probe-transcript
"And the credibility of this pollster was what made it thinkable."
That's what Inga was arguing. She was ecstatic. Women were going to deliver for Harris and she was going to rub it in everybody's faces!
Her response to the Selzer poll might shed some light on the motivate of the people perpetrating this hoax. It certainly lit a fire under her.
Where were the damages in the Trump/Deutsche Bank loan thingy.
Comedy gold from Freder.
I’m not an Iowa lawyer, but their main consumer protection law requires a connection to a consumer purchase.
I’m sure Trump’s legal team has thought this through in their usual inimitable way.
I've started making it a habit to watch "2way" on YouTube every morning at 9am, and sometimes their evening show. It's hosted by Mark Halperin (who was bounced out of major media after sexual harassment allegations) with cohosts Sean Spicer and Dan Turrentine, the latter a longtime Democratic strategist. They're all outstanding in this role and get along well.
It's a great show focused on the day's politics that brings together people across the political spectrum--including viewers who participate usually in the second half-hour--and you get a lot of the inside scoop and atmospherics because of all of their years and contacts. BUT anyway....
They've been saying for awhile how much more measured and discipined Trump is this time around, and used yesterday's extended Trump presser as an example. And I agree. But this Selzer suit sounds like a mis-step from the old days. As Spicer said this morning, Trump is and still needs to be Trump, we're talking in generalities here. But there are so much bigger fish to fry including on the lawfare front. I hope he has some solild foundation for extraordinary malfeasance.
As it happens, Halperin holds Selzer in very high regard, apparently they're old friends, and was very defensive when the first allegations of Selzer trying to throw the Iowa election surfaced. He even had her on the show shortly afterwards. He was on board with criticizing the poll per se, but not her integrity. I'll be watching to see how he handles this development.
Of course they have, in the same inimitable way they just got ABC to pay Trump $15 million.
Lawfare the shit out of all of ‘em.
Pour encourager les autres
This lawsuit does seem odd, but maybe the goal is not another cash settlement for the Trump Presidential Library fund, but depositions and discovery. Maybe Trump has heard rumors about collusion between Selzer and Harris or Selzer, Harris, and members of Des Moines Register editorial board aimed at benefiting the Harris campaign or harming the Trump campaign.
Youtube and other SM outlets are full of wild claims and prognostications posted in the week before 11/5, virtually all of them based on Selzer's bizarre outlier poll. Were all those people crazy and/or stupid? Or were they defrauded -- cheated out of their reputations? It's certainly possible to be both defrauded and stupid (e.g. the infamous champagne bibber, "Dr. Arlene").
We don't know what cards Trump's lawyers are holding, but it would be a mistake to assume they're bluffing. Getting ABC to settle on a defamation charge was frankly astonishing given the Sullivan rules. Those guys know something.
The italics were me. I apologize. I deleted the offending post. I'm having trouble with the responsiveness of my iPad's touch screen.
It's interesting that the non-closure problem doesn't appear in the nested-comment format, only in the chronological format. (At least for me.)
Maybe Selzer was bribed. Maybe she was blackmailed. Getting that infamous "outlier" may not have been accidental. Maybe Selzer engineered it? Of all Iowans Selzer would have known how to thumb the scale, which precincts to over-sample, which to under-sample or ignore.
As for "It's hard to see why Selzer would have deliberately torched her own credibility by being so far wrong." There was a big prize to win. Tipping the election. It seemed like a last-ditch effort. And the credibility of this pollster was what made it thinkable. It might work. But maybe it was just blundering. Insane, huge, earthshaking... mistake-making.
And this rises to the level of a law suit how?
It is incredible how quickly you are willing to credit bullshit assumptions and conspiracy theories.
You should publicly declare that your "cruel neutrality" was bullshit from day one of your blog.
It was such a ridiculous poll that only the most diehard Democrat partisans believed it. There could be a perfectly reasonable explanation, but it does smell fishy.
Stephanopolous paraphrased what Lewis Kaplan, the judge in the E. Jean Carroll rape case, said. Kaplan noted this:
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ”
Both Trump and Mace are adept at playing the victim card. Mace came to Congress when her husband who was elected died before he could take office. People thought she would be a moderate conservative but has turned out to be a true MAGA. Her main activities in Congress appear to be dreaming up antics to rev up the base for fundraising.
You’d think MAGA world would be exhausted by having their donations directed to frivolous lawsuits. Keep sending those checks.
I'm using it in same sense as you.
"Not sure why Trump would care about Selzer. But maybe this is to discourage future shenanigans."
As with the JD Vance pick, Trump is thinking about the future.
That's what should concern the Donks. If you have a POTUS that is thinking about the next four years, in which he will likely play no active part, then you can bet he's serious about handing out some remedial whacks.
