Nina Jankowicz is back. After a public outcry forced the Biden Administration to kill its infamous Disinformation Government Board, Jankowicz became famous or infamous as the head of the board. She became an instant Internet sensation due to a musical number in which she sang “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” in a TikTok parody of the song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” After her brief stint in the Biden Administration, Jankowicz reportedly registered as a foreign agent with an British group to continue her disinformation work. She is now reinventing herself as the Mary Poppins of defamation and ostensibly seeking $100,000 to sue Fox News for defamation.
Jankowicz posted a five-minute video to her Twitter account along with a GoFundMe page. This video is strictly legal, not musical. According to the GoFundMe page, she is seeking to raise $100,000.
The production elements of her latest video are again top notch, but her facts are a bit more sketchy.
Jankowicz portrays herself as a defender of free speech who opposed efforts to censor viewpoints. As one of her critics, I strongly contest that self-portrayal. Indeed, one might even call it “disinformation.”
When she was appointed the executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board in April 2022, she was tasked with combating “disinformation” on subjects ranging from the U.S. southern border to other forms of disinformation.
While Jankowicz objects to the “overly personalized, false, and incendiary coverage of me,” it is only the false part that is actionable. Coverage is allowed to be “personalized” and even “incendiary” so long as it is true or protected opinion.
She was previously criticized for allegedly spreading disinformation and advocating censorship,
Jankowicz previously argued that Congress should create new laws to block mockery of women online by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and including “provisions against online gender-based harassment.”
Jankowicz testified before the British House of Parliament about “gender misinformation” being a “national security concern” and a threat to democracy requiring government censorship.
She demanded that both tech companies and government should work together using “creativity and technological prowess to make a pariah of online misogyny.”
On the Hunter Biden laptop, Jankowicz pushed the false narrative that it was a false story and that “we should view it as a Trump campaign product.” She continued to spread that disinformation, including tweeting a link to a news article that she said cast “yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story.” In another tweet, she added “not to mention that the emails don’t need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve that context, not a [fairy] tale about a laptop repair shop.”
She even cited the author of the infamous Steele Dossier as a guide for how to deal with disinformation. In August 2020, Jankowicz tweeted “Listened to this last night – Chris Steele (yes THAT Chris Steele) provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo. Worth a listen.” The Steele Dossier was viewed by American intelligence as relying on a suspected Russian agent as a source. These officials warned that it was itself used as a possible Russian disinformation vehicle.
She also joined the panic over the Musk threat to reintroduce free speech values to Twitter. In an interview on NPR, she stated “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities.”
Jankowicz insists that the network’s statements about her were “easily disproven by a few minutes of research.” I do not know the full extent of Fox comments that she is referencing but the clips show protected opinion. People are allowed to view her “Disinformation Governance Board” as . . . well . . . a board seeking to govern disinformation. Regardless of whether it had direct authority to censor, it was clearly an effort to coordinate efforts to combat disinformation.
We are only now learning how extensive this system of disinformation measures may be. In my column in the Hill this weekend, I discuss yet another possible federally funded effort to target citizens and others for possible censorship. I noted that the Biden administration played us for chumps in the Board controversy. As we celebrated the demise of the infamous Disinformation Governing Board, the Biden administration never disclosed a larger censorship effort. That includes a recently disclosed back channel to Twitter where dozens of FBI agents tagged citizens for censorship. I recently testified on that new evidence.
Even if Jankowicz is seriously thinking of suing Fox News, she faces considerable factual and legal challenges. Under New York Times v. Sullivan. the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The same standard applies to public figures. Jankowicz was a public official when these comments began and she is now a public figure.
Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and she is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Court was seeking to protect the media from efforts to deter coverage and commentary through the threat of civil lawsuits. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.
In this case, there were good-faith reasons for denouncing the work of this Board and the views of Jankowicz. Even when speakers have used terms like “blackmail” to denounce public figures, the Court has barred defamation lawsuits. For example, the Court dealt with such heated rhetoric in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted:
It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.
The First Amendment limits the scope of defamation in some cases. As one court noted, “‘rhetorical hyperbole,’ ‘vigorous epithet[s],’ ‘lusty and imaginative expressions[s] of . . . contempt,’ and language used ‘in a loose, figurative sense’ have all been accorded constitutional protection.” Ferlauto v. Hamsher 74 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1401 (1999)
Moreover, what constitutes an opinion as opposed to a factual claim is generally left to a jury: “some statements are ambiguous and cannot be characterized as factual or nonfactual as a matter of law. ‘In these circumstances, it is for the jury to determine whether an ordinary reader would have understood the article as a factual assertion…’” Kahn v. Bower, 232 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1608 (1991).
In Wilkow v. Forbes, Inc., 241 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2001), opinion prevailed as a defense. In that case, a journalist with Forbes was sued for harsh characterizations of a lawyer and his practice. Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that “although the article drips with disapproval of Wilkow’s (and the judges’) conduct, an author’s opinion about business ethics isn’t defamatory under Illinois law.”
Jankowicz’s self-portrayal as a defender of free speech is not shared by many of us in the free speech community. She is one of the leading advocates for disinformation regulations and de facto censorship. Moreover, the board was rightfully denounced as part of this insidious effort and even the Biden Administration abandoned it.
In the end, it is not clear how $100,000 could even fund the initial stage of a lawsuit against Fox. There is no guarantee that it would be used for that purpose. On her GoFundMe page, Jankowicz lists other uses for the money including “security” and “protecting me and my family.” She also lists “current costs” as including lawsuits where she is a defendant or investigations calling her as a witness. However, the video pitch only mentions using the money to sue Fox News, which will resonate more readily with many potential donors.
If she were to launch a defamation action, her greatest challenge is not the money but the governing case law. Jankowicz faces considerable tort and constitutional headwinds in seeking to sue over criticism of her career and views.
N.B.: For full disclosure, I appear on Fox as a legal analyst but my views on this blog are neither connected to nor approved by Fox or any of my other associated media companies as a commentator or columnist. I will repost columns that appear in newspapers or outlets.
199 thoughts on “The Mary Poppins of Defamation? Nina Jankowicz Solicits Funds to Sue Fox News”
hullbobby and Upstate: Funny comments, but it would be much simpler for him to wear a forehead sign, “Svelaz is Svelaz,” and we would know exactly what both of you, and many others, were thinking.
I feel we need to have that made into a tee-shirt, bumper sticker, hat.
I know that I probably sometimes go too far,
But it is useful to dismember the idiocy of Svelaz point by point on occasion.
The entire world does not understand that “Svelaz is Svelaz” means and periodically we all need reminded.
As like Jancowicz they hope that in time we will all forget.
If people want to fund Jancowicz – that is their business.
But you can tell that she has no confidence in her own claims – or she would fund her lawsuit herself.
John B. Say, you didn’t dismember anything. All you do is regurgitate your prior debunked talking points and add long winded diatribes howling about the left.
Jancowicz has a good chance at claiming defamation against Fox News. There’s already plenty of evidence and a pattern of willfully lying that lends her claims credibility. I wouldn’t be surprised if she succeeds in raising funds once Fox News goes to trial and more evidence becomes public.
“John B. Say, you didn’t dismember anything. All you do is regurgitate your prior debunked talking points and add long winded diatribes howling about the left.
Or you could read what I wrote.
Atleast now you seem to beleive that my “talking points” are MINE – not something Fox or Qanon hypnotized me with. ‘
Regardless calling, facts, law and logic, talking points does not change that they are facts, law and logic.
Further this case is not about “the left” – it is about Defamation law, and free press.
It is irrelevant that those of you on “the left” are blind to the law and the constitution and the consequences of prevailing on your own arguments.
“Jancowicz has a good chance at claiming defamation against Fox News. There’s already plenty of evidence and a pattern of willfully lying that lends her claims credibility. I wouldn’t be surprised if she succeeds in raising funds once Fox News goes to trial and more evidence becomes public.”
I am sure she will receive funds – there are lots of idiots like you who will donate to stupid left wing nut causes.
Throw your money away – the more the merrier. Hopefully Fax will seek legal fees and damages.
Frankly Fox and the right overall should be ecstatic to have Jankowitz take them to court.
She is by far her worst enemy.
They will get the chance to play her mary poppins video over and over.
When you have made a fool of yourself – the wise choice is NOT to buy billboards advertising your foolishness.
Even Biden Dropped Jankowicz like the lead balloon she is.
Here we have the so-called leader of the fight against “misinformation” actually being a champion of censorship as a method of feeding the masses DISINFORMATION and not allowing any rebuttals to appear in the public square. In my opinion this little info tyrant wants to shut down Fox, wants to ban Townhall and even wants to financially eliminate Realclearpolitics. She may not have said as much but her partners in crime inside the federal government have been financially attacking such benign sites as Realclear and Reason in theit attempt to end all debate.
The left has to do this because their policies are indefensible. How can you debate the open border? The defunding of police which has led to worsening crime stats in places such as Austin and other cities? Housing illegals in hotels? No bail for VIOLENT criminals? Reparations for all black people? Inflationary spending? Ending energy independence while begging Venezuela and Iran for oil? Unlimited support to Ukraine INCLUDING MONEY TO SUPPORT THEIR PENSUON FUNDS? Disclaimer: I support Ukraine against Russia and I have been against Russia since I was old enough to understand what the threat that Soviets were for America…unlike the left which loved the Soviets and now love the CCP. Support for MEN playing women’s sports and using their locker rooms? MEN in women’s jails? A MALE being a FEMALE Admiral? None of these policies can win and therefore they need to end debate.
The left needs to shut down debate because their ivory tower ideas don’t work, they are insane and we all know it.
“She may not have said as much” but you believe it anyway.
Anonymous, try to understand implication. If you don’t think that Scary Poppins doesn’t agree with the federal governments support for groups trying to demonetarize sites like Realclear then just say so and bring a receipt or two. You can’t. You are just a lame bully trying to be funny while just being nasty.
