Veteran Iowa poller J. Anselser dismisses Trump's lawsuit against her, Des Moines registration, and its parent company Gannett after falsely predicting former Vice President Harris led the state of Hokey in a November investigation You're about to do so.
The foundations of rights and expression of individuals, a free speech organization (fire), I filed an application On Friday, he argued to a federal judge on behalf of Seltzer that the poll was a political speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment.
“Plaintiffs' claims are prohibited by the First Amendment and the court should dismiss them on prejudice,” Fire said in a court filing. “In the US, there is no such thing as a 'fraud news' claim. Jurisdiction courts have suggested that the cause of such a case may be in effect, and few plaintiffs have attempted to file such a dim claim. ”
A November 2 survey by Seltzer, which shocked many politicians around the country, found that Harris rose three points in Iowa in Trump, which won the state in 2016 and 2020.
In the second half of November, the pollster said he would retire, saying, “A year ago, I will not update when the 2024 contract has passed on to other ventures and opportunities, and when it expires in the latest election polls. I advised that.”
The then-GOP presidential candidate should follow Seltzer, accusing him of being an election “fraud” and urge him to investigate.
Trump's legal team sued the register and Selser in mid-December in Iowa Court, alleging that voters violated the state's consumer fraud laws by deceiving voters. They also asked her to be banned from “freeing further deceptive polls” and demanded damages.
“For too long, leftist pollers have been trying to influence election outcomes through manipulated polls that have unacceptable error rates and are not based on widely accepted methods of voting,” he said. The president's team said in the lawsuit.
Seltzer vehemently denied his intention to shake up election polls.
The fire in its filing Friday said the plaintiff “fails at a threshold to assert reparable damages and does not state a plausible claim for law or alleged facts.”
“The court has never accepted such a claim. This court should not be the first,” the organization wrote.
