wavePod

Trump’s Lawsuits Are Ruining Media (feat. David Sirota) - The Find Out Podcast | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Trump’s Lawsuits Are Ruining Media (feat. David Sirota)

Tue Jul 22 2025

David Sirota joins the crew to tak about how Donald Trump is suing journalists into silence—and corporate America is letting him.

Summary

The Find Out Podcast: "Trump’s Lawsuits Are Ruining Media" (feat. David Sirota) – Detailed Summary

Release Date: July 22, 2025

Introduction and Guest Spotlight

In this episode of The Find Out Podcast, hosts Rich and Chris engage in a compelling discussion featuring their first-ever Academy Award-nominated guest, David Sirota. David brings a wealth of experience, having contributed to the storyline of the Netflix film Don't Look Up and serving as a senior advisor to Bernie Sanders. He is also the executive editor and founder of The Lever. Rich introduces David with enthusiasm, setting the stage for an in-depth conversation about the intersection of media, politics, and law.

Trump’s Strategic Use of Lawsuits Against Media Outlets

The discussion kicks off with Rich referencing David’s recent work on the cancellation of The Stephen Colbert Show by CBS. Rich points out the timing discrepancy: Colbert had criticized CBS’s parent company for settling a $16 million lawsuit with Donald Trump, only to be fired three days later despite being a top-rated show.

David Sirota elaborates on this by explaining, “Donald Trump is essentially weaponizing libel law to try to suppress and really silence dissent” ([01:09]).

He details how Trump's lawsuits are not isolated incidents but part of a broader strategy to intimidate media outlets into compliance. By leveraging his regulatory power and the threat of costly legal battles, Trump aims to create an environment where critical reporting becomes financially untenable.

Weaponization of Libel Laws and Its Implications

David Sirota dives deeper into the mechanics of these lawsuits, emphasizing their role in undermining free speech:

“These are attempts to make it cost prohibitive to speak out. You can be sued into bankruptcy... These media companies are sending a message that these intimidation tactics work” ([06:27]).

He argues that even under existing libel laws, the financial burden of defending against such lawsuits can effectively silence journalists and media organizations, thereby reducing accountability and fostering a climate of fear.

Impact on Free Speech and Media Integrity

Chris and Rich discuss the fragility of free speech in the face of relentless legal threats. They highlight how Trump's actions are not merely personal vendettas but systemic attacks on journalistic integrity and democratic discourse.

Chris notes, “The case against CBS news didn't really make any sense... It doesn't seem clear that these cases are really about Donald Trump being defamed; they’re about silencing criticism” ([06:53]).

Rich adds, “Libel laws exist to protect free speech, but when powerful figures like Trump misuse them, it creates a chilling effect” ([09:20]).

The CBS and Stephen Colbert Cancellation: A Case Study

The episode delves into the specifics of the CBS-Colbert situation, illustrating how corporate decisions influenced by political pressure can lead to the suppression of dissenting voices. The hosts discuss how Colbert's public criticism of the lawsuit settlement led to his unexpected firing, viewing it as a direct consequence of challenging Trump's influence.

David Sirota emphasizes the broader pattern:

“It's an attempt to make it cost prohibitive to speak out... It's not just Trump; it's billionaires and corporations using these tactics” ([06:27]).

The Broader Influence of Billionaires and Corporations

The conversation expands to examine how various billionaires and major corporations, like Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg, play roles in shaping media narratives and political outcomes. The hosts express concern over the immense influence these entities hold, often aligning themselves with political figures like Trump to maintain their business interests.

Luke comments on the manipulation by tech billionaires:

“Tech billionaires... are rigging the game for Donald Trump to encourage his politics even if that does mean actual violence and harm” ([13:19]).

Potential Responses and Protective Measures: Anti-SLAPP Laws

Hosts and David Sirota explore possible legal and legislative remedies to combat the misuse of libel laws, such as Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes designed to protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing them.

