Thankyou, Tucker Carlson!!

[Ron Bulman]

"It's not just Fox News executives. It's Fox Corporation. Raj Shaj. Rupert Murdoch. Lachlan Murdoch. They didn't want critical coverage of Trump, and they made that very clear to their subordinates."

Since the thread's about Tucker, and theoretically about JFK.

'It is so insane but our viewers believe it': Tucker Carlson's producers quietly trashed Fox News' audience (msn.com)

•  

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

is there a way I can share the pdfs of the briefs supporting motions for summary judgement filed by Dominion, Fox News Corp and Fox Corp?  They are interesting to me as a lawyer but I think you may find them interesting as well.  

Dominion

Fox News

Fox Corp

@Lawrence Schnapf @Matt Allison

Edited March 15, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

9 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Bob Ness- you making broad general statements about potential liability of news organizationsm and the viability of parties bringing lawsuits  that resembles magical thinking which is ok- just recognize it .

This case will turn on specific allegations that the plaintiffs must prove along with  their damages.  I have already explained how Fox can try to defend this case. read the preceding discussions.  This case is far from a slam dunk. All we have so far is the complaint and the selective leaks from deposition testimony. You havent even heard Fox's side of the story yet. They have very good lawyers. this will become very muddled after Fox tells its story.          

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.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

I've never done that before because I have client info in the cloud.  would i share the link in a thread here?

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Dominion

Fox News

Fox Corp

@Lawrence Schnapf @Matt Allison

Well done, whoever did this. I still find legal briefs a bit long to actually read....

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Bob Ness- their are dueling material facts that will likely prohibit summary judgement. On the law, it is very difficult to hold a parent liable for defamation of the subsidiary. See:

• ("Dominion now claims that Fox Corporation is on the hook for statements published by its subsidiary simply because it did not intervene to stop them from airing. That theory has no basis in defamation law and would vitiate bedrock corporate separateness rules. This Court should reject Dominion’s latest attempt to end-run around basic corporate-law principles.");
• ("This Court observed from the very start of Dominion’s lawsuit against Fox Corporation that Dominion’s “pleadings come close to contravening the ‘fundamental [rule] that a parent is considered a legally separate entity from its subsidiary and cannot be held liable for the subsidiary’s action based solely on its ownership of a controlling interest in the subsidiary")  

Murdoch did a good job of insulating Fox Corp from Fox News (" Neither Rupert Murdoch, nor Lachlan Murdoch, nor anyone else at Fox Corporation played any role in creating or publishing any of the statements Dominion challenges. Revealingly, after running into one dead-end after another in questioning Fox News witnesses, Dominion did not even bother to ask the two Fox Corporation executives at the heart of its allegations whether either of them discussed Dominion with any Fox News hosts. Nevertheless, on redirect, Rupert Murdoch confirmed under oath that he never even discussed Dominion with any of the Fox News hosts whose programming Dominion has challenged."

And Fox News begins its analysis with the following: 

• "when it comes to allegations that are newsworthy regardless of whether they are true or false, the New York Court of Appeals has squarely held—in the context of allegations of election interference, no less—that so long as a reasonable viewer, when considering a statement in the “over-all context in which the assertions were made,” would understand the statement “as mere allegations to be investigated rather than as facts,” reporting the allegation is not defamation" 
• "And so long as the press makes clear that the allegations are just allegations, it is free to offer its opinion that the allegations are “credible” and merit investigation (as some Fox News hosts and other networks did, just as it is free to offer its opinion that the allegations are implausible (as other Fox News hosts and other networks did.

and perhaps the heart of its defense

• Dominion does not even try to argue that a reasonable viewer would fail to understand that the vast majority of the statements it challenges were “mere allegations” made by the President and his lawyers, not proven facts about Dominion. Nor could it. After all, the reasonable-viewer test assumes a reasonable viewer, and when a host says, “Coming up, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell make the President’s case right here,” as Maria Bartiromo did on November 8, or “the President’s lawyers come forward alleging…,” as Jeanine Pirro did on November 21, any sensible person understands that what they are hearing are allegations that need to proven in court, not facts reported for their truth [emphasis added]