There’s nothing “nasty” about pointing out that you’re pretending to read her mind. You’re free to do that, and I’m free to point out that that’s what you’re doing. I’m not going to join you in pretending to read people’s minds.
Sure, it is reading her mind to know that she is a radical censor or the left. Wow, you are really reaching there fool.
Hullbobby, your drama queen protestations are hilarious. Fox News brought this upon itself when it chose lying over journalistic integrity.
Fox News CEO admitted on record they promoted false claims knowing they were false. They literally are on record saying Rudy Giuliani is not credible or trusted with the information he provides. When he was peddling the voter fraud claims. They didn’t buy it privately, but promoted them on the air. This is the same guy who brought the Hunter Biden laptop story that Fox News refused to air first because it was coming from Rudy Giuliani.
Fox News has a clear pattern of lying to their audiences and Nina Jancowicz has good reason to sue given that clear pattern. Fox News has no defensible excuse since they are known for spreading lies willingly.
The right wants to shut down the truth about Fox News because it undermines their whole narrative. You are in full denial of the facts.
“Hullbobby, your drama queen protestations are hilarious.”
” Fox News brought this upon itself when it chose lying over journalistic integrity.”
ROFL laughing. Can I sue CNN for lying about Covid ?
We would all like to see an improvement in integrity in the media.
Fox may have problems but they are not close to the worst problem.
Nor is the election coverage a relevant issue.
I am surprised that this case has not been dismissed.
Whether you like it or not – the claim that DVS rigged the election is perfectly legitimate news.
What is problematic is that the rest of media did not cover it.
Fox DID – skeptically – which is appropriate.
So your claim that Fox is getting what they deserve really amounts to “the media should be sued to non existance if they report a story that I do not like”.
I would note that though the DVS rigged the election claim remains very weak. It has still not been disproven.
And that is the actual standard regarding defamation -= actually the standard in this case is HIGHER than that.
Fox is the news, DVS is in this instance a public figure – easily.
To succeed in a Defamation claim:
The Story must be FALSE,
Fox must KNOW it is FALSE at the time.
KNOW is NOT the same as BELEIVE.
They must KNOW – beyond a reasonable doubt.
While they can not get a pass for not knowing – If and Only If it would have been reasonably easy to KNOW at the time.
In otherwise If it is possible TODAY to prove the claim False, And FOX could have with reasonable investigation at the time been able to prove it false, They still could be guilty of defamation.
Finally, DVS must prove Fox MALICIOUSLY lied about them.
So lets look at the FACTS.
Todate there is Zero proof of Maliace – Case dismissed.
Not only was it not possible for Fox to know the story was False 2 years ago.
It is not possible to Know the story is false today.
We CAN state with certainty the story is FALSE with respect to Windham NH – though there were very serious problems with DVS equipment there. If this story hinger ONLY On Windham – DVS would LOSE – You do not seem to grasp that to Win DVS needs to prove more than that the story was “technically false”, but that it had no credibility at all.
Next, We have Maricopa County AZ. Again an actual audit LONG AFTER the story aired has proven that DVS equipment did not miscount the election in Maricopa County.
Hownver the AZ Audit did PROVE that the DVS equipment was (and still is) Trivially hackable.
Again – that alone is enough for Fox to Win the lawsuit.
The story does not have to be true.
It just has to be possible. And while the Maricopa County Audit did prove that DVS driven Fraud did not occur in Maricopa County,
It Did prove that it could have – that it is reasonable to beleive it might have.
The Final audit was in Antrim County. I recall less details on that – Erors were found and Trump picked up 4500 votes,
And problems with the DVS equipment were the suspected cause.
I beleive that ultimately the miscount of Trump votes was attributed to Human error, not DVS error.
But AGAIN that was NOT KNOWN at the time of Fox’s reporting.
So again DVS loses.
So what you have is that even using the 3 places where it was actually proven LONG AFTER this story that DVS did not rig the e3lection,
Even in those places, there is plenty to justify the story.
And Finally you have Who is it that Told the story ?
Did Tucker Carlson say DVS Rigged the election ?
Did Hanity ? Ingram ?
No! Their Guests did – Mostly Sidney Powell – and they were viewed skeptically by Fox.
Again DVS loses.
We do not Want to Force the media to Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the stories they run are True before running them.
There is and always has been a huge first amendment conflict between Defamation law and the First Amendment.
NY Times V Sulivan – the current standard – which DVS can not meet, was a 5-4 decision – with 4 Justices – the Liberal Justices, wanting to go farther and find defamation laws unconstitutional.
NYT v. Sullivan did not go that far.
It just created an incredibly difficult to meet standard for defamation by the media of a public figure related to matters of public interest.
At somepoint it is highly likely you find the lawyers for the rest of the media Joining Fox to get this dismissed.
Why ? Because a decision – even a small award for DVS would be devestating for the news.
It would make reporting ANYTHING that you could not prove to the standards of a criminal court impossible.
Right now every reporter that reported favorably on Public Covid policies could be subject to lawsuits.
Every Reporter that said anything negative about anyone who opposed Covid policies – would Easily be subject to defamation claims.
Worse still – if you said anything disparaging about an anti-masker, an anti-vaxer, and anti-shutdown or anti-school closer person who was NOT a public figure – the award could be HUGE.
Whether you like it or not Svelaz – Defamation law is NOT a weapon to punish people who make claims you do not like.
I have not followed this case all that closely – it is a giant loser.
I have no idea if the Judge is favorably disposed – though I presume so as it has gotten to discovery and should have been thrown out earlier.
I have no idea where the lawsuit is – but it could be someplace that DVS will get a fox hiostile Jury that will ignore the facts – as we have seen over and over with so many DC juries.
But I have little doubt this case will fail – which is why DVS is near certain to settle quietly.
Neither Fox nor the media as a whole can afford to have DVS prevail. It would be the end to new.
And DVS can not afford to lose as it would destory the company.
But hey – you go on beleiving the nonsense that you beleive.
But let me remind you AGAIN.
The case does not hinge on any election claims EXCEPT those specifically related to DVS.
It does not hinge on what Anyone beleives.
It hinges on What DVS can prove that Fox NEW at the time they ran the story. Not what they beleived, but what they KNEW.
It also hinges on What Fox hosts said – not what guests said.
So far what has been “proved” is what we already knew – that the probability of the story being true was low.
Even today though the story STILL has not been proven false.
That said evidence From after Fox’s reporting is not admissible.
“Fox News CEO admitted on record they promoted false claims knowing they were false. ”
If that were true you would quote it.
“They literally are on record saying Rudy Giuliani is not credible or trusted with the information he provides.”
That would be irrelevant. It also would be defamation og Guiliani.
“When he was peddling the voter fraud claims.”
Everything regarding Guiliani is irrelevant – as Guilliani did not make claims regarding DVS.
It is well documented that Trump’s legal team was split between the Powell Group pushing the DVS claim, as well as the statistical improbability of the results in the 6 Key swing cities. And the Guilliani group that was focused on traditional claims of election fraud, Voter Registration issues, Dead people voting, mickey mouse voting. Powell made completely different arguments in public than Guiliani did.
Further Guiliani did not make Powells claims in court.
There was significant conflict between the groups, Guilliani was the lead for the election Challenge. There is a great deal of Reporting of Powell, and others in here group meeting with Trump – Because they thought Guilliani was blowing the case and were trying to get him poshed to the side. Guilliani was also overall doing a poor job, hew was noticably drunk – both when he was in Trump team meetings – and when he appeared in court – and that was a significant portion of the later Bar disciplinary action against him. I am guessing that in the fall he also may have been drunk when he appeared on Fox.
Guilliani is a great person, an incredible lawyer, a force to be reckoned with. He was also incredibly effective in getting out the Biden Ukraine corruption story Before the NY Post broke the hunter Biden laptop – which Guiliani was also involved in.
All that said, he was not up to leading the election challenge, he was too old, and too inebriated.
Regardless, whatever you/DVS have regarding Gulliani is USELESS – Guilliani was not involved in the DVS claims.
And that is the subject of the lawsuit.
Fox had George Santos on. Tucker’s show, Gabbard was critical of his claims – just as Tucker was of Powell’s – are you saying that no media can ever have a guest whose claims they are critical of ?
MSNBC and CNN regularly have Guests from the Right that they try to be critical of – are they barred from doing that – that is what you are arguing .
Further you are making a ludicrously stupid legal argument.
This case is not about what Fox or anyone else beleived.
If it is – DVS loses.
“They didn’t buy it privately, but promoted them on the air.”
Those of you on the left push this nonsense all the time.
“This is the same guy who brought the Hunter Biden laptop story that Fox News refused to air first because it was coming from Rudy Giuliani.”
Correct a story that has proven to be true 10,000 times over.
That Fox was critical of Guliani is NOT helpful to your case.
“Fox News has a clear pattern of lying to their audiences and Nina Jancowicz has good reason to sue given that clear pattern.”
Jancowiz should be praying to god that people do not sue her.
There is probably no one of significance in this country tied to more Bunk than Jancowicz.
” Fox News has no defensible excuse since they are known for spreading lies willingly.
The right wants to shut down the truth about Fox News because it undermines their whole narrative. You are in full denial of the facts.”
Who is denying what ?
You keep pretending that you have some incredible new revalations.
Post Election Fox Was losing ground to Newsmax, OAN, Epoch Times,
One of the big reasons is their LACK of coverage of Election Fraud.
You really do not understand – you are clueless about the world and facts. When you actually know something you seem to be able to keep it in your head for only a few minutes.
The DVS lawsuit against Fox was always STUPID – Because Fox was ALWAYS PUBLICLY critical of the claim that DVS rigged the election.
They were also among the weakest outlets on the right regarding election claims generally.
There were litterally news stories running in Left wing nut media about the fact that Fox was losing ground to other Right wing sites because they would not come out for election claims.
This is the typical kind of BS we get from you.
John B. Say, as usual your long winded responses are full of nonsensical and inconsistent claims.
“Fox is the news, DVS is in this instance a public figure – easily.