Chris explains the challenge:

“Even with Anti-SLAPP penalties, billionaires can still fund litigation that overwhelms critics financially” ([18:01]).

They discuss the limitations of current laws and the need for more robust protections to ensure that the truth remains a viable defense without the undue burden of excessive legal costs.

Implications for the Democratic Party and Future Elections

The discussion shifts to the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party, with an emphasis on how the party's leadership struggles with fostering competitive districts and addressing corruption. The hosts argue that effective redistricting and strong internal competition are essential for countering both external pressures from figures like Trump and internal complacency.

Chris highlights the problem with democratic incumbents:

“Incumbents prefer safe districts to avoid the hard work needed in competitive ones, which weakens the party's overall competitiveness” ([30:38]).

Rich underscores the necessity of maintaining a safe space for free speech:

“The Democratic Party needs laws and a court system that make it safe to speak out vocally against power” ([26:19]).

Conclusion: The Path Forward for Media and Democracy

In wrapping up, the hosts express a mix of concern and cautious optimism. They acknowledge the significant challenges posed by the current climate of legal intimidation and corporate influence but remain hopeful that grassroots movements and policy reforms can restore integrity to media and democratic institutions.

Chris shares a vision for future Democratic leadership:

“A candidate who can speak to big visions and corruption credibly could resonate deeply with voters” ([54:30]).

Rich and the team encourage listeners to stay informed and engaged, promoting subscriptions to The Lever and supporting independent media as vital steps toward safeguarding democratic discourse.

Notable Quotes

David Sirota ([01:09]): “Donald Trump is essentially weaponizing libel law to try to suppress and really silence dissent.”
David Sirota ([06:27]): “This is an attempt to make it cost prohibitive to speak out... You can be sued into bankruptcy.”
Chris ([06:53]): “It doesn't seem clear that these cases are really about Donald Trump being defamed; they’re about silencing criticism.”
David Sirota ([09:20]): “You have to protect free speech, even though Trump is trying to use libel laws against you.”
Luke ([13:19]): “Tech billionaires... are rigging the game for Donald Trump to encourage his politics even if that does mean actual violence and harm.”
Chris ([30:38]): “Incumbents prefer safe districts to avoid the hard work needed in competitive ones, which weakens the party's overall competitiveness.”
Chris ([54:30]): “A candidate who can speak to big visions and corruption credibly could resonate deeply with voters.”

Final Thoughts

This episode of The Find Out Podcast offers a critical examination of how Donald Trump's legal strategies are impacting the media landscape and, by extension, democratic discourse in America. Through insightful analysis and expert commentary, particularly from David Sirota, the hosts shed light on the broader implications of these tactics for free speech, media integrity, and political competition. Listeners are encouraged to reflect on the state of American media and participate actively in advocating for a more transparent and accountable democratic system.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Chris (0:00)

Foreign.

Rich (0:16)

Hey everybody and welcome back to the find out podcast i'm sorry that my audio sounds so crappy today rich referred to it as i was in one of the circles of hell which is true because i'm in a windowless co working space office because all of the soundproof rooms were taken so i apologize for that but hopefully i'm not going to be doing as much talking today because we have a guest actually our first ever academy award nominated guest which is really exciting so today we have david sirota with us he helped come up with the storyline for i believe it's don't look up the netflix movie with leonardo dicaprio and about fifty other big names he has also been a senior advisor to bernie sanders and a speechwriter and he is also the executive editor and founder of the lever which you should all go to subscribe to so david thank you for joining.

Chris (1:07)

Us today thank you thanks for having.

Rich (1:09)

Me so david there's a big piece of news that broke last week that the timing lined up perfectly because you just wrote about this the firing or the cancellation i should say of the stephen colbert show by cbs the timing of that was pretty interesting in that colbert had just recently criticized the parent company of cbs i believe for settling a sixteen million dollars lawsuit with donald trump and then a week later all of a sudden they were like oh this is a cost cutting decision even though stephen colbert is number one in the ratings and is the only one that has seen his audience go up in the last year so david walk us through a little bit about your piece and you know your thoughts on on what cbs and their parent company is at paramount is doing doing stephen colbert and to independent media in general.