I do not provide the above as my defense of Fox but to give you a flavor of what Dominion is going to have to overcome. this is not a breach of contract or negligence case. It is a defamation case where the plaintiff has to prove malice- very difficult with corporate news organizations. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

And here is Fox News recitation of NY defamation law. as you see, they play on the chilling effect such a verdict would create for all news organizations, not just Fox:

"According to Dominion, a media organization acts with the requisite actual malice so long as anyone in the “chain of command”—from line-level producers to the CEO to the highest executives at the publication’s parent company—did not believe something someone on one of the organization’s shows said, even if that person played no role in drafting, editing, or publishing that statement or even knew that it existed. Thus, in Dominion’s view, Fox News acted with actual malice if Lachlan Murdoch did not believe something he never knew Sidney Powell said on Lou Dobbs’ show."

"That theory fails as a matter of law, and the law could not be clearer: Actual malice must be brought home to someone who actually played a role in crafting, editing, or publishing the particular statement at hand, not just to someone on the corporate organizational chart. There is no such thing as defamation by omission, and the Supreme Court of the United States squarely rejected a “collective knowledge” theory of actual malice more than half a century ago." 

"This unprecedented effort to punish the press for covering and commenting on the most newsworthy story of the day has no basis in law or fact. Indeed, Dominion has even been forced to quietly slash its damages demand by more than half a billion dollars after its own experts debunked its implausible claims."

"In Dominion’s view, the press is liable for reporting such allegations so long as someone in the “chain of command”—from line-level producers to the highest executives at a publication’s parent company—suspects that the allegations are specious and fails to stop the publication from covering on them. On top of that, the press is not only liable for reporting such allegations, but on the hook for punitive damages too so long as someone within the news organization knew that the allegations would harm the accused."

"By Dominion’s telling,

• if the President falsely accused the Vice President of plotting to assassinate him, the press would be duty-bound to suppress that unquestionably newsworthy allegation so long as someone in the newsroom thought it was ludicrous.
• The New York Times would be liable for reporting allegations in the Steele Dossier that “the Kremlin had recordings” documenting extraordinary accusations against President Trump so long as even one editor at the Times doubted that claim"
• The Washington Post would be liable for reporting President Trump’s allegation that President Obama was born in Kenya since several of its editors believed the claim to be bogus.
• CNN could be liable for reporting former Governor Andrew Cuomo’s denials and counter-allegations that his accusers were XXXXX since some CNN executives undoubtedly believed the Governor’s accusers.
• And all of those publications would be on the hook for punitive damages so long as someone within the organization viewed the allegations as “extremely damaging” to the accused."

Dominion could sue CSPAN tomorrow, as recordings of Rudy Giuliani’s and Sidney Powell’s November 19 news conference and their allegations about Dominion, as well as President Trump’s December 2 press conference featuring the same allegations about Dominion, remain on its website to this day.

And it would not stop there; Dominion could sue anyone who tweeted, posted, texted, emailed, or even just spoke about the allegations too."

"the New York Court of Appeals has made clear that reporting such allegations receives substantial protection, in the context of allegations of election interference no less: So long as a reasonable viewer, when viewing a statement in the “over-all context in which the assertions were made,” would understand the statements “as mere allegations to be investigated rather than as facts,” reporting the allegation is not defamatory, but is instead affirmatively protected by the First Amendment"

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS---

You will review 3,500 suits? Sounds truly awful. 

You will select some suits for review? Okay, go to it, but how does that illuminate the 3,500 suits?  I am not accusing you of cherry-picking, but possibly sampling error. 

Do we even know, in the most broad-brush terms, if Trump "won" or "lost" what fraction of the 3,500 suits?

What if Trump "won" 90% of the suits...that would suggest a litigious but "correct" developer who stood up for his legal rights.

To me, if Trump "lost" 90% of the suits, then I would conjecture he engaged in corrupt business practices. 

But I encourage you to pursue your viewpoints, and present them here.

I encourage dissent, and the full range of views, I do not denigrate anyone for having different viewpoints than mine. 

 

 

 

 

 

You misunderstood, Ben. I said I would dig for some of the law suits filed by Trump, not analyze 3,500.