To succeed in a Defamation claim:
The Story must be FALSE,
Fox must KNOW it is FALSE at the time.
KNOW is NOT the same as BELEIVE.
They must KNOW – beyond a reasonable doubt.”
DVS is not a public figure. It never was. Giuliani and Powell were accusing DVS of rigging and changing votes. DVS is also suing Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani.
Fox knew it was false at the time John. That’s why the revelations on their internal communications are so damning. They KNEW. Carlson literally called Sidney Powell a liar in text messages to his producers.
Fox News kept repeating their false claims constantly whine knowing that both Powell and Giuliani were lying. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity have been texting and emailing internally to Fox News that they didn’t buy what they were saying and directly called them liars. There is no doubt they knew the claims were BS. That’s why Dominion has a very strong case against Fox News.
DVS has proven that Fox News knew the claims against DVS were false, Fox chose to keep lying so they wouldn’t lose viewers to Newsmax or OAN.
Fox was promoting the false claims against DVS knowing the claims were false. Instead of defending DVS because they knew Powell’s and Giuliani’s claims were BS, they chose to promote them for fear of losing viewers and stock value.
“Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch referred to claims peddled by Powell, who baselessly alleged that Dominion voting machines “flipped” votes from Trump to President Joe Biden, were “terrible stuff damaging everybody.”
“Really crazy stuff,” he wrote in an email to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott of claims pushed by Powell and former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, adding that it was “very hard to credibly claim foul everywhere.”
“Fact that Rudy advising [Trump] really bad,” Murdoch wrote, according to the filing.
Hosts also hit out at Giuliani, with Laura Ingraham referring to him as “such an idiot” and Sean Hannity lamenting that he was “acting like an insane person” following a disastrous press conference about the widely debunked fraud claims.”
This is what they were saying privately, but they were promoting the lies publicly. Knowing full well they were not true. They were participants in the defamation of DVS.
“There were litterally news stories running in Left wing nut media about the fact that Fox was losing ground to other Right wing sites because they would not come out for election claims.”
Yeah, because that was AFTER they were sued by DVS. They STOPPED pushing those election claims when dominion sued and when their attempts to dismiss failed. Newsmax is also being sued by DVS and that case is also going to trial. They too stopped pushing those claims.
Of course DVS is a public figure – it is quite easy to become a public figure for the purpose of a defamation lawsuit.
They are a government contractor – that alone does it.
Govenrment can no protect itself from election integrity claims by contracting out all or parts of the election.
So long as DVS was acting as an agent of government – it is a public figure.
Additionally, DVS management spoke about the election prior to the election
Coomer’s response: “Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made f***ing sure of that!”
That makes them a public figure and it makes Powell’s beleif’s credible.
You do not understand – the burden of Proof is on DVS and it is very high.
Throughout your response you continue to make the same sloppy errors of logic and judgement that ultimately make it impossible for DVS to win.
You presume the wrong standard of proof, and place the burden on the wrong party.
You presume this case is about all claims of election fraud.
It is only about claims of fraud committed By DVS.
You constantly presume that probability is the same as certainty,
as well as that beleive is the same as fact.
There is massive caselaw on defamation.
With the exception of the Alex jones idiocy where thecourts made so many massive legal errors it will likely be reversed it is so bad – the standards are well established.
Recent cases against Fox and MSNBC make it pretty much impossible to bring a defamation case based on anything said in an opinion show – Carlson, Hanity, Maddow.
You can not make a claim based on what guests say.
You can not make a claim based on reporting that subsequently proves inaccurate.
You have to prove malice if you are a public figure.
And on and on.
These are only a small number of the many many obstacles.
Further – lets presume by some miracle you win.
It is near certain to be reversed on apeal.
There is no way that you can operate news subject to the standards you are claiming.
One of the purposes of the media is to bring into the light what those with power seek to keep hidden.
If you make the standard, such that you can not allege corruption, short of being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt,
you will empower the corrupt.
If you want to spawn a plethora of lawsuits against the media – and there are ample oportunities for those on the right to go afte the left for defamation and false reporting.
All you need to do is find against Fox and have SCOTUS uphold it.
That will pretty much be the end of the news – especially the news of the left.
Just as an example – there was massive amount of left wing nut reporting based on a single anonymous government source during the collusion delusion.
All this proved wrong.
Are all the outlets that reported things based on a single anonymous source guilty of defaming Trump or whoever they made false claims about ?
Of course not – relying on a single anonymous source is bad journalism – it is not defamation.
Fox did not rely on anyone. To the extent Fox expressed a view they were skeptical.
They allowed NAMED SOURCES – inherenly more credible to make claims, and they challenged some o fthose claims publicly.
That is how actual news works all the time – or it is supposed to be.
It is irrelevant whether Fox beleived these claims or not.
It is irrelevant if they were subsequently proven false – which they were not.
It is irrelevant if they were implausible at the time.
The standard is KNOWN FALSE at the time, and made with malice,
and that standards is for the person making the claim – not someone reporting it.
I would love to see Fox and the rest of the media – vet their stories better.
Though no matter how badly Fox does their performance is stellar compared to the rest of the left wing nut media.
I would also love to see more actual investigative journalism – right and left.
About the only person doing that today is James O’Keefe.
You can like him, or hate him, but he and PV have actually done undercover and investigative journalism.
Almost no one else is.
Again – there is only claim relevant to this lawsuit – the claim that DVS rigged the election.
There is not a single other claim being persued here.
Nor can there be.
“Next, We have Maricopa County AZ. Again an actual audit LONG AFTER the story aired has proven that DVS equipment did not miscount the election in Maricopa County.
Hownver the AZ Audit did PROVE that the DVS equipment was (and still is) Trivially hackable.
Again – that alone is enough for Fox to Win the lawsuit.”
False. Because that has nothing to do with the claims that the DVS machines were changing votes. The AZ audit only showed that the machines were possible to hack, but there was no evidence that they were. Lack of evidence is no evidence. You can only hack those machines if they were connected to the internet. None were.
“It just has to be possible. And while the Maricopa County Audit did prove that DVS driven Fraud did not occur in Maricopa County,
It Did prove that it could have – that it is reasonable to beleive it might have. ”
Could have, might have are not evidence. Speculation of what might have occurred is not evidence that it did. You just admitted that they found no fraud, but Trump and his lawyers kept claiming there was AFTER these audits proved their claims to be false.
“The Final audit was in Antrim County. I recall less details on that – Erors were found and Trump picked up 4500 votes,
And problems with the DVS equipment were the suspected cause.
I beleive that ultimately the miscount of Trump votes was attributed to Human error, not DVS error.
But AGAIN that was NOT KNOWN at the time of Fox’s reporting.
So again DVS loses.”
Nope. Because it WAS KNOWN at the time of Fox’s reporting. The claims were being made by Rudy and Powell which Fox already knew were not trustworthy, not credible.
“Because that has nothing to do with the claims that the DVS machines were changing votes.”
Actually it does – though if you want to throw away the only consequential evidence that you have – go ahead.
The AZ audit proved – LONG AFTER THE FACT, that the DVS machines tabulated the vote correctly – within a very small margin of error in Maricopa County.
“The AZ audit only showed that the machines were possible to hack,”
That is not all it showed.
That is not even all it showed regarding DVS.
Overall the Audit was Good for DVS – though not for claims the Election was conducted well, legally or without fraud.
“but there was no evidence that they were.”
In a defamation case the burden of Proof is on the Plantiff – DVS, They must not only prove the machines were not hacked, but that everyone KNEW they were not hacked in Nov. 2020. The fact that they COULD be hacked is a good reason for Powell to beleive the WERE hacked. If Powell’s belief is reasonable – which it obviously is.
You can not use future discoveries to prove that People knew something was impossible 2 years earlier.
But you can use them to prove that the beleif that DVS equipment was hacked was reasonable.
The AZ audit proved the DVS equipment was EASILY hacked (and still is).
“Lack of evidence is no evidence.”
Correct, and the burden of proof is on DVS.
“You can only hack those machines if they were connected to the internet. None were.”
False, on both counts. Equipment need not be connected to the internet to be hacked.
The DVS equipment was connected to the internet and the ONE thing Maricopa County refused to provide the Cyber Ninja’s audit was th routers and router Logs that would have shown whether anyone tried to hack them.
Regardless in 2020 DVS’s AZ equipment was on the internet. Even today – most Election equipment in most states is on the internent. There is an election integrity web site out there that scores states based on their laws (unfortunately NOT to their conformance with those laws) and most states allow and have internet connected election equipment.
Nearly all states have networked election equipment. Regardless you can hack something atleast 3 ways.
If you have direct physical access – the fastest and easiest, but the most likely to get caught.
If the equipment is networked – which nearly all is, and you have network access. This is far harder to catch than the first, while nearly as easy. I worked for a government contractor several years ago. They handle top secret information and equipment.
They were one of two tenants in a commercial building. The network was shared. No matter how secure the government contractor was from the internet, anyone in the other tenants offices – even just a client with public wifi access, had access to the entire network of the government contractor.
The last is if the systems are connected tot he internet. There is absolutely no reason ever that any election equipment should ever be connected to the internet. But most througout the country is.
If you actually care about the facts – you can check it out.
“Could have, might have are not evidence. Speculation of what might have occurred is not evidence that it did.”
It absolutely is evidence in a defamation suit.
It is also evidence generally in an election lawsuit.
The standard to find defamation is not what they said is probably not true, or that it is unlikely.
The standard is that it was known to be false at the time.
DVS can not come close to meeting that burden.
The standard for conducting elections is not – probably no fraud occured, or probably we were not hacked.
The standard for conducting an election that people can trust is – election officials conducted an election that COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been hacked, defrauded or otherwise produced a false outcome.
If as with Maricopa County – he equipment was hackable – then the election should not have taken place.
It is the duty of government – election officals to conduct a trustworthy election.
Not to get lucky.
“You just admitted that they found no fraud”
Again read what I actually wrote.
They found lots of evidence of possible fraud,
they did not find proof of fraud.
An election is invalid if there i evidence of fraud.
