We're not so different

Remember last fall when the current president of the United States sued CBS for allegedly editing an interview with Kamala Harris to make her look better? You know, the suit that CBS just settled for $16 million even though there weren’t any real damages. (Remember how the election turned out.)

My immediate thought when the complaint was filed was to wonder why a Democrat wasn’t suing Fox News and their copycats for doing exactly the same kind of thing (but a lot more)?

It hasn’t exactly happened yet but California Governor Gavin Newsom has at least seen the value of the Pee-Wee Herman retort to Trump: “I know you, are but what am I?”

Newsom, as you probably know, has sued Fox News for allegedly slanting the news. (I know you’re shocked.)

So let’s play a little game. The following are lines from the Trump lawsuit and the Newsom lawsuit. See if you can tell which is which.

A “By disregarding basic journalistic ethics in favor of malicious propaganda, (defendant) continues to play a major role in the further erosion of the bedrock principles of informed representative government.”

B “This action concerns (defendant’s) partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion …”

C “’Rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest — indeed there is no act more harmful to the public’s ability to handle its affairs.’”

D “(F)reedom of speech does not grant the right to knowingly fabricate false statements and intentionally poison our democratic processes.”

E “Now having once again maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion, (defendant) has violated the law and must be held accountable.”

F “(T)his alleged innocent refrain is contradicted both by the facts of this malicious doctoring of news and by years of (defendant’s) journalistic animosity …”

G “(Defendant) has recently proven that old habits die hard, frequently indulging in dishonest reporting …”

H “(Defendant) willfully distorted the facts.”

I “(Defendant) harbors significant ill will toward (Plaintiff) …”

J “News organizations such as (defendant) are responsible for accurately representing the truth of events …”

Answers are below. See how many you got right.

Moot suit. Here’s an existential question for you: Can you remand a case to an agency that can’t do anything?

Obviously, you can, but what’s the point?

(Weird aside from an elderly brain: This for some reason has brought to mind one of my favorite quotes: “How can you be in two places at once if you’re not anywhere at all?”)

You can’t revisit an issue if you can’t do any visiting at all.

I bring this up because a federal judge in the District of Columbia has overruled a finding of the Federal Election Commission and sent a case back for reconsideration.

The Federal Election Commission, however, can’t reconsider because there aren’t enough FEC commissioners. It’s defunct.

I know what some of you — maybe all of you — are thinking. Moneyed interests are once again getting away with manipulating elections and breaking what should be rules.

Well, that’s sort of true. But not the way you think. This week’s theme, after all, is that both sides can play the same games.

The ruling, by a Biden-appointed judge, was in favor of a group called Campaign Legal Center complaining about money spent by a pro-Democrat group on ads attacking Tim Sheehy, a Republican primary Senate candidate. The FEC concluded that the ads, which ran before the primary election, had nothing to do with the election.

The ads — which cost millions of dollars and ran, I repeat, before the primary election — called the candidate “Shady Sheedy” and claimed he walked away from a government loan and spent millions to buy a Senate seat.

The FEC dismissed Campaign’s complaint, saying the ads had nothing do with advocacy. Apparently, they were just educational, so the money spent on them didn’t have to be reported.

The federal judge reviewing this was maybe hoping the FEC would explain this remarkable ruling. It would have been educational for all of us, but it doesn’t look like that will happen anytime soon.

Ignoring rules can work for everyone.

The answers.

Trump lawsuit: B, C, F, G, J

Newsom lawsuit: A, D, E, H, I