And, in their hubris, The Donks provided every precedent for him to do so.
Opinion sampling by polls is valid mathematically if you adhere to the necessary assumptions, that you randomly sample the population. Since it is next to impossible to do that, pollers use adjustments from past elections for likely voter adjustments and party affiliation by race or income, these adjustments are wrong when there is a dramatic change in voter turnout etc, so the polls are less scientific and more like fudge factors.
I suspect Trump is doing this for two reasons, a shot across the bow to make future pollers be more careful. And the hope he can discover some plot or bribery. It’s a Hail Mary,
Iowa is a unique place, like all states, and I suspect that a jury might support the local girl instead of the big outside Trump steamroller in this particular case, even though Iowa is strongly Trump supporting and will be for many years because they hate the stupid stuff Beiden did.
Who is this directed at? Me? Who is this directed at? Me?
I believe it was directed one of the commenters in that specific thread, either Tom or RideSpaceMountain.
Derve, at least try to be polite. We're all guest here.
"Keep sending those checks."
Why yes, ABC will probably pay Trump's $15 million in installments, but they'll probably do so by wire. That's standard business practice after all, checks are a bit outdated.
Polling is more an art than a science, and can be skewed by factors as composition of calling list, respondents willing to speak, and geographic parameters. Perhaps pollster chose to poll only the subscribers to her newspaper. Presto! You've a 10 pt lead for Harris.
The trick for Trump is to not do a lot of stupid stuff too. So he needs to be a stable genius.
Bogus just for intimidation..The DOJ should have done it? (thats how its gonna be ,a personal lawyer organization because you didn't like the poll.This will go down like the Titanic .its all for intimidation c'mon man. Again no proof :( of anything
Trump didn't suffer any damages--he won.
And her reputation is destroyed. That's all the punishment needed.
Who is this directed at? Me? I am aiming the same style of cruel neutrality at Trump that I aimed at Biden.
It is directed at you, and most of the commenters here. If you claim that you have "aiming the same style of cruel neutrality at Trump that I aimed at Biden", you are just delusional.
And here is a quote from a post you published May 29, 2024:
"What should "democracy defenders" think of the Democrats' effort to fight Trump through the use of the criminal process? To say "there's nothing equal" is to suggest that this isn't a democratic process in which 2 candidates compete for the vote. It's an "existential choice" — some sort of apocalyptic battle. So, what does that mean — that you can use all weapons and fight any way that you can? Well, look around. We're already seeing "what happens when 'the checks of conscience are thrown aside and a deformed picture of the soul is revealed.'" In this "picture," who is uglier? "
Why is that quote not equally applicable to the bullshit case against Selzer? I really would like to go back and revisit the posts you had when the cases started against Trump, but searching your blog is tedious and I really don't have the time right now.
And I can't wait for your explanation of how this quote is "cruel neutrality". But I can predict your response (you will ignore it or call me all kinds of names).
And what "sense" would that be? Be specific.
Everyone knows Selzer’s poll violated The Law Against Saying Wrong Things.
"I'm not looking at the complaint, however."
Me either, because I can't find it. All I've got is this from the Iowa court system-
Title: PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP VS J ANN SELZER ET AL
Case: 05771 CVCV068364 (POLK).
But note, Seltzer's inclusion is secondary. He's suing the Des Moines Register and ... Gannett!
Found another one: "So Chait is openly saying the the legal system isn't fair and Trump was convicted for being "a bad guy." You want us non-haters to just accept that, as if it's a form of world-weary sophistication? No, you will have to bear the weight of the consequences of persecuting a political opponent. You should not get off easy."
Cruel neutrality indeed.
Pour encourager les autres
Oh, so now you are advocating that legal action should be used to suppress speech, even if there is no underlying crime.
"Trump files suit" is a different animal than "Trump's DoJ files suit." So no, Freder, this isn't Biden-style law fare.
I do favor the discovery angle as the motivator behind the lawsuit. It would be delicious if there were a connection up the Dem to DNC food chain.
Tim maguire wrote And her [Seltzer's] reputation is destroyed. That's all the punishment needed.
"Destroyed'" says who? A lot hinges (for other pollsters) on Seltzer being acquitted.
91% of the comments here support Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register.
Hey, this is easy.
Rich Barris is a pollster who runs, I believe, the People's Polling Project (hence his nickname, the people' pundit) and he covered this and many other polls in his podcast. He thought the poll bogus and explained how easy it is to skew a poll, particularly in a place like Iowa. In Iowa you have to find the Trump voter, Not easy as the Trump voters include lots of farmers and blue collar workers.