This one jumped out as representative of his attitude toward the law and the courts ...

Nearly fifty years ago, Donald Trump learned the legal strategy that would repeatedly get him out of tight legal jams.

It was 1973 and the Justice Department had just filed a civil rights lawsuit against Trump and his father Fred Trump. The complaint alleged that the Trumps and their company, which managed some 14,000 apartments in Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island, had violated the Fair Housing Act by systematically flagging the applications of Black renters and steering them away from available units. . . .

To push back, the Trumps hired the famously combative Roy Cohn—Senator Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel during the 1950s Red Scare hearings—and sued the Justice Department for $100 million, claiming defamation. (sound familiar?)The Trumps settled the case two years later, agreeing to a consent decree that included giving a weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League. Trump later boasted that he ended up “making a minor settlement without admitting guilt.” (sound familiar? Stormy Daniels.)
https://time.com/6215419/trump-legal-trouble-key-strategies/

This is who Carlson helped Trump assume office in 2016.
 

 

 

 

 

---

 [HC1][deleted underline here and above – we use one or the other ]

Edited March 15, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Bob Ness]

7 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

And here is Fox News recitation of NY defamation law. as you see, they play on the chilling effect such a verdict would create for all news organizations, not just Fox:

"According to Dominion, a media organization acts with the requisite actual malice so long as anyone in the “chain of command”—from line-level producers to the CEO to the highest executives at the publication’s parent company—did not believe something someone on one of the organization’s shows said, even if that person played no role in drafting, editing, or publishing that statement or even knew that it existed. Thus, in Dominion’s view, Fox News acted with actual malice if Lachlan Murdoch did not believe something he never knew Sidney Powell said on Lou Dobbs’ show."

"That theory fails as a matter of law, and the law could not be clearer: Actual malice must be brought home to someone who actually played a role in crafting, editing, or publishing the particular statement at hand, not just to someone on the corporate organizational chart. There is no such thing as defamation by omission, and the Supreme Court of the United States squarely rejected a “collective knowledge” theory of actual malice more than half a century ago." 

"This unprecedented effort to punish the press for covering and commenting on the most newsworthy story of the day has no basis in law or fact. Indeed, Dominion has even been forced to quietly slash its damages demand by more than half a billion dollars after its own experts debunked its implausible claims."

"In Dominion’s view, the press is liable for reporting such allegations so long as someone in the “chain of command”—from line-level producers to the highest executives at a publication’s parent company—suspects that the allegations are specious and fails to stop the publication from covering on them. On top of that, the press is not only liable for reporting such allegations, but on the hook for punitive damages too so long as someone within the news organization knew that the allegations would harm the accused."

"By Dominion’s telling,

• if the President falsely accused the Vice President of plotting to assassinate him, the press would be duty-bound to suppress that unquestionably newsworthy allegation so long as someone in the newsroom thought it was ludicrous.
• The New York Times would be liable for reporting allegations in the Steele Dossier that “the Kremlin had recordings” documenting extraordinary accusations against President Trump so long as even one editor at the Times doubted that claim"
• The Washington Post would be liable for reporting President Trump’s allegation that President Obama was born in Kenya since several of its editors believed the claim to be bogus.
• CNN could be liable for reporting former Governor Andrew Cuomo’s denials and counter-allegations that his accusers were XXXXX since some CNN executives undoubtedly believed the Governor’s accusers.
• And all of those publications would be on the hook for punitive damages so long as someone within the organization viewed the allegations as “extremely damaging” to the accused."

Dominion could sue CSPAN tomorrow, as recordings of Rudy Giuliani’s and Sidney Powell’s November 19 news conference and their allegations about Dominion, as well as President Trump’s December 2 press conference featuring the same allegations about Dominion, remain on its website to this day.

And it would not stop there; Dominion could sue anyone who tweeted, posted, texted, emailed, or even just spoke about the allegations too."

"the New York Court of Appeals has made clear that reporting such allegations receives substantial protection, in the context of allegations of election interference no less: So long as a reasonable viewer, when viewing a statement in the “over-all context in which the assertions were made,” would understand the statements “as mere allegations to be investigated rather than as facts,” reporting the allegation is not defamatory, but is instead affirmatively protected by the First Amendment"

 

 

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.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

I didn't think I was denigrating you, so I apologize if that was your read. And you misunderstood. I said I would dig for contemporary suit filed by Trump, not as a developer, but as a private citizen not to mention while a sitting president.

This is who Tucker Carlson aggressively supported in 2015. As a serious journalist, wouldn’t Carlson be fully aware of this history? If not, why not?

In the 1970s, when Trump was under investigation for housing discrimination, his lawyer Roy Cohn accused the Department of Justice of using “Gestapo” tactics and called investigators “storm troopers.” (sound familiar? Mar-a-Lago.)  . . .

Nearly fifty years ago, Donald Trump learned the legal strategy that would repeatedly get him out of tight legal jams.

It was 1973 and the Justice Department had just filed a civil rights lawsuit against Trump and his father Fred Trump. The complaint alleged that the Trumps and their company, which managed some 14,000 apartments in Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island, had violated the Fair Housing Act by systematically flagging the applications of Black renters and steering them away from available units. . . .

To push back, the Trumps hired the famously combative Roy Cohn—Senator Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel during the 1950s Red Scare hearings—and sued the Justice Department for $100 million, claiming defamation. (sound familiar?)The Trumps settled the case two years later, agreeing to a consent decree that included giving a weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League. Trump later boasted that he ended up “making a minor settlement without admitting guilt.” (sound familiar? Stormy Daniels.)

That early entanglement with the Justice Department drove home to Trump key lessons he’s carried with him through five decades of lawsuits and tax challenges, two impeachments and now, more legal investigations than any other former President has ever faced. . . .

“Here’s what he learned from Roy Cohn: Don’t put things in writing, punch back harder, focus on optics, who cares what the courts say,” (sound familiar?) says Taub, who is the author of the book, Big Dirty Money: The Shocking Injustice and Unseen Cost of White Collar Crime. . . .

Trump once berated his White House counsel Don McGahn for taking notes during an Oval Office meeting about the Mueller investigation. “Why do you take notes? Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes,” Trump said. McGahn said he took notes because he’s a “real lawyer” and it creates a record. “I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes,” Trump said.

https://time.com/6215419/trump-legal-trouble-key-strategies/
This is not my view, Ben. It's documented fact, and this is who Tucker Carlson helped get elected president of the US.  It is my view he will do so again if those who recognize the threat to democracy are not vigilant.

Carlson’s Jan 6 misrepresentations are the tip of the election cycle spear. Fact.

 

 

 

 

---

 [HC1][deleted underline here and above – we use one or the other ]

Thanks for your post and airing out your views. 

We should encourage dissent and the full spectrum of viewpoints---here and in the society at large. 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

And here is Fox News recitation of NY defamation law. as you see, they play on the chilling effect such a verdict would create for all news organizations, not just Fox:

"According to Dominion, a media organization acts with the requisite actual malice so long as anyone in the “chain of command”—from line-level producers to the CEO to the highest executives at the publication’s parent company—did not believe something someone on one of the organization’s shows said, even if that person played no role in drafting, editing, or publishing that statement or even knew that it existed. Thus, in Dominion’s view, Fox News acted with actual malice if Lachlan Murdoch did not believe something he never knew Sidney Powell said on Lou Dobbs’ show."

"That theory fails as a matter of law, and the law could not be clearer: Actual malice must be brought home to someone who actually played a role in crafting, editing, or publishing the particular statement at hand, not just to someone on the corporate organizational chart. There is no such thing as defamation by omission, and the Supreme Court of the United States squarely rejected a “collective knowledge” theory of actual malice more than half a century ago." 

"This unprecedented effort to punish the press for covering and commenting on the most newsworthy story of the day has no basis in law or fact. Indeed, Dominion has even been forced to quietly slash its damages demand by more than half a billion dollars after its own experts debunked its implausible claims."

"In Dominion’s view, the press is liable for reporting such allegations so long as someone in the “chain of command”—from line-level producers to the highest executives at a publication’s parent company—suspects that the allegations are specious and fails to stop the publication from covering on them. On top of that, the press is not only liable for reporting such allegations, but on the hook for punitive damages too so long as someone within the news organization knew that the allegations would harm the accused."

