FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (Legal Newsline) - Attorney Alan Dershowitz can't prove CNN acted with actual malice when it reported comments he made during his representation of former President Donald Trump during Trump's impeachment trial.
That's the finding of Florida federal judge Raag Singhal, who on April 4 granted summary judgment to CNN in Dershowitz's defamation lawsuit against it.
The lawsuit claims CNN cherry-picked parts of Dershowitz’s answers when covering the trial, forgetting to include when Dershowitz said a president could be impeached and removed from office if what he did was “somehow illegal,” regardless of his desire to be re-elected, the suit says.
Instead, his answer was presented as if the president could perform illegal acts as long as he or she did so in order to be re-elected, the suit says.
"(T)he evidence before the Court - while establishing foolishness, apathy and an inability to string together a series of common legal principles - does not establish actual malice..." Singhal wrote.
Dershowitz's comments at issue came Jan. 29, 2020. He was defending Trump on allegations he withheld military funds from Ukraine to coerce the country to investigate now-President Joe Biden.
Sen. Ted Cruz asked Dershowitz, "As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?"
Part of Dershowitz's response was: "Every public official whom I know believes that his election is in the public interest. Mostly, you are right. Your election is in the public interest. If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected—in the public interest—that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
While media outlets and the world of social media jumped on the statement to portray Dershowitz as claiming all actions of public officials are in the public interest and therefore can't be reasons for impeachment.
Dershowitz, meanwhile, pointed out that comments he also made before the Senate were not included in video clips. "The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were some way illegal," he had said.
His lawsuit said the omission of this phrase was done intentionally and with malice and said CNN already knew his actual views on impeachment because of what he had said two days earlier before the Senate - "a crime or crime-like conduct is necessary for impeachment."
"CNN's failure to add a two-day-old qualification is not evidence that would show actual malice," Singhal wrote. "To the contrary, the evidence shows that CNN's decisionmakers considered Dershowitz's January 29 Corrupt Motive and Greatest President arguments to be new and newsworthy arguments against impeachment."
CNN successfully argued it was under no obligation to mention everything Dershowitz had ever said about impeachment and that it treated the Jan. 29 statements as new and newsworthy.
Singhal wrote that he understood why Dershowitz sued but reporters and commentators were not required to contextualize his comments.