In the final weeks of the 2024 presidential election, no issue has animated Donald Trump more than his obsession with “60 Minutes.”

In short REVIEWVice President Kamala Harris sat down for an interview with the news program in early October; some of her responses were edited out for time — a standard practice in broadcast journalism — and the former Republican president has spent almost every day since claiming this is some kind of scandal.

trump has, among otherscalled for CBS to lose its broadcasting license, called for “60 Minutes” to be taken off the air, labeled the show and the network a “threat to democracy,” described the imaginary controversy as “the biggest scandal in broadcast history ,” and even characterized the non-story as “totally illegal.”

The network has patiently explained that the claims are baseless and that the editing process was routine and fair. However, Trump’s lawyers recently wrote to CBS News, the threat of litigation. Obviously, they weren’t kidding. Reuters reported:

The GOP candidate is seeking — I kid you not — $10 billion in damages.

“Former President Trump’s repeated claims against 60 Minutes are false,” a CBS News spokesperson said. “The lawsuit Trump filed today against CBS is completely without merit, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

From a legal standpoint, the idea that CBS News engaged in “election interference” is hard to take seriously. The former president recently wrote on his online platform that he has “PROOF” to justify his outlandish claims, but to date, he has not shared any such evidence.

As a political matter, the Harris campaign has invested considerable time and energy telling voters that Trump is too fixated, not on solving problems, but on revenge and revenge. The Republican’s shift to CBS in the final days of the race appears to strengthen the Democratic establishment: Trump has a list of enemies, while Harris has a list of things to do.

But my favorite part of this story is that the lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas. Why, pray tell, would the former president’s lawyers file the case there? I’m glad you asked.

CBS is not located in Texas. Trump does not live in Texas. The Trump campaign is not in Texas. The “60 Minutes” interview with Harris did not take place in Texas. Nothing in this story has anything to do with Texas.

But the Republican’s lawyers filed the case there anyway and The Washington Post made a report which helped explain why: “The long-running lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, a Trump nominee, is the sole judge.”

To be sure, THE official explanation for filing the litigation in the Northern District of Texas is that the “60 Minutes” interview was broadcast by the area’s CBS affiliate, where some Texans likely saw it.

But there is no reason to play here. Trump’s lawyers wanted to bring the case before a highly controversial judge appointed by Trump, who is fast become the go-to lawyer for GOP plaintiffs looking for a legal ally on the bench.

For example, it was Kacsmaryk who took it upon himself to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone last year, based largely on highly dubious studies — which have since been retracted. (The verdict was finally overturned on procedural grounds.)

When a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a new rule in Texas that would have required firearms dealers to check buyers’ background checks at gun shows, this was Kacsmarykalso.

When a conservative group wanted to challenge the energy efficiency standards, it thought it would be a good idea to file the case in the district of Kacsmaryk. When a conservative group wanted to challenge the administration’s protections for LGBTQ+ students, it did the same.

It’s as if Trump’s lawyers decided to give the legal and political world another case study for why reforms are needed to curb judge shopping.