Bob Ness

I have no doubt Larry that the kitchen sink won't be included in any potential judgements against Fox News, Fox Corp or anyone else the plaintiffs' attorneys have decided to fold into the suit which are numerable and largely have been left intact to go to trial. The reason for that, as you well know is that the judges in the numerous attempts at dismissing the case have disagreed with Fox's attorneys and determined these is a reasonable chance a jury would find in Smartmatic's favor. The examples given by Fox's lawyers above are ridiculous attempts to somehow compare them with Fox's callous disregard for not only the financial damage to Dominion but also threats against Dominion employees, which are deplorable to me. I doubt you would approve of such consequences either. Fox continued to air demonstrably provable lies peddled by their on-air staff to millions of gullible marks they call an audience. Should they be able to short circuit some aspects of the suit (which I'm sure they will) they stand a fair likelyhood IMO of proving what is patently obvious to any objective observer of this entire grift. I was saying it at the time on this board and will repeat it now (as you weren't around for that conversation) the "stolen election" grift was entirely engineered to capture money in the form of "defense funds" by people who can count clicks for their clients. At every moment of every news cycle (which essentially acts as a national advertisement) people like me are counting dollars, geographically segmented and donated to Trump, Guiliani, Lindell, Powell ad infinitum for what they themselves knew was a con job. After the wild success Trump had of sucking money out of the pockets of these people everyone was stepping up to the trough. It wasn't me they were conning; it was their own supporters. I can roughly tell you how they did it but don't have time for lengthy explanations. IMO Fox, OANN and a few others were a major part of promoting that and in my view did it intentionally. To try to claim they were fulfilling their constitutionally protected rights is akin to saying Madoff was just trying to make a buck through hard work and perseverance. I actually have to go prostitute myself and may not get back to you for a bit but I appreciate your perspective regardless. Of course, we don't have all the facts and this is largely conjecture in a legal sense but from my personal perspective and opinion, I think these people are a disgrace.

I've read the briefs. I don't have a lawyer's perspective of course but Helen Keller could parse through the facts of what they were doing and I'd think it will be very difficult to defend their actions.

Dominion Fox News Fox Corp @Lawrence Schnapf @Matt Allison

Smartmatic is asking for $2.7 billion. Dominion is just first in line. Let's face it the "news" companies nowadays are little more than content for advertisers and it's been that way for some time. Like Chomsky says, since profits depend on the advertising models rather than viewership or subscriptions (direct audience generated revenue) those organizations will have no interest in changing their editorial slant until such time as their advertisers demand it or leave. But much of what we're talking about isn't "editorial slant". It's outright fabricated information which "Fox NEWS" (NOT Fox opinion) put forth at the same time they apparently knew the information was fabricated. This absolutely impacts both Dominion and Smartmatic's ability to do business as they are multi-billion dollar businesses with employees and the whole lot who are now at least partially seen as not credible. The news organizations receive protection specifically in the constitution but that also comes with a responsibility to investigate the veracity of their claims. Usually, cases don't make the docket unless a strong set of issues make it likely a plaintiff will prevail. People can't just sue every time they disagree with what a newspaper opines. It's a waste of money and court resources. What you seem to be saying is they get to play both sides: "Hey we weren't reporting news! We're an opinion organization!" But we get to claim the protection of a news organization!" Which is it? An entity claiming to "give an opinion" is absolutely subject to all the legal remedies available to a plaintiff if they maliciously malign, slander or defame them. Courts have consistently held that news organizations can't recklessly disregard the truth when reporting on matters of public concern. In this case, they're not saying so and so is a bad candidate or it's a shame he won (an opinion many would agree with) they were saying the entire voting procedure, effecting all voters, was fraudulent and of great PUBLIC CONCERN. They're including ALL voters and not a subsection or segment, which has been shown to be false and known to Fox NEWS at that time. They knew there wasn't a fire and not only claimed otherwise, used the near full extent of their massive resources to perpetuate the lie. Finally, courts have also held that news organizations are liable for damages if they publish or broadcast defamatory statements with a "reckless disregard" for the truth. tl;dr Taint that hard methinks. Would have been dismissed long ago but hey, IANAL.

Don't worry about that. Greenwald isn't either.

We these things get so far off the rails maybe they should be just closed to further comment? Thanks for the efforts Mark.

Cotter: "I know you are, but what am I?" Good response. Fourth grade, John?