Chris (1:57)

Sure so we interviewed a new york times reporter by the name of david enrich on our podcast of levertime i encourage everyone to go subscribe to it and the thrust of the interview was about how all of these cases really can't be seen in isolation that donald trump is essentially weaponizing libel law to try to suppress and really silence dissent and specifically criticism of him and he's not just using libel law he's also using the regulatory power of the government so it's important to understand the context of what happened for instance at paramount that trump was suing paramount for allegedly cbs selectively and dishonestly editing an interview with kamala harris to allegedly preference her in the twenty twenty four election so as he was doing that his administration is also overseeing and getting to decide or on whether paramount gets to merge with a buyer so it's his antitrust regulators get to do that so when you take that context i think what you see is that cbs or paramount essentially cut a deal saying listen our need for our merger to get approved that donald trump has power over is worth the amount of money to settle this case with donald trump they settle the case stephen colbert criticizes the settlement on national television and lays out the context i've just laid out about the merger and the like calls it a big bride he says that explicitly and three days later paramount fires colbert now we have to take this again in the context of trump has used libel law to sue abc got a settlement from abc trump is now launched a lawsuit a libel lawsuit against rupert murdoch and the wall street journal for the wall street journal's recent reporting on his alleged relationship with with jeffrey epstein i think what's going on here is that media outlets are are trying to cut deals with trump so he's not a problem to to their business and perhaps the theory is is that by cutting a deal with him he will he will lay off that that by bending the knee this will stop but i think what's going on is is that is that it sends a message to him and not just him by the way to him billionaires and corporations that these tactics these intimidation tactics really work in other words you're not appeasing the aggressor you're encouraging the aggressor and here's where it really is a problem i think not just for the for journalists for news outlets for media companies it's a problem for all of us so all of that is to say that this is an attempt to make it cost prohibitive to speak out and by cost prohibitive i just want to put a fine point on it what it means is you can be sued into the ground you can be sued into bankruptcy whether it's by donald trump or it's by your local power broker a local billionaire a corporation can use existing libel laws without changing them and donald trump says he wants to change them and make them even more even worse for free speech but you can right now under existing libel laws be bankrupted that them filing suit against you incurs costs that you may not be able to pay for for the alleged crime of being critical of billionaires corporations and donald trump to them it's almost no money to drag you into court and to essentially bankrupt you for you it's your whole it's sort of your whole life right so so what i think is going on is that when these media companies these giant media companies are cutting deals with trump they're supposed to be the well resourced defense to this and instead what they are effectively doing is encouraging an attack on free speech.

Chris (6:53)

Lot of these cases are legally weak absolutely i mean the case against cbs news didn't really make any sense to me in the sense of even if you take his allegations at their word that that cbs selectively edited the interview with kamala harris to preference her in the election that is not fundamentally as far as i can tell i don't understand how that's defamatory to donald trump i think the abc case talking about the sexual assault allegations i think the the epstein case the epstein reporting by the wall street journal i guess he could argue that's specifically about me him donald trump and he could make the argument i guess if the facts don't hold up granted a big if that that that's defamatory to him personally but but i but the larger point is i think is right that it doesn't seem clear that these cases are really about donald trump being defamed they're about donald trump not liking critical reporting about donald trump and and and the thing is is that the libel laws exist in this country and for those who don't know i think it's a really it's kind of a technical point but it's important it creates a higher standard for so called public officials to prove libel that public officials public public figures if you will you have to prove that that somebody didn't just get something wrong but deliberately got something wrong or had a reckless disregard for the truth and the reason that standard exists is because we want a vigorous free press and a vigorous discourse in this country where if you accidentally get something wrong you can't be sued into oblivion the idea being that if you have to fear that if you have to fear you know sort of getting sued for any teeny little thing then you're not really going to it creates a chilling effect you're not really going to speak out on much of anything and i think that that's what trump big corporations conservative billionaires that's actually what they want they want you to fear speaking out against them they want you to fear that doing that can end up putting you and your family into bankruptcy well.