These voters come largely from the pool of white no college and white some college categories. In the same categories: white college students, freshmen and the upperclassmen. You can get the results you want by getting an intentionally bad sample.
More interestingly, I think is that Barris and Rasmussen (and many other right of center pollsters, really all that I know of) showed a race that never changed, with the exception of the week after the DNC. And that change disappeared the week after. It was Trump up 1-4 the whole way. Meanwhile the MSM polls were showing momentum shifts that Barris would argue never existed. These pollsters hung to some fiction that there was a bunch of low info voters that were flipping back and forth. In a polarized country? Come on!
I have to say- it's certainly entertaining listening to all the leftist outrage over being the target of lawfare instead of wielding it. Personally, I'd prefer that none of this went on from either side but considering what's been happening lately, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the left having the opportunity to experience what they've subjected their opponents to. Maybe they'll think twice next time.
Mason G wrote I have to say- it's certainly entertaining listening to all the leftist outrage over being the target of lawfare instead of wielding it. Personally, I'd prefer that none of this went on from either side but considering what's been happening lately, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the left having the opportunity to experience what they've subjected their opponents to. Maybe they'll think twice next time.
I agree. And if Obama were to recede from political meddling, this may happen. Don't hold your breath.
Oh, so now you are advocating that legal action should be used to suppress speech, even if there is no underlying crime.
Yes. Why should you thugs have all the fun?
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/from-the-editor/2024/11/17/editors-update-what-a-review-of-the-pre-election-iowa-poll-has-found/76300644007/
I worked as a paid political consultant for 15 years before shifting gears (up) to practicing law. My experience is that pollsters get the result that the person/group paying for the poll wants. They just finagle the questions and demographics to get the numbers they want. This is not true for internal polls, because those must be accurate to reflect the reality of the situation to guide the campaign's strategy, but those internal polls are never released to the public. The Des Moines Register, a very left-wing Iowa newspaper, contracted with this individual to do the poll, and I am now sure they told her the results they wanted. And she delivered, although not in a way that would leave any paper trail.
"Oh, so now you are advocating that legal action should be used to suppress speech, even if there is no underlying crime."
Oh, so now you are advocating that legal action shouldn't be used to suppress speech, even if there is no underlying crime, now that you're the target of that action?
Freder Frederson
Cruel neutrality indeed.
Expecting everyone to play by the established rules and bear the consequences of their actions sound fairly neutral.
The Des Moines Register, a very left-wing Iowa newspaper, contracted with this individual to do the poll, and I am now sure they told her the results they wanted.
And you believed it.
If you claim that you have "aiming the same style of cruel neutrality at Trump that I aimed at Biden", you are just delusional.
Calling our hostess delusional. Looks as if Freder's itching to get his ass thrown out of here. Again.
https://x.com/wokal_distance/status/1869139296768458985
She did it because there was money in it. And judging from the amount of money the Harris?Walz campaign flushed dowb the shitter I'd say torching her credibility paid well.
To be sung to the tune of Oh Christmas Tree…
Ad hominem, ad hominem,
I don’t like you, you’re one of them.
There are plenty of creative lawyers out there looking to make some money in the aftermath of the election.
Show them the woman and they'll show you the crime.
Freder - Except that other polls were showing Trump easily ahead.
There is evidence that the Biden WH was involved in at least 3 of the 4 criminal cases (all except for the NY case) against Trump. Wade, the initial lead prosecutor, and paramour of the DA, had WH meetings before the case was filed.
Most egregious, of course was the FL documents case, where DOJ Counterintelligence and Export Control Branch chief Jay Bratt repeated met with WH attys early in the FJB administration. Out of those meetings, Bratt got two big pieces of assistance. First was an order for Archives to cooperate with the FBI. What that meant was that Archives enamel a cat’s paw, or surrogate for the DOJ/FBI. So, the FBI asked Archives to request documents from Trump, which they did. Documents that the DOJ/FBI legally couldn’t legally request on their own. Then when Trump didn’t respond quickly enough, the DOJ/FBI then requested that Archives file a criminal referral with the FBI, which allowed the DOJ to step in, and demand the documents, and then, when Trump didn’t respond quickly enough, allowed them to subpoena the documents… Secondly, Bratt had the WH order the revocation of Trump’s security clearances (which had never been done before with a former President). This was aimed at making Trump’s possession of documents marked as classified a violation of Espionage Act. In short, the FJB WH actions made the prosecution in that case possible.
Why can't your last two lines be correct and it? Not everyone is as smart as the people on here. Who is to say there wasn't someone who switched their million dollars from Wisconsin or Pennsylvania to Iowa at the end because of that poll? Won't that be a matter of proof from Trump's lawyers to prove (or not prove which is likely) to a jury?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন