Loading summary
Transcript21 lines
- [00:00]
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's Unlimited Wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com switch $45 upfront.
- [00:21]
Isaac Saul
Payment required equivalent to $15 per month new customers on first 3 month plan only Taxes and fees extra speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited. See mintmobile.com for details. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home out procrastination, putting it off, kicking the can down the road in plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done out carpet in the bathroom. Like why in knowing what to do, when to do it and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download thumbtack today.
- [00:55]
Progressive Insurance Representative
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.
- [01:23]
Isaac Saul
From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
- [01:37]
Isaac Stahl
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host Isaac Stahl, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the Trump ABC News settlement. In case you missed it, President elect Donald Trump settled a defamation lawsuit with ABC News over inaccurate statements that were made by George Stephanopoulos. We're going to break that story down, share some of what happened in court, and also some takes from across the political spectrum about the decision to settle, which was pretty controversial for a few different reasons. So excited to break that down with y'all. Before we do, though, I want to give you a quick heads up on a couple things. First of all, on Friday, this Friday, I'm going to be doing a Friday edition that is a little different, a Friday edition of the podcast and the newsletter where I'm going to be talking about class. Over the last week or two, we have been getting tons of feedback about this Brian Thompson story. It's just one of those stories, for whatever reason, that has really deeply resonated with a lot of people and brought up a lot of really strong feelings to the surface. And I'll be honest, I've been frustrated, I think, with some of the feedback that I've gotten, some of the assumptions I'm seeing readers and listeners make about me. And I had a realization amidst the frustration, which is that a lot of people were assuming things about me because I've left a void there to be assumed. I have not written a lot explicitly about class in America and about class politics in America. And so I decided to do that. I decided to do one podcast that is two part. The first part is just going to tell you about me, about my upbringing, how I experience class coming up in America. And the second part is going to be just a list of some things I believe about class and class politics in the United States. It's not going to be exhaustive, it's not going to touch every issue, but I think it'll set a good foundation for my worldview and how I see things. And I'm doing this because it occurred to me that it's unfair of me to be frustrated with people for making assumptions or for accusing me of things that I don't think are true without me ever really actually explaining myself or stating my views plainly. And so I'm gonna do that. Just, you know, act of transparency, maybe persuade some people on a few things, but also just educate everybody a little bit more about where I come from and the lens that I see things through. So I'm excited. I showed a draft of the pstar editors. They liked it, so I'm excited about that. Sometimes they tell me the first draft sucks and I have to do whole thing over again. But this time there was some interest, so I'm looking forward to that. I'm going to read it down on the podcast here on Friday. We're going to have it in the newsletter and I will just remind you again that Fridays and Sunday editions are for members only. So if you want to become a member, you'll have to go to TangleMedia Supercast to do that. And speaking of those memberships, super, super excited to share that we are getting very close on our podcast newsletter bundle. Pretty soon you're going to be able to manage all that stuff just from our website at Readtang. There might be one step everybody has to take, which might be semi annoying to just sort of reset the whole podcast subscription stuff, but I think overall it's going to be a much better experience for you guys. So we're excited about that too, and I'm hoping it's done by the end of the year. So with that I'm going to pass it over to John and I'll be back for my take.
- [05:21]
John Law
Thanks, Isaac and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, congressional leaders released the text of a bill to keep the government funded through mid March ahead of a Friday deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown. The bill also provides more than $100 billion in relief to disaster victims and farmers. Number two, New York prosecutors charged Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, with murder as an act of terrorism under a law passed in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Number three, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the country will maintain a military presence in newly occupied territory in Syria until another arrangement is found that guarantees Israel's security. Number four, the Federal Trade Commission announced it has finalized a rule requiring businesses to disclose the total price, including fees for live events and short term lodging they offer consumers. And number five, the House Ethics Committee voted to release its report into former Representative Matt Gaetz. The report is slated to be released released on Thursday. Today, ABC News agreed to give $15 million to Donald Trump's presidential library project to settle a lawsuit filed by the president elect. Trump had sued the network and George Stephanopoulos for defamation after the anchor incorrectly stated on air that Trump had been found liable for rape. ABC has also agreed to post online a note of regret. On Saturday, President Elect Donald Trump settled a defamation lawsuit with ABC News over inaccurate statements made by news host George Stephanopoulos during a segment in March. As part of the settlement, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million as a charitable contribution to a presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for plaintiff, as presidents of the United States of America have established in the past. Additionally, the network will pay $1 million to cover Trump's attorney fees and issued a statement of regret as an editor's note at the bottom of an online article from March 10th. ABC News is a subsidiary of Disney, which will be responsible for dispersing the payment. A little bit of backstory here. During an interview with Representative Nancy Mace, the Republican from South Carolina, on March 10, Stephanopoulos said that Trump had been found liable for rape by a jury repe 10 times during the broadcast. The comments referred to a verdict by a New York City jury in May of 2023 that found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming author E. Jean Carroll. However, the jury found the president elect not guilty of rape, which New York law distinguished from sexual abuse at the time. Instead finding Trump civilly liable of sexual abuse. In May, Trump sued ABC for defamation, accusing Stephanopoulos of actual malice, the legal bar that public figures must clear in order to prove defamation. In July, ABC moved to dismiss the case, claiming that the anchor's statement was substantially true. But a US District judge rejected the motion on the grounds that a reasonable jury could interpret Stephanopoulos statements as defamatory. The parties agreed to the settlement one day after Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid ordered both Trump and Stephanopoulos to sit for hearings lasting no more than four hours. ABC's decision to settle instigated some backlash against the network, while others questioned why the network chose to settle now. We are pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing, an ABC News spokesperson said in a statement. When asked for his comments, Trump's communications director, Stephen Chung referred to the contents of the filing Today we're going to cover what the left and right are saying about the settlement and then Isaac's Take Foreign.
- [09:26]
Isaac Stahl
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [09:31]
Ryan Reynolds
Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently I asked Mint Mobile's legal team if big wireless companies are allowed to raise prices due to inflation. They said yes. And then when I asked if raising prices technically violates those onerous two year contracts, they said, what the are you talking about, you insane Hollywood So to recap, we're cutting the price of mint unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch $45 upfront.
- [09:56]
Isaac Saul
Payment equivalent to $15 per month New customers on first three month plan only taxes and fees Extra Speed slower above.
- [10:00]
Progressive Insurance Representative
40Gb Details Nothing delivers comfort and joy quite like the unrivaled quality and taste of Omaha Steaks. It's guaranteed perfection in every single bite. And right now you can save on unforgettable gifts with 50% off site wide at omahasteaks.com plus score an extra $30 off with promo code holiday. With five generations of experience, they consistently deliver the world's best steak experience. And the gifting experts at Omaha Steaks have made it easy to deliver the perfect gift with thoughtfully curated gift packages featuring gourmet favorites from legendary steaks to mouthwatering desserts and more. Save 50% off site wide for a limited time at Omaha steaks.com plus our listeners get an extra $30 off with promo code holiday that's 50% off@omahastakes.com and an extra $30 off with promo Code Holiday Minimum purchase may apply.
- [11:06]
John Law
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left is critical of ABC's decision to settle, suggesting they would have likely prevailed in court. Some say the settlement could weaken press freedoms. Others counter that the outcome was a reasonable resolution in a case of media inaccuracy. In the Washington Post, Eric Wemple called the settlement a low, low point for ABC News. ABC's crow eating statement wasn't the most gobsmacking aspect of this settlement. That would be the $15 million that ABC News agreed to pay toward a presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for Trump, meaning ABC News, a founding member of the mainstream media, will also serve as a founding member of the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, Wemple wrote. And here's the peculiar dimension of this whole affair. The posture of ABC News progressed from unreasonably dismissive, rejecting legitimate demands for correction to unreasonably accommodating, giving away the store to Trump via $15 million, a note of contrition, and so on. ABC News does its business under the world class protections of the First Amendment. What's more, Trump would have had to prove that ABC News acted with knowledge of the false statements or proceeded with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity, per the landmark Supreme Court ruling New York Times v. Sullivan. Wemple said accompanying the luxury of those protections is the obligation to actually use them as opposed to bailing on a winnable case. From a man with a history of exploiting the civil justice system in the Nation, Chris Lehman argued Trump's attack on the free press is just getting started under the standards of libel, Stephanopoulos comments were clearly fair game for public figures such as Trump. A libel action has to prove reckless disregard of the truth or actual malice on the part of a defendant, lehman wrote. In this case, Stephanopoulos was plainly summarizing the sense of the judge's own reasoning in Carroll's complaint. A robust defense by ABC would have both vindicated plain spoken coverage of Trump and his movement and marked a key reversal of the industry wide swoon into Trump appeasing prostration. Instead, the network opted to roll over. These quests for payback from a critical press are very much of a piece with Trump driven efforts to strip out key bulwarks of media independence, lehman said. It's not yet clear how far Trump apparatchiks will go in trashing whatever remains of a principled independent media in the flailing American republic. Yet regardless of their track record, many of them may be able to add CUSHY sinecures as ABC commentators to their resumes in Bloomberg, Noah Feldman said ABC's decision to settle makes sense for Trump to win his lawsuit against abc, he would have had to prove that Stephanopoulos knew or should have known it was false to say that Trump was found liable for rape. Here, things get a bit complicated. Technically, the jury found that Carol had proved to a preponderance of the evidence that Trump sexually abused her. The jury declined to find that he raped her. Under New York law, if Stephanopoulos statement is taken as a statement of the jury's formal finding it was false, feldman wrote, then there's the public figure specific element whether Stephanopoulos knew or should have known that the statement was technically false as a matter of New York law. If the libel case had gone to trial, Trump's lawyers could have pointed to the jury form on which the jurors checked a box marked no in answer to the question of whether Trump was liable for rape. The visual evidence would have been strong and could have led to a jury to find against abc. That's probably a big part of why ABC settled, feldman said. The main takeaway from all this is that the Sullivan rule worked just fine from the standpoint of holding the press to account for accuracy in a complicated case like this. The defendant settled because of the risk of losing. That alone will create incentives for other people to speak carefully about complex legal matters. All right, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right approves of the settlement. Though Some say that ABC's punishment should have been greater. Many say the outcome was a welcome victory for press accountability. Others suggest that ABC is recalibrating in real time to adapt to the new media environment. The New York Post editorial board said Trump let ABC off easy. Make no mistake, President Elect Donald Trump let ABC off easy. It only has to pay $15 million toward his future presidential library, plus $1 million for his lawyer fees to get out of a defamation lawsuit it was sure to lose and so avoid legal discovery that surely would have finished off whatever reputation its new division still has, the board wrote. The law gives even public figures some rights against such smears. If the case had proceeded, Trump's legal team would have been able to access ABC News internal communications in order to prove Trump's reckless attitude toward the truth. Trump was actually quite magnanimous in not making ABC pay him the settlement, even if the deal makes the company by far the largest donor to the Trump library. Inevitably, the usual suspects will twist their hands over this settlement being an ominous sign of the media rolling over for the vindictive Prez Elect. The board said that's nonsense. Corporations like ABC and its parent company Disney, don't make such payouts unless they think they're avoiding far worse if the case actually moves ahead. In National Review, Jeffrey Blahar wrote, abc pays the price for George Stephanopoulos partisan irresponsibility. I'm completely uninterested in relitigating E. Jean Carroll's allegations against Trump. As a simple matter of legal fact, however, Stephanopoulos got the nature of the verdict wildly and recklessly wrong, over and over again, aggressively so. Blahar said. The Manhattan jury that found Trump liable for an indeterminate sexual offense pointedly stipulated that Carol didn't prove rape. That they reached that verdict in a civil trial where the incredibly permissive preponderance of the evidence standard is used, as opposed to the beyond a reasonable doubt one is evidence enough. How even the least favorable jury imaginable for Donald Trump found Carol's claim of rape unpersuasive. I enjoy seeing ABC get what's coming to it for its arrogance and carelessness, and it couldn't have involved a more deserving agent of disaster than the odious Stephanopoulos, who will otherwise pay no price professionally for the incident, blahar wrote. I saw one former mainstream media journalist dismiss the $15 million settlement as analogous to Disney avoiding legal costs, and had to laugh. Big media corporations do not drop that much money, plus attorneys fees and a televised apology merely to avoid costs. Neither side would have enjoyed the discovery process in this case, but ABC had far, far more to lose than Donald Trump. In Fox News, Jonathan Turley explored what ABC's apology to Trump reveals about the media landscape. The settlement came just before ABC and Stephanopoulos were to be called for depositions, as ordered by US Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid. The discovery was likely to prove more embarrassing for the network than it would Trump and could have revealed internal messages on the controversy, Turley said. The danger is on full display in another courtroom, where CNN has been losing critical motions in a defamation case where punitive damages could result. Anchor Jake Tapper and CNN are being sued by Navy veteran Zachary Young after falsely suggesting that he and his organization were exploiting desperate Afghan refugees. Additionally, the settlement occurred after an election in which Trump won the trifecta of the White House, Congress and the popular vote. Disney is trying to adopt a more neutral stance after years of opposition to its stances on political issues and accusations of ultra woke products Turley wrote, with networks like MSNBC and CNN struggling for their very existence, ABC is intent on having a chair when the music stops. It is a recognition of the reality after this historic election. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his.
- [19:35]
Isaac Stahl
All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to my take. So, first of all, to be candid, when I learned that Trump was suing ABC for George Stephanopoulos comments on the E. Jean Carroll case, I basically tuned it out. Trump has brought several defamation lawsuits against media outlets, and he's threatened countless others. And with one exception, he's lost his cases or he's had them dismissed. He's also been open about his strategy of threatening to sue to make a point and not for any actual material gain or to really go to court. He just kind of does it in a threatening way, or to bleed people for money to punish them for something they wrote about him or whatever else. So that's not to say Stephanopoulos did nothing wrong. He did, and I'm going to explain more on that in a minute. It's just to say it's hard to win a defamation or libel case in the media, particularly as a public figure. And so I just didn't really pay much attention to this case while it was happening. The reason it is like that is because in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in New York Times v. Sullivan that a public figure must demonstrate, quote, false or reckless disregard for the truth in court in order to prove they were liable. Put simply, the court's test for libel or slander against a public figure requires clear and convincing evidence of malicious intent. That's generally a good thing. This legal precedent is part of our country's robust free speech framework, which allows for appreciable freedoms of public expression that we all enjoy, even if it gross incompetence can occasionally cause damage with little accountability. With that precedent in mind, my suspicion is Trump would have lost in court. I want to start with the exchange between Stephanopoulos and Representative Nancy Mace that brought this lawsuit about. The segment begins with a clip of Mace speaking about her experience as a rape survivor, which Stephanopoulos responds to by asking her how she could support Trump after a jury found him liable for rape. He says Trump has been found liable for rape. Nine more Times later referencing a Washington Post article about the case saying, quote, it has been shown to be rape. The judge affirmed that it was in fact rape. Donald Trump was found to have committed rape. That's just a fact. End quote. Mace pushes back somewhat, saying that the judgment was made in civil, not criminal, court, but doesn't contradict Stephanopoulos claim that Trump was found liable for rape. Of course, Stephanopoulos was simply wrong. Trump was found to have sexually abused Carroll, but he was not found guilty of rape. In fact, the jury explicitly said Trump did not rape Carol. And while just being wrong isn't enough for a libel conviction, Trump's team had a decent argument for malice. Stephanopoulos had accurately described the verdict in the past, so it was not as though his interview with Mace was only the latest in a string of consistent misunderstandings. Trump's lawyer used this to argue that Stephanopoulos made the false statements intentionally and maliciously. In his motion to dismiss the lawsuit, ABC pointed to a ruling made by U.S. district Judge Lewis Kaplan in a separate case in which he found that Trump had defamed Carroll by calling her a liar. After the verdict in civil trial, Kaplan, the judge wrote that, quote, Mr. Trump in fact did rape Ms. Carol, as that term commonly is understood and understood in context outside of the New York penal law. End quote. ABC argued that the judge's finding gave a degree of credence to Stephanopoulos comments, enough to show that they weren't made with the intent to defame the President, which I find convincing. That argument wasn't enough to dismiss the case pretrial, but it looked strong enough to prevail in court. Additional context of the interview only strengthens that argument. Stephanopoulos was displaying the Washington Post article he had been referencing on a screen behind him during his interview with Mace, which had the headline, quote, judge Clarifies. Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll, end quote. Furthermore, the network could have argued that Stephanopoulos did not have the requisite legal knowledge to differentiate between New York's definitions of sexual assault and rape. Again, Mace herself didn't even dispute his characterization of the case on air. Given how hard it is to win defamation lawsuits, I don't think Trump's argument was quite clear and convincing enough to prevail in this context. Assuming that ABC News knew this and that it is not in the business of haphazardly lighting $16 million on fire, begs the question, why would they choose to settle? Many writers on the left have suggested that ABC effectively prostrated itself before Trump to the detriment of the entire profession and press freedoms. I do not see it that way. I'm more troubled by Stephanopoulos disregard for accuracy as a major news host at a time when media credibility is sinking to all time lows. Watching the clip of Stephanopoulos interview with Mace, it's clear from the jump that his intention is to corner her on the E. Jean Carroll verdict, which led to repeated false statements on a gravely serious issue. The segment was another example of how cable news is broken and I'm fine with ABC paying a price for that mistake. That does not mean I don't understand the concern about Trump. He has threatened far more actions that could have a chilling effect on press freedoms. He has said NBC News should be investigated for treason. He said CNN should lose their broadcasting license for editing their interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Just this week, he sued Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register over Selzer's pre election poll that showed Kamala Harris winning Iowa, alleging it amounted to brazen election interference. I doubt the case will go anywhere, but the fact that Trump felt emboldened enough to sue over an incorrect poll in an election he won handily validates what his critics have said about his second term being focused on vengeance instead of governance. It's a concern I share, but none of that explains the decision to settle. I see three plausible explanations. First, ABC or its parent company, Disney, is trying to make nice with Trump before he takes office. Deborah O'Connell, the Disney executive who directly oversees ABC News, reportedly had dinner with Susie Wiles, Trump's incoming chief of staff, last week during a visit that also included other ABC News executives and members of Trump's transition team. We don't know whether the two discussed the case, but it's easy to see the meeting itself as part of a broader conciliatory effort. Other outlets have already committed to a similar pivot, and Perhaps ABC thought $16 million was the price it had to pay to mend its relationship with the president elect. Second, ABC was worried about what might come out in the discovery process if this case had gone to trial. As Jonathan Turley noted in Fox News, under what the Right Is Saying, cnn is currently embroiled in its own defamation case, which has revealed unsavory text messages between outlets journalists talking about how they planned to nail the subject of a story about war profiteering in Afghanistan. We saw a similarly damaging process play out when Fox News went to court for lies about Dominions stealing the election. While Trump probably wanted to avoid the discovery process himself, it's not hard to see why ABC preferred to settle, given the potentially sensitive internal messages that could have been made public, particularly involving a high profile anchor like Stephanopoulos. Finally, it's always possible I'm wrong and ABC would have actually just lost the case. Bloomberg's Noah Feldman, under what the Left Is Saying, makes the most compelling argument that Trump's team had all the evidence they needed to prove malice on Stephanopoulos part. Viewed through this lens, ABC chose to make a prudent and calculated decision, taking a small hit to prevent a potentially devastating one. All three of these interpretations make sense to me, but I buy some combination of 1 and 2 as the most likely explanations, with perhaps 3 being a factor in the final dollar amount. Even before Trump won the election, mainstream news outlets signaled that they were reconsidering how to cover him, and I think it's clear now that many are not interested in a repeat of the combative relationship they had during his first term. Simultaneously, I think ABC had a strong and well founded desire not to subject Stephanopoulos and its other staff to an invasive discovery process that could have further damaged the outlet's credibility. Whatever their true rationale, this case is a good reminder that lots of legal decisions are made in the interest of minimizing damage or risk rather than proving who's right or wrong. Foreign we'll be right back after this quick break.
- [27:42]
Ryan Reynolds
Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently I asked Mint Mobile's legal team if big wireless companies are allowed to raise prices due to inflation. They said yes. And then when I asked if raising prices technically violates those onerous two year contracts, they said, what the are you talking about, you insane Hollywood ass? So to recap, we're cutting the price of mint unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch $45 upfront.
- [28:08]
Isaac Saul
Payment equivalent to $15 per month New customers on first three month plan only Taxes and fees extra speeds lower above.
- [28:11]
John Law
40Gb details a real Lemonade Pet Insurance Review by Madison H. You know, I.
- [28:16]
Isaac Saul
Thought it was a little ridiculous to get pet insurance, but I really didn't want to not take my little kitten to the vet because of money. In the last eight months I've taken him in six times because of ear infections and saved literally hundreds of dollars. He may even need to get surgery and I couldn't consider it without Lemonade's help. I recommend Lemonade to all my friends constantly and now I'm recommending it to you.
- [28:38]
Isaac Stahl
Check it out@lemonade.com pet all right, that is it for my take. Next up is your questions answered. This one is from David in Jerusalem, Israel. David said, since the beginning I've had trouble caring about Trump's classified documents case. Why? Because it's pieces of paper. In a digital era, former presidents could literally forward all of this documentation to themselves and no one would ever know, and it could be accessed anywhere. Why do we still care about documents in the digital era? Okay, so good question. Actually, for me, it's less of we should care about one and not the other, and more that we should care about both. Absolutely. Digital security is a big deal. That's why Edward Snowden and Julian Assange and even Hillary Clinton's private email servers were such major news stories in their own rights and also led to exile and potential prison sentences. However, security for physical information matters too. With digital information, a big concern is that one vulnerability can cause a security breach that can spread incredibly far and incredibly fast. With physical information, the concern is that it's untraceable. Who could have gotten into Mar A Lago, thumbed through one of those boxes that were left there unsecured and either read some information that they were able to repeat, or even taken a picture of a document and spread it without us ever being able to tell? There's no real way to know. It's also true that hard copy documents can be the original and perhaps only pieces of evidence or documentation in some cases. Not only that, but the security risk Trump demonstrated through his treatment of those classified documents and to a lesser degree, Joe Biden and Mike Pence. Yes, those cases are very different. Could materially hurt the way our allies share information with us. That is not hyperbole either. It's happened before and it could easily happen again. So while I agree that the security of digital data is more important than securing physical information, I believe that controlling access to that physical information is still an important matter of national security. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Peace.
- [30:54]
John Law
Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the Radar story for today, folks. The Biden administration is updating the application process for an H1B visa, which allows US employers to bring on highly skilled or specialized workers from other countries. The number of available H1B visas is capped at 65,000 each year, but certain organizations are exempt from that limit. The new rule clarifies that non profit and governmental organizations whose fundamental activity is research are not subject to the cap. Additionally, foreign nationals transitioning from a student visa to an H1B will be granted a one year postgraduate work permit while their H1B petition is heard to prevent gaps in employment. Broadly, the rule aims to streamline the H1B process while addressing areas of the program that are vulnerable to abuse. The Hill has this story, and there's a link in today's episode Description all right, next up is our numbers section. The number of times Donald Trump has been a plaintiff in a defamation case is 7. The number of times Trump has been a defendant in a defamation case is 7. The number of defamation cases that Trump has won is one. The number of defamation cases that Trump has lost all as a plaintiff, is three. The number of defamation cases that were settled before trial is three. The total number of federal media libel complaints between 1970 and 2020 is 1,871, according to a 2022 paper from the Media Law Resource Center. The total number of liable complaints against television news companies between 2011 and 2021 is 78, and the percentage of those complaints that were brought by a public figure is 21%. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. Nihon Hidankyo, a Japanese organization devoted to pursuing a world without nuclear weapons. Recently 2024 Nobel Peace Prize. The organization is composed of survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as Hibakusha, who draw on their personal experiences to educate and advocate for nuclear disarmament. No nuclear weapon has been used in war in nearly 80 years, the Nobel Committee said. The extraordinary efforts of the Nihon Hadankyo and other representatives of the Hibakusha have greatly contributed to the establishment of the nuclear taboo. You can read the announcement with the link in today's episode description all right everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to readtangle.com and sign up for a membership. You can also go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up for a premium podcast membership which gets you ad free daily podcasts, Friday editions, Sunday editions, interviews, bonus content and so much more. We'll be right back here tomorrow for Isaac and the rest of the crew. This is John Law signing off. Have a great day y'all. Peace.
- [33:52]
Isaac Stahl
Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Duke Thomas. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Will K Back Daily Saul and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was made by Magdalena Bokova, who is also our social media manager. The music for the podcast was produced by Diet75 and if you are looking for more from Tangle, please go check out our website@readtangle.com that's readtangle.com.
- [34:29]
Isaac Saul
Sharing all the joy that the holiday season brings has never been easier with Celebration's passport from 1-800-flowers.com my one stop shopping site for even those hard to gift people. With Celebrations Passport, I get free shipping on thousands of amazing holiday gifts like festive flowers and arrangements and fresh fruit and gourmet gift baskets from Harry and David. Make the holidays merrier by gifting smarter at 1-800-FLowers.com acast that's 1-800-FLowers.Com acast what makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95, including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com gifting is.
- [35:31]
F
Hard, but here's a hint. Give the gift of connection from US Cellular. Not sure what that means? Well, here's a slightly more specific hint. You can choose four free phones and get four lines for $90 a month from US Cellular. Your family wants new phones? How do we know? Well, they told us. The good news is that compared to wrapping presents, you're great at getting hints. So take the hint and get them four free phones in four lines for $90 a month. US Cellular built for us.