Chris (27:47)

Sorry yeah i mean the redistricting stuff i mean you know i look i am always torn between you got to fight fire with fire and also like at what cost if you're fighting fire you're just going to create one giant fire right i mean like as an example like i think gerrymandering is is like bad right i mean i think most people would be like like why like extreme gerrymandering is just like not good for the democracy right it's like bad right okay what do you do if one party is is doing extreme gerrymandering right it's like oh well you know they're going to do it in their state they've got a huge state the democrats do it in their states like like like how do how do you don't want to unilaterally disarm i totally get that and like new york's redistricting hasn't been great california's redistricting hasn't been great i mean i do also think there's like a middle ground here where you can you can have a better districting situation that better reflects your state's political complexion or without going to like extreme ridiculous measures where you're fully into the actual gerrymandering of districts i think democrats have erred too far on the side of like we're not going to we're not even going to like engage in really making our districts you know more representative and and let's talk about why that is for a second because i think it really does actually get to the core of what's wrong with the democratic party so so why haven't democrats better districted states like california and new york to compete with the republicans who were excessively absurdly gerrymandering districts in various red states the answer actually in a lot of cases is that the incumbent democrats the people who are already there want their districts i'm talking about democratic house members and the like they want their districts to be like sixty sixty five seventy percent democratic districts because that means they don't have to do very much work to to get to stay in office so so so so so instead of saying hey i'm a democratic incumbent house member my district could go from seventy percent to like let's say fifty five percent democratic performance like i'm going to have to work a little bit to like but you know i could still i could still win instead of of doing that when those proposals come up hey we're going to make your district seventy to fifty five so this other district over here is a competitive democratic district right like this red district over here is now competitive for democrats the incumbents who are the ones who have power will say no no no no no i like it that my district is like super easy and this is the problem it is an individualistic attitude among incumbents rather than sort of for the greater good of the party and frankly for the.

Chris (31:43)

Madness right and the connection between safe seats and gerontocracy is very real and it makes sense right listen if you don't have to work to get reelected okay and you're the kind of person who doesn't want to retire okay even though you're nine hundred years old fucking old right like like then it be then it becomes semi retirement right oh i don't have to work for reelection i still get paid once in a while i can like participate right it's like tenure because the district isn't competitive right and so there are two solutions to that either you can do a better job of districting the districts in places like california so that seventy percent democratic districts become fifty five percent democratic districts so more red districts become more competitive that's one way to do it the other way to do it is to start having much more competitive primaries because that's the other thing i think that i mean i am encouraged by this that there is one danger to it for an incumbent in representing a seventy eighty ninety percent democratic district it's that then the fight becomes inside of the party itself inside of the primary primary and and it is possible to to defeat democratic incumbents in primaries where the winner of the primary is effectively all but guaranteed to be the winner of the general and we saw a little bit of an upsurge with that with with aoc i mean she surprised you know the whole political world when she beat joe crowley in one of those districts we've seen you know sort of a pushback against those i mean the democrat i've always said this the democratic leadership of the of the current democratic party they're terrible at basically everything they're terrible at fighting trump they're terrible at passing legislation they're terrible at improving the lives of their voters their constituents of americans but they are the goats they are the greatest of all time at one thing which is keeping control of the party keeping their status inside of the party essentially keeping themselves locked in the in the steering room of the titanic even as the titanic is heading for the iceberg that is they are really really good at that and that i think is a thing that needs to be focused on to break that hammer lock of control and one of the ways to do that is is for there to be much more vigorous primaries of the geronto i think.