The standard for trusting an election, is not “you can not prove there was cheating”
The standard is that government can prove there WASN’T.
And you can not.
“but Trump and his lawyers kept claiming there was AFTER these audits proved their claims to be false.”
Lets do the time warp again!
The AZ audit was not completed until may of 2022.
“The claims were being made by Rudy and Powell which Fox already knew were not trustworthy, not credible.”
“Everything regarding Guiliani is irrelevant – as Guilliani did not make claims regarding DVS.”
Dominion is suing Rudy Guiliani for defamation as well as Sidney Powell.
“The company accuses Giuliani, who helped fuel Trump’s lie about a stolen election, of making false and defamatory statements about Dominion on his Twitter account, on his radio and podcast shows, in televised media appearances, and at the rally Trump held before his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.”
…”The complaint outlines evidence of Giuliani’s false claims about how Dominion “fixed” the election, which resulted in Trump’s defeat and Joe Biden’s victory. It includes screenshots from Giuliani’s TV appearances on Fox News and Fox Business and his tweets that spread conspiracy theories about the election. Dominion also detailed how Giuliani’s lies affected his followers.
It showed, for example, screenshots of Giuliani speaking on his podcast about Dominion on Christmas Day, with a viewer commenting, “All these people involved with the fraud need to be executed for treason.”
“It is well documented that Trump’s legal team was split between the Powell Group pushing the DVS claim, as well as the statistical improbability of the results in the 6 Key swing cities. And the Guilliani group that was focused on traditional claims of election fraud, Voter Registration issues, Dead people voting, mickey mouse voting. Powell made completely different arguments in public than Guiliani did.
Further Guiliani did not make Powells claims in court.”
The Powell Group INCLUDED Giuliani. First, you say Giuliani didn’t say anything about DVS. Now you do. That’s how you get caught lying. Giuliani was making those claims IN PUBLIC. That’s why he’s being sued. That’s why it’s defamation. Why would Giuliani be making such claims in court? Clearly, you’re making stuff up.
You did not quote Gulliani.
You keep pretending that Filings by DVS are the same as Facts.
They are not.
DVS has a better case against Powell, BUT they will still have to prove that they did not rig the election.
The standard for defamation is not “probably false”.
It is know to be false AT THE TIME.
I am unaware of Gulliani ever making a clear reference to DVS and the election.
If you have one – cite it. It must be clear. It must be a statement of Fact, not opinion, and it must be KNOWN to be false at the time it was made to be defamation.
And given that DVS is a public figure – it must be made with malice towards DVS.
Given that DVS executives publicly stated that hey would make sure Trump id no win – you ca not win.
No the Powell Group did not include Guilliani. It Included Lin Woods.
Trump’s team included many lawyers. Including Guilliani and Powell.
But hey were not partners, They just worked for the same client.
Among the reasons no one beleives you about anything – is you do not get your facts even close to correct.
Everything is spin. You do not know what you are talking about.
You treat the entirety of people in the world who do not share your views as all the same – what is true o one is true of all.
“Orange man bad”, that is all you car about
If Trump said it – its a lie, If someone related to Trump said it – its a lie.
If it is false – Trump must have said it.
No one who disagrees with you is capable of independent thought or action.
You do not care about facts.
“Guilliani is a great person, an incredible lawyer, a force to be reckoned with. He was also incredibly effective in getting out the Biden Ukraine corruption story Before the NY Post broke the hunter Biden laptop – which Guiliani was also involved in.”
Here you prove that the Hunter Biden laptop story is really a non-story. Fox News refused to take his story because they couldn’t verify it. Nobody could, even the NY Post. He was a fraud of a lawyer and a drunkard according to you. That doesn’t lend a lot of credibility to the Hunter Biden story. If he was not good enough to defend Trump’s voter fraud claims and Fox News knew he was peddling BS why would anyone believe the Hunter Biden laptop story to be credible? Fox News was promoting Trump’s BS because they were actively wanting to help him. Because that meant more profit and keeping those all-important ratings as high as possible.
“Here you prove that the Hunter Biden laptop story is really a non-story.”
By Magic ?
“Fox News refused to take his story because they couldn’t verify it.”
Actually Fox and even CNN and MSNBC had Guliani on several times regarding Hunter Biden – BEFORE the Post ran
the Laptop story.
“Nobody could, even the NY Post.”
Poppy cock –
John Solomon offered a damning story on the Biden’s garbage in Ukraine long before NY Post using documents from FOIA requests fromt he US State department
All kinds of things that you beleive are “unverified” were proven months, years before.
You do know that the first Biden/Ukraine story was published by the NY Times in 2015 ?
Are you saying they could not verify anything ? that was 8 years ago.
“He was a fraud of a lawyer and a drunkard according to you.”
Rather than tell me what I say – QUOTE IT – Accurately.
I have never said Gulliani was a fraud. My claim regarding his drinking is SPECIFIC to his representation of Trump prior to the election.
I would also note that F. Lee Bailey – one of the most famous american lawyers could drink like a fish.
He is still a great lawyer.
“That doesn’t lend a lot of credibility to the Hunter Biden story.”
That would be typical of YOU.
The hunter Biden story would be credible even if it was offered by Hitler.
You can go read Glenn Greenwalds article on authenticating the Hunter Biden laptop on Oct 22, 2020 – almost 3 years ago.
It is TRIVIAL to authenticate and verify.
The oportunity to verify whether DVS rigged the election was presoent from nov 2020 through to about sept 2022 when most of the records were destroyed. Now it is impossible.
You are still arguing about the laptop – even after Biden’s legal team has confirmed it is his.
You rant about lying – without understanding what a lie is.
Continuing to claim that the Hunter Biden laptop has not been verified – is lying.
Claiming that it has been proven that DVS did not rig the election is Lying.
Claiming that DVS rigged the election is not lying, though it probably is wrong.
A claim that is likely wrong but unproven is not a lie.
A claim that is wrong and you know that has been proven is a lie.
“If he was not good enough to defend Trump’s voter fraud claims and Fox News knew he was peddling BS why would anyone believe the Hunter Biden laptop story to be credible?”
Because the information regarding the Biden’s is from public records, or it is from Hunter Biden’s own records which is easy to prove.
Again I would refer you to Glenn Greenwalds Oct 2020 Article on the Biden Laptop.
He details step by step how it can be verified and why it obviously is authentic.
“Fox News was promoting Trump’s BS because they were actively wanting to help him.”
Back to not only mind reading, but false facts.
“Because that meant more profit and keeping those all-important ratings as high as possible.”
Except that Fox was losing people post election to Newsmax and OAN.
But absolutely news is about ratings – for Fox, for CNN, for MSNBC.
Adam Smith put it well.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old cloaths which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old cloaths which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, cloaths, or lodging, as he has occasion.”
Humans persue their self interest. Doing so is why our lives continuously improve.
The parts of your rant that are correct:
Fox was skeptical of the DVS claim specifically and Election claims generally,
That Gulliani was a major force in the Hunter Biden story
I think that is pretty much it.
What you are wrong about:
That Fox’s skepticism was secret now being revealed.
Viewers were aware and were moving to Newsmax and other nets on the right.
Gulliani has been completely vindicated on the Biden’s.
There is alot more that you remain wrong about.
“So your claim that Fox is getting what they deserve really amounts to “the media should be sued to non existance if they report a story that I do not like”.
No, they didn’t merely report a story. They reported a story they knew to be false. They did do not because they were “just reporting it” but because they admitted they did do to keep their stock value up and keep their viewers from fleeing to another network. Those admissions contradict any argument that they were only reporting the news.
The rest mainstream media WAS reporting what Fox News privately knew was true.
“Post Election Fox Was losing ground to Newsmax, OAN, Epoch Times,
One of the big reasons is their LACK of coverage of Election Fraud”
False. Fox News was competing losing ground to Newsmax and AON because they were peddling Trump’s false claims and they chose to peddle his claims harder to avoid losing those viewers. That’s why they chose to deliberately lie and continue to peddle trumps false voter fraud claims.
“That Fox was critical of Guliani is NOT helpful to your case.”
It’s not helpful to Fox News case. It proves they knew he was a liar but they still chose to promote his claims.
“The DVS lawsuit against Fox was always STUPID – Because Fox was ALWAYS PUBLICLY critical of the claim that DVS rigged the election.”
No, Fox’s ACCUSED dominion of rigging the election while their hosts knew the claims were not true. Your semantic contortions don’t change the fact that you’re wrong. You’re just lying for Fox.
“No, they didn’t merely report a story. They reported a story they knew to be false.”
Given that you can not today actually prove the story is not false, that is just a lie.
“They did do not because they were “just reporting it” but because they admitted they did do to keep their stock value up and keep their viewers from fleeing to another network. Those admissions contradict any argument that they were only reporting the news.”
Provide quotes before YOU defame others,
regardless, it is unimportant what Fox beleived.
It is unimportant why fox reported what the reported.
All that matters is whether what they reported was known to be false at the time, and whether they did so with malice.
If you were actually correct on all your claims – which you are not.
If your mind reading was correct – all you have done is destroyed DVS’s claim.
If as you claim Fox did so for ratings – that is not malice.
Malice is doing so to deliberately harm DVS.
Malice is not recklessly doing so.
It is not doing so for other reasons knowing that DVS would be harmed.
It is doing so specifically to harm DVS.
So your own argument if true would end the case with Fox winning.
“The rest mainstream media WAS reporting what Fox News privately knew was true.”
You keep repeaating this – “What was know to be true”
TODAY none of this is “known to be true”.
You can not accurately state anything.
You can not distinguish between your beleifs and actual facts.
Prove that DVS did not rig the election – provide the evidence.
You can’t. Had there been real inquiry into the election – you could – long after the fact.
But the best you can do today is prove that in a few places that actually hand counted ballots – just a tiny portion of the entire country that whatever problems were found with DVS equipment did not constitute deliberate efforts to rig the election.
We do not have the ability to say anything about places where thorough audits were not conducted.
Which is pretty much everywhere.
““Post Election Fox Was losing ground to Newsmax, OAN, Epoch Times,
One of the big reasons is their LACK of coverage of Election Fraud”
False. Fox News was competing losing ground to Newsmax and AON because they were peddling Trump’s false claims and they chose to peddle his claims harder to avoid losing those viewers. That’s why they chose to deliberately lie and continue to peddle trumps false voter fraud claims.”
I have no idea what the meaning of what you wrote is.
Regardless, the statement of mine you say is false is clear and true.
And as best as I can tell you agree with it while calling it false.
““That Fox was critical of Guliani is NOT helpful to your case.”
It’s not helpful to Fox News case. It proves they knew he was a liar but they still chose to promote his claims.”
You constantly spray this nonsense. Guiliani is not a liar – you however are.
You keep spraying this nonsense. Being skeptical of someone does not prove they are a liar.
You are not a liar – merely because I am skeptical of your claims.
You are a liar – because you constantly make knowingly false claims.
““The DVS lawsuit against Fox was always STUPID – Because Fox was ALWAYS PUBLICLY critical of the claim that DVS rigged the election.”
No, Fox’s ACCUSED dominion of rigging the election while their hosts knew the claims were not true. Your semantic contortions don’t change the fact that you’re wrong. You’re just lying for Fox.”
The semantic contortions are entirely YOURS.
I am not the one trying to portray opinions as facts, skepticism as proof, or improbable claims as deliberate lies.
Those are all by definition semantic distortions.
Most problems in the world are easily understood and often solved – just by stating them accurately.
Without spin, without exageration, without overreach, without
“a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing.”
Please quit telling the rest of us what we think, or what we beleive, or what Fox or others beleive, or what you think someone else said.
You are so far off on all of this it is beyond belief.
Everyone is tired of this nonsense and tactic from you and from the rest of the left and from the MSM.
If you can not provide EXACTLY what someone said – IN CONTEXT – do not bther to tell us what you think they said, or what you think they beleived. Because YOUR rephrasing is succiciently offbase that it is just simply LYING.
You are writing about a defamation case – and at the same time engaged in massive examples of the most egregious defamation.
John B. Say, you can search for yourself all of what I have posted. Here, try the actual filing, you should read it in its entirety. It confirms everything I have been saying. YOU have not provided anything to back up you claims except anecdotes devoid of any context so they fit your narrative.
You accuse me of things you do all the time. Don’t be that kind of hypocrite.
What you have shown is that you are so entrenched in your own information silo that you cannot see past it. Where reality and truth lie.
Here are a few excerpts,
“Despite Arizona and Georgia’s audits confirming the Dominion machines’ accuracy, Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Hannity again brought on Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell to assert their claims that Dominion rigged the election by changing votes in its machines. Mr. Dobbs previewed and endorsed why Ms. Powell returned to his show: She would “provide more details on how Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic software were used to help Joe Biden.” Ms. Pirro also claimed that Dominion was an organized criminal enterprise started in Venezuela with Cuban money that could and did flip votes with the assistance of Smartmatic software, thus creating ballot dumps that filled in votes for President Biden.”
““Fox also provided a platform for Ms. Powell and Mr. Giuliani to claim that Dominion created voting machines to rig elections for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. This connection was based on the verifiably false claim that Dominion is owned by Smartmatic – Dominion’s competitor.” US Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC, C. A. N21C-03-257 EMD, 6 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 16, 2021)”
Fox News knew they were lying and these filings make it clear they have a very strong case against Fox.
No Filing’s confirm the ARGUMENTS that DVS is trying to make.
Fillings are not FACTS.
In courts FACTS are determined by evidence in court.
Though why this case is moving forward at all is problematic – as it is on the wrong side of THE LAW.
I have already addressed your purported proof – what you quote.
AZ Did confirm that DVS equipment in Maricopa County accurately counted the vote.
That occured in mid 2022. Fox is responsible for what was known to be a FACT at the time of heir reporting.
Not what was learned years later.
Further there has been absolutely no consequential confirmation of the accuracy of DVS equipment in GA.
That is just a lie.
And there certainly has not been proof that all DVS equipment everywhere accurately tabulated votes.
In fact the Needham Audit confirms as an absolute fat that DVS equipment FAILED to accurately count the vote.
There are many things DVS MUST do to Win this lawsuit.
ONE of this is prove not merely that they did not rig the election – something that is improbable but even to this day has not been proven – and remember that it is DVS that MUST prove that they did not rig the election – not in AZ, not in GA not anywhere.
But they must do more than that. They must prove that in Nov 2020 it was a KNOWN fact that they did not rig the election.
And that is just one of a large number of things that DVS must prove, most of which can not ever be proven.
Providing a platform is not defamation.
It is something the media – ALL the media does all the time.
Powell is not an employee of Fox.
But James Clapper and John Brennan are employees of CNN.
And they have told whoppers on the air – yet no one is suing them – Why ?
Because the standard of proof is incredibly high.
You have not even proved Fox Knew anyone was lying.
In fact you have not proved anyone actually was lying.
All you have proved is that Fox publicly and privately was skeptical of the DVS claims.
There is no standard barring reporting stories you are skeptical of.
Your own quites prove the weakness of the case.
They misstate facts – not a good thing to do ever, but especially in a defamation case.
They ignore the timeline.
And they (and you) represent opinions as Facts all over the place.
If DVS were to win this case – reporting would be impossible.
Svelaz – Glenn Greenwald had a podcast yesterday on the claim that Fox “promoted Guiliani’s voter fraud claims.” “Media Manipulation: Separating Fact From Fiction on Fox News/Dominion Lawsuit | SYSTEM UPDATE” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIk-wqhNtFU He said he had reviewed the broadcasts by Carlson, Hannity and Ingram during the relevent period after the election and that in no broadcast did either of these prime-time hosts state or suggest that there was voter election fraud, The “sin” that these hosts, in the eyes of the Left, is that they showed a willingness to listen to the claims. like real journalists would. Greenwald focused on the 11/19/20 broadcast by Carlson where he said that he had been to give Sidney Powell the opportunity to present her case, but he first asked her if she had any evidence of the claims. She refused to respond, and finally cut him off. This is hardly “promotion” of anything.
edward, you left out Lou Dobbs. Dobbs interviewed Giuliani extensively and Dominion filed entire transcripts showing him and Dobbs promoting false claims about Dominion. They knew for a while that those claims were false. Yet they chose to keep promoting them. Carlson at one time, one time, challenged feebly the assertions of Sidney Powell. But he kept pushing the false voter fraud claims long after he “contested” Sidney Powell.
Carlson’s remarks were not “feeble.” You can find his exact remarks on Greenwald’s podcast. And please provide the evidence for your statement that “he kept pushing the voter fraud claims long after he “contested” Sidney Powell.” Like Greenwald, please the dates and wording of the broadcasts. The fact that you differentiate between Dobbs and Carlson (who is a much more important voice of Fox) shows that you recognize that Fox hosts, unlike those at MSNBC, do not always sign from the same hymnal.
“Tucker Carlson Pushes Election Fraud B.S. Same Night Filing Reveals He Knows It’s B.S.”
” Tucker Carlson was particularly incensed, the filing reveals. “Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” he texted fellow host Laura Ingraham on Nov. 18, 2020, referring to the right-wing lawyer who was one of the primary drivers of the conspiracy that Dominion’s machines weren’t on the level. Ingraham responded that Powell is “a complete nut,” as is Rudy Giuliani. “It’s unbelievably offensive to me,” said Carlson. “Our viewers are good people and they believe it.”
Carlson and his fellow hosts continued to push the idea that the election was fraudulent, regularly inviting conspiracy theorists onto their shows. Carlson was even pushing it on Thursday night, right around the time the filing was made public. “How did senile hermit Joe Biden get 15 million more votes than his boss, rockstar crowd surfer Barack Obama?” he asked. “Results like that would seem to defy the laws of known physics and qualify instead as a miracle. Was the 2020 election a miracle?”
Svelaz – When a news organization presents a guest with a point of view, they are not “promoting” that view. A news orginization should present many points of views relevant to the topics of the day. It is irrelvent what the empolyees of the news outlet thiink about the different points of view. Following your logic, a news organization should only present the views of people they agree with, i,e, what makes MSNBC unwatchable.
They are promoting that view when they don’t challenge it and let the interviewee continue peddling their false claims while knowing they are false. When they keep saying the same things over and over knowing they are false IS promoting. Not reporting.
There is no legal principle that says that an interviewer who does not “challenge” the views of a guest somehow adopts them. If you think there is, please cite it.
As we can all see there is a current and new effort to eliminate Fox News from the airwaves. This happens every few years or so because the left cannot stand to have a dissenting voice out there and they certainly can’t face an open debate about their insane policy choices. The spoiled little brats that make up the left will not stop until there is not anyone left being allowed to opine against them.
It’s not a “dissenting voice” when they are admitting they are lying to their audience. They are privately agreeing with the majority of News organizations that Trump’s voter fraud claims are BS. The ‘dissent’ they are expressing is a willful lie.
Svelaz, do you think that the MSNBC goons believe the garbage they spew? Did Maddow really believe the Russian hoax? Do they believe that vaccines prevent spread? Do they believe that defunding the police brings peace? DO they believe that the border is secure?
Svelaz, have you ever posted one negative thing about MSNBC? If not, why not?
Hullbobby, they were correct when they said voter fraud claims lacked evidence and the results of the multiple audits and hand counts backed up the reporting from MSNBC and CNN. The rest of your irrelevant equivalencies don’t address the fact that Fox News deliberately lied. Even you can’t defend them by saying they didn’t Your pathetic deflections are just that deflections. Did Fox News lie hullbobby?