Gee. This thread is like the tr0ll hall of fame.

We shall see. We shall see...

I'm certainly not in a position to argue the accumulated evidence with you the presumed facts you present about the case. You have many decades of gathering the information that I will never match. I am in a position to objectively weigh arguments and make my own judgements. I am going to try to make a separate post that will attempt to show what your spectacular main flaw is and why your arguments tend to fall flat on many ears. Those arguments really aren't yours but they're positions that you reiterate rather well. I'm very busy prostituting myself (I feel so cheap) right now but I think it will be interesting. I'll let you know when it's up if you're interested.

Exactly the point. I would guess assassins we're tripping over each other in Dallas. Chalking it up to a that 'crazy mixed up kid' in not much more the a few minutes is a bit pat, don't you think?

Mods. Please take out the garbage. Enough is enough.

But Germany didn't invade Poland. Germany AND Russia invaded in September of 1939. France and England had an agreement to defend them and prior to the Munich agreement the Soviets weren't necessarily going to take part in an invasion. The Munich agreement, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany provided immense logistical advantages to Germany and created a rift between the Russians and the Allies; France, Italy (who were with the Allies at the time) and England. Lord Chamberlain essentially drove a wedge between the Allies and Stalin who was their most important ally (if only to keep the USSR sidelined). Russia could have prevented the invasion either diplomatically or through logistical support as they had a mutual defense agreement with France. But the Munich agreement essentially abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Germans which gave them the military stockpiles of the Czechs and lead Russia to the Ribbentrop agreement. Throughout this entire time and before, ALL of these countries were engaged in small military incursions with each other trying to claim this patch of land for these guys, that patch of sticks for those guys ad infinitum. It was viewed in the States as typical Euro "Lord this and such that" is offended by the gesture of the "Throne of what's his name" and must needs start a conflagration to defend the honor of such arachnids! And that's pretty close! They've been doing it for centuries and why stop now? Remember? We left all that crap behind and kicked them out when they brought it here! NATO is our response to that.

I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone but they were people who had to play the cards as dealt and not as they wanted them, plus had just traveled through the most violent time in human history. I for one often wonder how the Russians left even a blade of grass standing in Germany. Of course they sat idly by as the Germans annihilated Warsaw - to this day Russia would love nothing more than to incinerate Poland. In Warsaw the animals wouldn't give the Allies permission to even drop food during the German's attack. The Russians were the worst of all save the Nasis, and were plenty happy to aid them early on. It's no wonder Hitler despised them. In point of fact the European continent is the place to go for bloodletting and a quick visit to the Ukraine will bear that out. Picking friends there is a lot like going to a pig farm to find a bride. Particularly after World War Two.

I would just guess the CIA or ONI would have debriefed him already about his time in the USSR. Perhaps they may suspect he wasn't entirely forthcoming about that, but I find Marina as suspicious as Lee. If he was acting as some sort of dangle during that time, the Soviets wouldn't have been stupid enough to expose him to anything of import I imagine. My understanding of the theory is that Oswald's (and others) possible use as a dangle was really meant to create comm traffic between the various Soviet assets in the states and possibly expose a mole. An interesting theory with some grounds for discussion and even some indications that may have been the case. On the other hand, at first blush and with no other information, the FBI may have been suspicious that he was sent back home with his new toy sparrow and handler, Marina, to create political hay, which they are very good at. You can see that today with news reports and social media that they are a very good humint type of operation and were reported to have 120,000 assets in the states at one point. The FBI could have very well suspected his return to be something along those lines and kept tabs for those reasons. That is well within their remit. If Oswald was indeed a straw man communist, another possibility, I'm not convinced that information would have been shared between agencies. The CIA and/or ONI would likely wall that off unless absolutely necessary to protect him or a project. The intel agencies are loath to get cross threaded with the other agencies because their projects could often times be at odds with federal law and the less people know the better. I guess the short answer, IMO, is that GDM was introduced to Oswald to verify his activities independent of whatever information he gave in interviews to whomever. I rather doubt radio factories in Minsk would have much value. The activities he may have been verifying is hard to say but I suspect actual networks wasn't one of them. The Russians wouldn't have trusted that information to Oswald.