Chris (36:01)

Democratic side yeah i mean we call it authenticity i mean i think authenticity is a real is a real and important factor but i also think that like i would go even a little bit deeper that mamdani and trump are very very different obviously for all sorts of reasons policy et cetera et cetera but they are both rhetorically at least when they're running for election in the case of trump talking about things that resonate with people the affordability crisis i mean i mean it's a joke that donald trump talked about the affordability crisis on the campaign right talking all about groceries right and you look at the the data on what's happened since he's gotten into office i mean the idea that that guy cares about bringing down prices of necessities is ridiculous but but he talked a lot about it mamdani the whole campaign is about the affordability crisis so i think the first threshold for all of these candidates for successful candidates is to at least be talking about authentically the problems that regular people are facing facing and frankly it's strange but that's not really something that's necessarily pervasive in the democratic party yet right i mean it's not it's not right i mean you look at kamala harris's campaign and we're on the right the one year right now we're talking on the one year anniversary of when she started running for president when biden left you know said he wasn't gonna run you know the inside reporting from her campaign was all about how she was basically her advisors were telling her don't go too populist on economics right right and and it drove a lot of us crazy and i think the thing that really drove me crazy about that was this idea that they felt they had to i don't know why they got jedi mind tricked into this but they felt they had to like tell people that everything was good because they're the incumbent and it fundamentally misunderstands how to run for election when you are perceived to be the incumbent or somehow the lessons of the nineteen thirty six election have been forgotten and the thing is if you think about that it's kind of interesting right fdr most successful democratic president of the last whatever hundred years he wins in nineteen thirty two that's easy to understand how he wins right he's running against herbert hoover it's the great depression okay like that's like a like you you would have had to really fuck it up to like lose that race okay but then the question is wait a minute the great depression wasn't over in nineteen thirty six how do you're the president you're seen as like the man right like you're now in power how do you win reelection in the middle of the great depression and the answer is is that he ran a campaign saying i am understand that what is going on in this country remains unacceptable i have not been able to do what is completely necessary to fix this problem because of this obstruction and because of all the organized money aligned against me i welcome the hatred of the organized money that is against me and that is why we have to win this race kamala harris didn't take any of those messages right everything's better people don't realize that the economy is actually better than they think and the thing is that i do think like on the merits there was an argument to be made that actually a lot of biden's policies were were doing better than what trump had done in his first term but when you're going out to campaign saying hey listen if you're mad about the economy you're just wrong is like ridiculous the message should have been listen we started the ball rolling in the right direction we have not been able to get done what is necessary to get done we've had to actually stop doing things that we've been trying to do that were successful and we have to win this election to break through the obstruction right like that was not the message.

Chris (44:39)

Listen i'm optimistic i mean in a weird way i mean i'm optimistic with caveats in two thousand seven i wrote a book called the uprising which i felt like we were it felt like a similar moment where it was a second term president second term republican president and there was this moment where there was all this populist anger on the right and left and the premise of the book was this is going to go in one direction or the other someone's going to harness this and what ended up happening and i was actually you know i tried to be optimistic and i was hopeful that this would go in sort of a center left direction and what ended up happening in retrospect is that i think obama channeled a lot of the center left populism into the establishment of the democratic party i think he then took hope and change turned it in frankly to more of the same and that created the conditions for for essentially for trump i think obama got really lucky that the republicans ran a private equity guy in twenty twelve like he they ran like mister like aristocrat like the monopoly guy somehow right he got really really along with him right yeah exactly exactly so like he got really like had trump come along a little earlier like trump could maybe could have won in twenty twelve who knows right but the point is is that a lot of the center left anger went into the democratic establishment and there was a great disillusionment a lot of the center right went into the tea party helped create the conditions for trump i feel like we're in a very similar moment now but here's the difference and i think this is why i'm actually somewhat even more optimistic and maybe i'll be proven to be wrong and i'm not making predictions i'm out of the prediction business which is that if you look at polls self described democratic voters are more angry at their own party's leadership than they have been i think in our in my entire adult life that typically even when democrats are like fucking everything up and out of power democratic voters themselves are not that mad at their democratic party leaders that is different we are in a somewhat a historical moment here or at least not you got to trace it all the way back to the nineteen sixties right with the anger over the vietnam war and i think that creates the potential for some real serious change inside regardless of the dnc doing an autopsy and pretending the dead body isn't there that's what they're doing right it's an autopsy and they're pretending the dead body isn't there like forget about the dnc i'm talking about at the rank and file voter level i feel like like the arguments that there needs to be a whole new generation of leadership are going to land in a much a much more salient way than perhaps they they have in the past so i have great hope that whether it's in the midterms or tons of candidates competing for that twenty twenty eight democratic nomination that that is going to create and harness this into many different direction that competition itself is going to create or creates the potential for something much better to come out well.

Chris (49:49)

As well yeah i mean i think that look i've i worked in the twenty twenty primary it was an extremely disillusioning experience in the sense of although you know i wasn't surprised by it because i've reported on politics and worked in campaigns for a long time but but sort of what determines these primaries at the at the voter level is what was troubling to me that that that i think we have to understand that that there are conservative elements of the democratic party electorate like like not just conservative voices but conservative elements that are still looking for kind of not just conservative democrats but i don't mean like ideologically conservative i mean kind of conservative in their vision of what to do that there's a there's a fear of like quote unquote radicalism and maybe now you know since then it'll at that point be eight years that it's like we're living in radical times we need rat we need more more quote unquote radical solutions here i mean i don't think the new deal is very radical right i mean it was at the time but like i think right i mean but it and it is comparatively radical to what the democratic party pushes today so so i think there's an opening for a candidate to speak to big visions about a whole new way this country can and should work i think that the so called radical ideas of medicare for all as an example that some kind of free college for all some kind of much more robust retirement system that's more expanding social security and the like i mean these are basic human needs and they are universal right i do think we're moving beyond in a lot of ways the era of identity politics where identity politics is weaponized against class politics that universalism and simplicity are the way for a policy agenda i mean people like medicare people like social security because it's universal and because it's easy right they get it it's automatic it's not like you got to jump through twenty five thousand right there's no loopholes it's like that's it like it's funny to me that like the democrats are flailing around always looking for solutions and the two most popular programs in the history of the country and in the history of the party are sitting right there waiting to be waiting to be expanded everyone likes these policies like like i mean it's a little more complicated than that but like it's right there right so a candidate who can speak to those those issues and that agenda and a candidate who can i think also speak credibly about corruption you know i saw jon ossoff recently and this is an issue near and dear to my heart we did the the audio series master plan which is all about the secret history of legalizing corruption in america i think john ossoff he he made a speech saying that you know something to the effect of we're living in the most corrupt political system in the western world citizens united was the worst decision in in the modern history of the country and he articulated what we tried to articulate in the in the series which is connecting corruption to how it affects your daily life right you're paying more for your prescription drugs because the pharmaceutical industry buys off the politicians right like like the corruption connected to the real issues and the thing about why i think this is such an important theme in the twenty will be in the twenty twenty eight election or could be is that we remember that that's how john mccain became so popular john mccain emerged from a corruption scandal the keating five scandal to become the a crusader against big money in politics and it spoke to people across the ideological spectrum obviously donald trump is the human personification of corruption in so many different ways the human personification of big money in politics so it's an easy argument but the reason democrats have in a lot of ways shied away from it is because i think they're afraid that they're going to end up indicting their own party but here's the thing both parties do need to be indicted and one way you exude authenticity is to is to show that you're willing to go after both parties when it is necessary the average person on the street thinks both parties are corrupt or are at least not serving their interests we have a problem where very few politicians are willing to say that for fear of offending their own party but it's a message that is waiting to be delivered.