This, from the queen of objectivity, neutrality, non-biased review of “information” sources, ALMOST successful in leading the entire nation’s “disinformation” fight:
“She pushed the discredited theory that Donald Trump conspired with the Russian government to win the 2016 presidential election. 11
“In October 2020, Jankowicz said that alleged contents of a laptop belonging to Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, first reported by the New York Post, were a Russian disinformation campaign. The New York Times, Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets later confirmed the authenticity of the contents. 12”
But I really don’t think it is about Jankowicz as much as it is part of a concerted left-wing effort to snuff out Fox News, which has repeatedly, -and by large margins, snuffed out CNN and MSNBC in the market.
She wasn’t wrong when the laptop story was first reported. There was credible reason to suspect it was Russian disinformation. Even Fox News was reluctant to air the story at first. The New York Post couldn’t find reporters to attach their names on the story when they got ahold of the laptop’s content.
A lot of the content floating around about the laptop has also been proven to be added by others.
Fox News brought about its current problems in its own. The left had nothing to do with it. Dominion is the one who is bringing Fox News to account for their malicious and deliberate lying and they provided proof. Nobody talks about what Fox News has admitted in court documents. They knew Trump’s claims were false. They kept promoting them so they wouldn’t lose value on their stock or damage the brand. Clearly this was not about journalistic integrity. It was about a sycophantic need to cater to Trump and his supporters.
CNN and MSNBC, we’re telling the truth all along while Fox News was knowingly lying and knew both of them were not wrong about Trump’s BS claims.
I understand why it’s hard to admit it. Nobody likes to admit they were taken for a ride. It’s embarrassing. I get it. But that’s still no excuse for defending Fox News for deliberately lying.
No. Not a soul found it possible it was Russia disinformation.
Thats the lie the left will till into perpetuity.
“ Mediaite has learned that Fox News was first approached by Rudy Giuliani to report on a tranche of files alleged to have come from Hunter Biden’s unclaimed laptop left at a Delaware computer repair shop, but that the news division chose not to run the story unless or until the sourcing and veracity of the emails could be properly vetted.”
…” But according to two sources familiar with the matter, the lack of authentication of Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop, combined with established concerns about Giuliani as a reliable source and his desire for unvetted publication, led the network’s news division to pass. Fox News declined to comment on this story.
Some of Fox News’ top news anchors and reporters have distanced themselves from the story. During an on-air report that largely focused on how social media platforms handled this story, Bret Baier said, “Let’s say, just not sugarcoat it. The whole thing is sketchy.”
…” Chris Wallace also called the story “suspicious” and said, “I can understand the concern about this story. It is completely unverified and frankly, Rudy Giuliani is not the most reliable source anymore. I hate to say that, but it’s just true.”
According to a leaked memo obtained by The Daily Beast earlier this year, the research department at Fox News had previously described Giuliani as “amplifying disinformation” surrounding the Ukraine corruption story that lay at the heart of the impeachment of President Trump earlier this year.
The initial laptop story broke on Wednesday of last week. By Friday, Fox News had confirmed the veracity of just one email, which has been used by some to validate the entire tranche of files “uncovered” by Giuliani”
This is why everyone including Fox News was wary of this laptop story. This is the same Rudy Giuliani that Fox News KNEW was not credible and was unreliable, but as we now know they still willingly lied about it after they confirmed without naming the source, one email.
That doesn’t prove that it was not Russian disinformation. Fox News didn’t have confidence in Rudy. Fox News was Rudy’s first choice for the story and they refused. So he went to a tabloid instead. Even the NY Post was reluctant to publish the story because they couldn’t verify details of the story. Both Fox News and the NY post are owned by Rupert Murdoch who is known for poor journalistic integrity.
Chris wallace made his comment on 10-16-20. Three days later, massive media reports published the news that more than “50 former intelligence officials” signed al letter implying that the laptop smelled like “Russian disinfo,” as Susan Rice called it.
getting those 50+ signatures started LONG BEFORE wallace’s comment. And of course, Wallace has always been known as left-leaning, which is why Fox hired him to “round out” public discourse.
That doesn’t prove that it was not Russian disinformation.
You leftist liars are reduced demanding the other side prove a negative
The facts were AT THE TIME, no evidence hunters laptop contained Russian disinformantion.
That is a fiction, a lie, misinformation, narrative fantasy.
The left came up with “Russia!” again, as a narrative their clueless trolls would repeat forever.
The dumb and stupid can’t grasp, a news agency, not being able to verify, with evidence it is in fact Russian disinformation
Svezlaz – “That doesn’t prove that it was not Russian disinformation.” I think you have the burden of proof somewhat mixed up. It is up to you to prove an accucastion not on others to dispove it. How do we know that you are not a part of Russian disinformation? It’s up to you to disprove it.
(how did I know that within a few minutes of my post –plus several minutes to compose his reply,–Svelaz would jump on my comment. Dear Svelax, was that a slip when you said, “CNN and MSNBC, we’re telling the truth…” “We’re???????”)
(p.s. I hung around for a few minutes on this blog, anticipating an immediate response from Svelaz. I got it!, so I am signing off now, let Svelaz/Anonymous get the last word in…Have a Great Day everyone (including my detractors…)!
Lin, typing from a phone often automatically puts or changes words it suggests. I type too fast sometimes and don’t notice the changes. I’m sure you’re smart enough to make that distinction.
Svelaz -You state: “There was credible reasons to suspect it [the laptop] was Russian disinformation.” Can you discclose these reasons, in as much detail as possible?
In response to my challenge, you make a reference to the notorious letter from Deep State officials suggesting that the laptop story “bore the marks of Russian disinformation.” That letter provided no evidence for such a ridiculous opinion, and the authors now say that they did not even mean what they said. It was also authored by well-known supporters of Joe Biden. That letter was not a “credible reason” for refusing to cover the story. It is bit like the Tara Reade hit-piece in the NYT that permitted the MSM to bury her rape story. But you do reveal a characteristic feature of the mind of the American leftist: propaganda is evidence.
What’s your evidence that “the authors now say that they did not even mean what they said”?
Clapper didn’t claim there that “they did not even mean what they said.” He said that some distorted the meaning of what they said. Those two aren’t the same.
That is what he says after the fact. He didn’t say so when the letter was used against Trump/ That shows him to be a liar and you as well, but what else is new?
Such defenses as this one that you continuously make. make you look and sound like a fool.
Those “deep state” officials were 50 former and current intelligence officials with experience in Russian tactics.
Anonymous and Svelaz seemed to have formed into one entity. These deep state officials were many of the same people pushing Trump-Putin collusion hoax. Further, the leaders were established Congessional liars like James Clapper and John Brennan. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/414737-falsehood-shames-clapper-brennan-and-pledge-to-protect-whistleblowers/
She was just another element of the Biden ‘Freak Show’ that has been foisted upon the country. Let’s see, we have: Rachel Levine, the only non-female who says he’s a female as an “Admiral” in the HHS, we have the glass-ceiling breaker Karine Jean Pierre who is LGBTQ whatever, we have Sam Briton (handling nuclear waste) who stole women’s luggage and walked his boyfriends on a dog leash. This is all normal of course.
Svelaz sounds like he is employed by the DNC to discredit non-leftist opinions. Not surprisingly, he believes such opinions to be “misinformation”.
The Svelazes and Janckowitzes of the world want anyone with non-approved opinions be sanctioned by The State. They love Big Brother.
The conservatives in the FL government are a lot closer to Big Brother.
and now a few words from the leader of the free world
Tell us how. Use specifics and then back them up.
You probably hate the fact that some parents object to you force feeding five year old’s the perversions of the left.
It is the proper role of local and state governments to establish the subject matter taught to students in public schools. This is not “censorship” anymore than a parent controlling the books that his or her child reads is censorship. It is the exercise of “authority”.
Edward Mahl, it is the responsibility of the local school board, often delegated to a hired Curriculum Officer.
“Svelaz sounds like he is employed by the DNC”
no one with half a brain disputes that the Left wing comments on here are posted by employed DNC trolls.
Maynard, I get that accusation a lot because I’m one of the few who point out the obvious omissions and facts that Turley seems to work hard not to discuss despite the fact that it’s quite relevant.
There’s a lot of willful denial among those who have been deliberately lied to by Fox News regarding Trump’s voter fraud claims. Fox News knew his claims were BS just as everyone else was pointing out. But they willingly and knowingly chose to keep lying about it and actively promoted what they knew were false claims. They lied to your faces because they knew how gullible you are and profitable it was for them.
That’s how disinformation is spread.
With all apologies to Gregg Gutfeld, every time you read a Svelaz comment just imagine a sign appearing stating the following, “A Democrat operative would say”.
Every time you read a hullbobby comment imagine a sign above his head that reads, “Gullible MAGA moron denying reality, proceed with caution, may be harmful to your mental health”.
However, I think you should add, “A non-thinking, reliant on talking points issued to him daily from the DNC home office, Democrat operative would say . . . “
Nina Jankowicz’s total lack of self-awareness is incredible and it seems to be a prerequisite to gain entry into the woke left mob. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
“ For full disclosure, I appear on Fox as a legal analyst but my views on this blog are neither connected to nor approved by Fox or any of my other associated media companies as a commentator or columnist. I will repost columns that appear in newspapers or outlets.”
Well, that sounded strained. If his views are not connected or approved by Fox on this blog why hasn’t he analyzed the Fox News defamation case? I call BS on that disclaimer.
There’s plenty of reason why suing Fox is an option. It’s the one thing Turley avoided completely. The fact that Fox News is a BS factory and they have admitted it on record. If they do willingly, knowingly, and greedily chose to lie to their viewers about Trump’s voter fraud claims, how can they be telling the truth about the Hunter Biden laptop “scandal”? Let’s keep in mind that it was the same Rudy Giuliani, the guy they knew was not credible and blatant liar, who pushed the laptop story.
Fox News was deliberately telling known lies to keep their audience from bolting to Newsmax, a much smaller and more obvious BS factory which Turley has never criticized either. If he is not being “told” not to opine about those issues on his blog he is either lying or he is part of the case and could be called as a witness when the trial starts.
Fox News is being sued by the Biden campaign for FEC violations because they have Jared Kushner Biden campaign ads before they aired and also debate strategies. They were actively coordinating with the Trump campaign and endorsing false claims they knew were false.
Turley’s column is a bad attempt at smearing jankowicz for trying to sue based on the one fact that Turley clearly avoids. Fox News is on record of having a pattern of intentional lying. The case they are embroiled in easily passes the malice test and the knowingly admitted that what they were saying on air was not true. They weren’t just reporting what they were hearing, they were lying to protect their stock price and keep viewers from fleeing the network.
A Democrat operative would say.
Svelaz – “If they do willingly, knowingly, and greedily chose to lie to their viewers about Trump’s voter fraud claims, how can they be telling the truth about the Hunter Biden laptop “scandal”?” If you are not lying, please identify the date and host of every broadcast on Fox in which the host lied about Trump’s voter fraud claims, and tell us in their own words what the lies were. Since this is obviously important, please be a specific as possible.
Svelaz – You haver referred me to the Dominion complaint filed agaist Fox News, which is over 400 pages long. The only part that seems to relate to on-air coverage are found between Paragraphs ##45 and 106. I see no quotations from Carlson, Ingraham or Hannity. Almost the only personalities quoted briefly and partially are Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartaromo. For the most part, the paragraphs use conclusionay rhetoric of the kind that you have been using, namely that Fox was “endorsing” defamatory statements against Dominion by merely hosting Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani.
There is an obvious role for Nina in the federal government.
Just as soon as Democrats get around to authorizing and funding the Department of Sphinctery.
She and Goebbels would have been pals.
Nothing unique here, folks. She is just an attention whore who lives inside the leftist bubble.
Res ipsa loquitor
Meanwhile, JT is silent about the bigger defamation suit against Fox filed by Dominion, which will soon go to trial.
“Murdoch Acknowledges Fox News Hosts Endorsed Election Fraud Falsehoods
“The conservative media mogul made the remarks under oath last month in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems.”
Dominion’s latest filing, which includes Murdoch’s testimony: https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/D8File/2023/02/27/2023-02-27-redacted-dominions-answering-brief-in-opp-to-smj.pdf
Perhaps his contract with Fox won’t let him comment on it.
“Fox News Star Says Network Won’t Let Him Cover Fox-Dominion Lawsuit”
“Fox News Declines to Air Ad Slamming Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham’s Election Texts: ‘They Lied to You!’”
Oh me, and those stories are from some really fair and balanced sources. NOT! Let’s see some of the insider news at CNN because there’s a lot of it to be had when it comes to spinning stories and shutting down conservatives.
Yes, I think somebody should sue CNN! If Dominion has standing, Trump has standing.
What knowingly false claims did CNN make?
Have you seen the polls? Everybody knows the leftwing media are vindictive liars.
I have a better idea. You prove they aren’t.
Apparently you cannot prove yourself correct about CNN, so now you’re trying to shift the burden of proof to me to prove you wrong, a common fallacy known as “misplaced burden.”
Whoever you are, you sound like an idiot. By the way, check the price paid for Dominion and figure its value from there. Do you have any brains? There is nothing to say at the present so you want discussion. In the future when you are found wrong you will shut up.
The ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ were for Diogenes!
Thank you, Catherine. My cavalry to the rescue 🙂
The Hunter lap top was Russian disinformation.
Anonymous, that shouldn’t stop Turley from saying the same thing. He can tell his readers that Fox News won’t let him comment on it. That should be a regular disclosure when his columns mention Fox News and the obvious fact that he does have a contract.
His disclosure at the bottom of the column clearly stated that Fox News does not need to approve of any of his content on the blog. So he has full freedom to analyze the Fox News defamation case, but I suspect he won’t because he’s so deeply associated with the network and has built a loyal following with MAGA nutties and staunch conservatives that, like Fox, fears losing the readers and attention he gets from them. We know how fast they will turn on him if he truly makes a honest analysis of the case and criticizes the journalistic integrity failures of Fox News.
That Fox doesn’t need to pre-approve his columns does not imply the absence of a non-disparagement clause. Or you could be right that it’s simply a matter of his not wanting to write something his conservative followers would find objectionable.
or maybe, just maybe, nobody GAF except paid DNC trolls.
Your handlers are not sending us their better trolls
As Sam said recently, “When you can’t pound the facts, pound the witness — a sure sign of a losing case and of a vacuous mind.”
no one GAF
Someone got triggered.
A non-disparagement clause wouldn’t prevent him from stating that Fox News won’t allow him to comment on the case. That’s not disparaging.
I suspect he doesn’t want it to be known that he does have a contract with Fox News. He’s essentially saying, “cannot confirm or deny” that I have a binding contract with Fox News.
That doesn’t help his credibility as an objective legal analyst as he claims to be.
does not imply the absence of a non-disparagement clause
Does NOT imply the ABSENCES of a NON-DISPARGEMENT clause.
Cant prove a negative
How ever, you citing zero evidence is proof of you being forced to lie.
One can prove some negatives (but not others), just as one can prove some positives (but not others). For example, it’s easy prove the negative “there is no live lion in the back seat of your car,” by looking on the back seat of your car and seeing that there is no live lion there. We can come up with lots of negatives that are straightforward to prove.
You know that one can sometimes prove negatives, because I’ve proved it to you previously:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220512175243/https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/11/the-mob-is-right-georgetown-law-professor-calls-supports-aggressive-protests-at-the-homes-of-justices/comment-page-2/ — see my May 11, 2022 at 6:04 PM response to you.
Why you keep lying about this is beyond me.
, it’s easy prove the negative “there is no live lion in the back seat of your car,”
I’ll send you $100 thru Turley when you prove that.
Notice that you don’t offer to present your car so that we can take a look.
Nor do you admit that I’d previously proved you wrong using a math example. You never admit your mistakes.
Notice that you don’t offer to present your car so that we can take a look.
NO. You stated a negative. YOU have to prove. YOU cant prove it. My cooperation was not a qualifier in your statement.
That is why you cant prove a negative.
Anonymous – looking into the backseat of a nearby car that is simple. It is something else to suggest that someone prove that no one in a country of 143.3 million people, located on the other side of the earth, stretching over 6.6 million square iles, with an inaccessable government, could not possibly have been involved in a disinformation campaign. It would be necssary to show what everyone in that country did for the year or so leading up to the 2020 election. How do you suggest that this negative would be proved? Your kind of argument, when applied to such subjects as the Hunter Biden laptop, would lead to unending paranoia. The wildest conspiracy theories would be accepted as genuine unless an uprovable negative were proved.
I didn’t claim that all negatives are easy to prove. Some are obviously hard to prove, just like some positives are hard to prove. And others cannot be proved because they’re false, just like some positive claims cannot be proved because they are false.
My point was that iowan2 is a liar when he repeatedly claims that one “Cant prove a negative.” Lest you not be aware, this is not the first time he’s claimed it, and not the first time I’ve pointed out that his claim is false, and not the first time that I’ve provided counterexamples. See the classic proof I linked to earlier, showing that there is no largest prime number. If you want more examples of him making this false claim, here’s another: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/19/second-circuit-refutes-allegations-involving-law-clerk-in-mediaite-above-the-law-and-other-publications/comment-page-1/#comment-2152330
“How do you suggest that this negative would be proved?”
The first task is for you to state your negative claim clearly.
Is your negative claim “No Russian could possibly have been involved in a disinformation campaign about Hunter Biden’s laptop”? (That claim is clearly false and so cannot be proved: of course some Russian could possibly have been involved.) Is your negative claim “No Russian was involved in a disinformation campaign about Hunter Biden’s laptop”? Is it some other claim? State the claim clearly.
The claim of the “experts” who suggested that the laptop was Russian disinformation could not be disproved conclusively (establishing the negative) except in the comprehensive manner I outlined. Unless you account for every Russian for a period of some time before the laptop was produced, it would always leave open the possibility that some Russian official somewhere was involved in the story.
They didn’t claim that it was Russian disinformation. This is what they *actually* claimed: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
The way that you disprove what they *actually* claimed is by showing that it does not have “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” — by identifying those “earmarks” and illustrating that they’re absent in the laptop story.
Again: I didn’t claim that all negatives can be easily proved, only that iowan2 consistently lies that one “can’t prove a negative.” As I noted, one can prove some negatives (but not others), just as one can prove some positives (but not others).
Why you keep lying about this is beyond me.
Why to you keep picking this nit????
does not imply the absence of a non-disparagement clause.
You brought up a non-disparagement clause.
But you have no evidence of such a clause. Why dirty the conversation, with raw guess work? What is the motivation.
I called you out on your stupid attempt to add facts not in evidence.
Your response is its up to me to prove one does not exist. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to prove that specific negative. It can ONLY be proved to exist. But it can never be proven it does not exist.
Tell you what. After all the people have been through Bidens paperwork. PROVE the negative that all classified (marked) are gone from Bidens papers. It is impossible to prove that negative.
Like the no lion in my car, is impossible for you to prove. It is your statement of a negative, impossible for you to prove.
Appeal is risky territory for Dominion. If they do win, I’ll sue MSNBC and CNN for damages from inciting “mostly peaceful protests.”
Not sure why you think your imaginary case is related. This is a defamation case.
It doesn’t have to be about defamation. It’s about opening the courts to a landslide of suits that can jeopardize free speech while increasing case load. Your leftwing media is more than vulnerable to many such claims, and the Supremes know it.
Dominion better hope for a settlement.
If the Washington Post hadn’t settled with Nicholas Sandmann, would you likewise argue that Sandmann winning the suit would “jeopardize free speech”? Your argument makes no sense. Winning a defamation suit doesn’t “jeopardize free speech.”
Sandmann was a private citizen. In fact, a child at the time. Juries might not take kindly to seeing children used as political footballs, and the WaPo understood that risk.
Also, Sandmann settled with WaPo and CNN. The courts didn’t award damages, and Sandmann actually lost claims that went to trial:
Dominion had better pray for a settlement.
All of which is irrelevant to your false claim that Dominion winning its defamation suit would “jeopardize free speech.”