@Ron EgeI don't think that would be unusual. In fact, I would expect them both to have concurrent investigations. They both have their own patch to tend and different resources as well as remits. Just as their names imply, the CIA collects intelligence and the FBI investigates federal crimes. The CIA doesn't and has no particular expertise in collecting evidence for a criminal prosecution. Foreign intelligence concerns would be of interest to the FBI but I'm sure they would pass that off. I'm sure you know this but I don't find it remarkable that they would both have an interest and in fact the ONI was probably looking at him also, although their files seem to have found a burn barrel.

Oh sure, quite possible. I also think that the two World Wars started basically as ridiculous border disputes and the assassination of Ferdinand. We can thank Russia for that little gem too after they decided to back Serbia sending that war into a large-scale conflict. It wasn't just their joining up with Hitler to start World War Two and trash Poland. I see they're beginning to hint around at another Polish invasion as well as Moldova. Regardless, I am on record here placing much of the blame on those wars creating PTSD addled vets in the US who ginned up extreme political right wing idealogies that we can see still exist. There was a reason, not entirely unfounded, for the isolationist fervor in the run up to World War Two. It's also the reason (at least partially) for the existence of NATO. There has been no outbreak in violence in NATO countries (aside from internal disputes) since its formulation. I'm sure many of the vets from those conflicts saw JFK's attempts at warming relations with the Eastern Bloc as near treasonous. Europe, Russia and the UK have been slaughtering each other (and others) for centuries. That's just a fact. NATO's aligning with many of the more unseemly portions of those countries I'm sure was viewed as being pragmatic. Sure, hold your nose while doing it, but it's the lesser of evils etc. I don't necessarily hold that position but I'm glad it wasn't my choice. Post war Europe was an ugly mess most Americans couldn't imagine. An interesting book on that is Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II by Keith Lowe.

I didn't go down that road with him - it's been a few years. I find John very credible about a number of topics and the Nasi/OSS thing he's very knowledgeable about. That was a heavy part of a writing project I was working on. He investigated the topic for the DoJ and had access to information most wouldn't. Interesting guy.

Oh, I don't think so. Fascists had been alive and well for some time before that. It may have looked different here but much of the thinking of the time was we were better off recruiting fascists to act as a bulwark against Stalin because moderate stripes of the political spectrum would look a lot like Vichy France in the event of aggression from the Soviets. I think Wisner even explicitly stated as such - it may have been someone else - when the stay behinds were developed post World War 2. As it turns out - I spoke at some length with John Loftus about this - Gehlen was doing what a lot of people were doing. He was basically selling the Allies and the US in particular an intelligence or paper mill. The assets and information he had were either bogus or already compromised well over half the time and Gehlen probably caused more problems and wasted more money than anything else. Sort of like Curveball, Bush's buddy that created the fake intel for the Iraq invasion. Maybe not quite that bad. Agent Garbo is an excellent example Juan Pujol García - Wikipedia. The intel agencies will often use bogus intelligence to publicly justify actions that have other motives and goals. I believe (but don't remember the details - I haven't reread the beginning thread posts) Gehlen or his "network" was the sparkling source about Soviet nuclear capabilities that were used to drum up massive hysteria about the "missle gap". Those kinds of shenanigans are harder to do now in the west but still are part of the tool set, especially in Russia, China and a few others. They usually don't have to do that with their own populations but serve up garbage for foreign consumption. In the US, UK and other western democracies effective political and judicial restraint exists as well as vibrant journalistic push back against the story telling. As flawed as those institutions are they're often non-existent elsewhere.

Win what? I wouldn't refute many of those statements. Some lack cotext. All lack balance.

Oh yeah you sure showed me what an intellectual giant you are. Yet another copy and paste that elevates you to the upper reaches challenging intellectual debate. It literally reads like a cliche'd compendium of beefs that various scholars have had with the US since long before I was born. Like chatgpt. Maybe that's how I'll do the response. It's not that it's entirely or even partially wrong or lacking context it's that it's so unoriginal and hypocritical it's difficult to take seriously. Fortunately that's not a criticism of you Chris because you couldn't make it even that far.

Written by chat gpt. Read it yourself. Next

You and Matt are new here. We've been through this. I wake up next to a scientist AND CLINICIAN (board certified in three specialties) with thousands of patients who is far and away more knowledgeable and experienced than me, you, Matt or the YouTubers you're so proud of. Thanks for your opinion. I'll take her experience, research and education.

No, they didn't W. As you can see youtube is their education.

Are you sourcing Fox's time traveler hahaha? These people will believe anything.