"By Dominion’s telling,

• if the President falsely accused the Vice President of plotting to assassinate him, the press would be duty-bound to suppress that unquestionably newsworthy allegation so long as someone in the newsroom thought it was ludicrous.
• The New York Times would be liable for reporting allegations in the Steele Dossier that “the Kremlin had recordings” documenting extraordinary accusations against President Trump so long as even one editor at the Times doubted that claim"
• The Washington Post would be liable for reporting President Trump’s allegation that President Obama was born in Kenya since several of its editors believed the claim to be bogus.
• CNN could be liable for reporting former Governor Andrew Cuomo’s denials and counter-allegations that his accusers were XXXXX since some CNN executives undoubtedly believed the Governor’s accusers.
• And all of those publications would be on the hook for punitive damages so long as someone within the organization viewed the allegations as “extremely damaging” to the accused."

Dominion could sue CSPAN tomorrow, as recordings of Rudy Giuliani’s and Sidney Powell’s November 19 news conference and their allegations about Dominion, as well as President Trump’s December 2 press conference featuring the same allegations about Dominion, remain on its website to this day.

And it would not stop there; Dominion could sue anyone who tweeted, posted, texted, emailed, or even just spoke about the allegations too."

"the New York Court of Appeals has made clear that reporting such allegations receives substantial protection, in the context of allegations of election interference no less: So long as a reasonable viewer, when viewing a statement in the “over-all context in which the assertions were made,” would understand the statements “as mere allegations to be investigated rather than as facts,” reporting the allegation is not defamatory, but is instead affirmatively protected by the First Amendment"

 

 

In Dominion’s view, the press is liable for reporting such allegations so long as someone in the “chain of command”—from line-level producers to the highest executives at a publication’s parent company—suspects that the allegations are specious and fails to stop the publication from covering on them. On top of that, the press is not only liable for reporting such allegations, but on the hook for punitive damages too so long as someone within the news organization knew that the allegations would harm the accused."--LS, citing Fox

Boy, that would muffle freedom of speech and investigative journalism. 

I knew an old press lawyer who said, "You know, bad case makes for bad law." 

I hope Fox, not entirely a likable organization, prevails, and is compensated for court costs. 

After they go after Fox, who next to be silenced through the courts? 

This has a whiff of a SLAPP suit. 

What if Dominion machines are easily hacked, as reported the The New York Times in 2018? 

Is that at the core of Dominion's anger and crusade? 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Matt Allison]

Yes, very interesting to read and I appreciate your take on it as well, Larry.

IANAL, but I can't help but feel that where Fox might have issues is because they present themselves as a news channel. I'm aware that people consider their night-time hosts as opinion driven, but there is a bit more of an expectation of at least basic honesty from a channel that calls itself a "news" channel; the average American does not expect a news channel to literally lie to them every night. The evidence is shown that these people knew what Trump was doing was a lie/con/scam.

I also believe the Alex Jones verdict will prove to be more consequential than people think in matters like this.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Alex Jones was a unique situation both because he was individual and his performance on the witness stand essentially asked the jury to find him quilty.

This is a very important first amendment case and Dominion has very heavy lifting especially since the demand resembles a punitive penalty. they still have to prove damages which I have yet to see. they already had to reduce their demand by 1/2 billion dollars. That will no doubt be further reduced. 

how would you feel if the jury found Fox guilty but awared $1 in damages?    

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Lawrence Schnapf

[Leslie Sharp]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Thanks for your post and airing out your views. 

We should encourage dissent and the full spectrum of viewpoints---here and in the society at large. 

Your response to facts is, "well, that's your view"? 

[Joe Bauer]

Read this Tucker Carlson defenders:

Tucker Carlson Says Jan. 6 Is ‘Second Only to the 2020 Election as the Biggest Scam in My Lifetime’

Story by Michael Luciano • 13h ago

 

So much for trying to portray Carlson as some objective, non-Trump biased, news truth reporting commentator.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Joe Bauer