Defamation is an exception to freedom of speech, just like perjury is an exception to freedom of speech. A person or company winning a defamation suit doesn’t imperil free speech, just like the government winning a perjury suit doesn’t imperil free speech.
No. A win for Dominion in court would adversely affect free speech. It would set a standard that could put Joy Reid out of business. If Dominion has standing, Trump has standing.
Both of them have standing to sue. That’s not the key legal issue. The key legal issue is whether they can **win** the suit — whether Dominion can prove defamation (or in your case, whether Trump could prove defamation). You sound like you don’t understand the legal issue very well.
Thank you, Mr. Epps, that will be quite enough.
You’ve ceded the point.
No, you’re arguing for argument’s sake.
He explained to you the dilemma faced by both sides. You didn’t understand it and you returned to point 1 or the moron level. Grow up.
Dominion will not settle. They will go to trial where Fox News can be exposed for who they truly are. Just a propaganda arm of the Trump campaign.
Dominion has Fox News in a very difficult position and they know it. They want Fox News to suffer and expose who they are. I suspect Dominion doesn’t want a settlement they want real punishment. They know they have a very good case against Fox News and the evidence they’ve released so far points out there is plenty more. That’s one reason why Turley won’t even attempt to analyze the case. Even he must know that Fox News is very likely going to lose and he’s very likely to be called as a witness who could be cross examined. It could expose Turley as part of that defamation or damage his credibility.
I addressed this already (Op. Cit., my 11:00 AM comment).
Let me explain so you and Svelaz will learn something important about lawsuits.
Dominion KNOWS the courts are perilous for their suit, but they also know Fox is taking heat in the media for their coverage of Dominion. Dominion expects a settlement, not because they think they can win in court, but because they think Fox will want this matter to go away.
Dominion wants a settlement so they can repair their own reputation. They don’t want a court loss.
The real battle is in the media over reputations, not the courts over the law.
If Fox doesn’t back down, Dominion has a court problem and Fox has a reputation problem. They both lose.
Sometimes lawsuits aren’t about the law. Those frequently get settled.
It’s your conjecture that Dominion would rather settle. Time will tell. Dominion’s case it quite strong. Fox already tried to get the case dismissed, and the judge ruled against them.
Diogenes, Dominion isn’t settling. They want to go to trial. There they can expose Fox News for the lying they did and hold them accountable for their willful lying.
Fox WANTS to settle so they don’t have to expose their hypocrisy and lack of journalistic integrity in court. Nothing so far signals that Dominion agrees to settle. They have less to lose than Fox News and they know it.
Fox News stands to incur serious damage to their credibility if the truth comes out in court. That’s what they are trying to avoid.
That’s what everyone in the media wants to avoid, not just Fox, because their reputations are all bad, and in many cases deservedly so, but I keep trying to explain to you and Anonymous that the courts want these matters to be settled so that they don’t clog the docket and create a lot of messy rulings about political speech.
The Court’s history is on my side about this. The Supreme Court may someday rule against my argument, but a lot of knowledgeable people would be surprised if that happened, not just me.
You and Anonymous keep going back to Dominion has a good case, but I keep telling you who hasn’t been libeled by the media? Encouraging such lawsuits would be “like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500,” to paraphrase Apocalypse Now.
Back to reading minds again – you will not quote what people say – but you are certain that you can tell us what they think.
John B. Say, it’s called speculation based on available information. Turley does this all the time and so do you.
Fox News has tried multiple times to dismiss the case without success. That means Dominion is set on going to trial. There are several reports that say Fox News has offered to settle, but Dominion has not signaled any intention to settling. The case is going to trial. With the evidence gained from discovery out in public their incentive to settle is stronger than ever. Their legal arguments are very shaky and many legal experts note Fox News is very likely to lose.
Turley can’t offer his expert legal opinion because it’s more than likely he has a contract with Fox and he knows, given the evidence presented, that Fox News is in trouble. No mind reading required at all.
“John B. Say, it’s called speculation based on available information.”
And you do not EVER do that with respect to what another person is thinking or what their motives are.
“Turley does this all the time and so do you.”
I do not speak for Turley.
I do not do so ever about what others are thinking – or what their motives are.
When I do so I am pretty clear that I am doing so.
I would further not thatyou are again using a BROAD phrase to address something that is only legitimate if narrow.
I can “speculate based on available information” – that the moon is made of green cheese.
Or I can make a assessment of what is probable based on know facts, and the probability of various claims to be true.
This assessment is typically of a FACTUAL claim – not emotions or motives.
So as an example – I can speculate based on available information that “the sun will rise tomorow”.
That has an enormously high probability of being true.
While you are closer to speculating that the moon is made of green cheese
That has a high probability of being false.
I would further note that YOUR argument HERE again destroys your defamation claim.
Fox – like many of us “speculated based on known information” that it was unlikely that DVS rigged the election.
TODAY that remains true – it is unlikely that DVS rigged the election.
A defamation claim is not about what is not likely, it is about what is Proveably FALSE.
It was always highly unlikely that Trump colluded with Russia – and yet the left media made that claim tens of thousands of times, you made that claim.
Unlike DVS – that claim was THOROUGHLY investigated – and has the rare distinction of being PROVEN false.
The news media and YOU who repeated that dubious claim over and over – would be bankrupt and Trump richer than musk if the standard for defamation was unlikely rather than FALSE.
“Fox News has tried multiple times to dismiss the case without success.”
Proving the corruption of the courts involved.
And they will try again and again – and eventually they will win.
“That means Dominion is set on going to trial.”
Not established yet.
“There are several reports that say Fox News has offered to settle, but Dominion has not signaled any intention to settling.”
“The case is going to trial.”
So you say.
” With the evidence gained from discovery out in public their incentive to settle is stronger than ever.”
The incentive for both sides to settle is very high. If DVS loses this case – they may face bankruptcy. Conversely
Fox can lose 100 battles, They only have to win ONCE to get this dismissed.
“Their legal arguments are very shaky and many legal experts note Fox News is very likely to lose.”
These would be the same legal experts you cite over and over who are wrong over and over.
I have given you a synopsis of the law – the law is on Fox’s side, The facts are on Fox’s side,
“Turley can’t offer his expert legal opinion because it’s more than likely he has a contract with Fox and he knows, given the evidence presented, that Fox News is in trouble. No mind reading required at all.”
This must be more of your “speculating based on available information” – rather than actually citing facts.
I highly doubt that Turley has a contract with Fox that bars him from commenting – or even testifying against Fox.
The latter would be unconstitutional.
Regardless Turley IS commenting on Jankowikz. Which pretty much proves Turley is not barred by contract from commenting.
Regardless, Turley is near a first amendment absolutist – long before this case,
Turley’s views are not any secret.
I am sure Fox wants to settle.
The lawsuit is stupid.
If DVS does not want to settle – they are stupid.
But they are free to dig their own grave.
They want to settle because they have a weak case.
Why is the lawsuit stupid? Nobody has offered a reasonable or rational defense of Fox News. They have admitted in court records that they willingly lied knowing that what they were saying was not true.
The want to settle because it is as rare as hens teeth to have a court case where winning is actually winning.
I have settled atleast half a dozen cases I could have won. I have settled atleast on that the ALJ told me – which he should not have, that I was going to win – but that it was going to take several more days. I settled for less than my legal fees for two more days.
My father want a 1/2Million dollar case against a client who refused to pay for work. He won. It took almost a decade.
The legal fees were more than 1/2 million. The value of his time was more than 1/2 a million.
We would have been better off taking the loss and walking away than winning.
I doubt you have ever participated in any legal conflict of any consequence.
If you had you would no better. Winning is pretty much never worth it.
I still end up in court frequently. Today mostly minor issues. I usually bring the lawsuit, and I always settle, for far less than I am asking. I could probably win every time. But the victory would be phyric – not worth the time and effort.
The only people benefitting from Fox V. DVS are lawyers.
The best resolution would be a quick sealed settlement – likely for pretty much nothing, that both sides can publicly claim is a victory.
If DVS is going to trial – they are stupid. There is no outcome that is good fo DVS that SCOTUS will uphold.
There is ZERO chance that SCOTUS is going to find that the news must prove stories true to run them, or even that they can not run stories they suspect are false. If the 3 liberal justices get their head out of their asses – the decision will be 9-0.
You are so filled with hate at the right – at Fox at Trump, that you would cut off your nose to spite your face.
Trump’s defamation case against the media was tossed sometime ago – and it was far better than DVS’s.
Trump had actual malice by the media, Trump had the media repeating things that were false long after they were proven false.
Yet, Trump’s case was dismissed.
In the world you hope for – Trump lost, and DVS wins – all you prove is that you are a hypocrite as well as a liar and lawless to boot.
Why is the lawsuit stupid? Because Dominion has a very strong case?
Do you have a defense against the evidence presented by Dominion? Nobody here has offered any reasonable or rational defense.
DVS has a strong case against Fox News. How can you defend against this,
“Depositions and texts show many hosts and executives had severe doubts about the claims made by Trump, but that they were also worried about how their audience would react to fact checks of those claims.”
“Sidney Powell is lying,” host Tucker Carlson told his producer Alex Pfeiffer after an interview with the Trump-allied attorney, according to the filing, calling her a “f*%#ing bi*&h.”
…”The recent batch of text messages shows that the Fox News hosts understand that lies are what their audience tunes in to hear. In discussing their errant reporter who made the mistake of sharing a fact on Twitter, Carlson groused, “It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down.” In another text message from Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott to Fox executive Lachlan Murdoch, she writes about “letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them” by escalating Big Lie content. Hannity echoed this language in another text, writing, “Respecting this audience whether we agree or not is critical.”
It’s evident they were willfully lying. This is why dominion has a very strong case. Keep in mind that what we know publicly is only a small batch of evidence. The rest is bound to be public knowledge as the case goes to trial.
“o you have a defense against the evidence presented by Dominion? Nobody here has offered any reasonable or rational defense.”
No defense can be offered until you set out what you claim, your proof in detail in your own words and why what you say is meaningful. You talk a lot but say almost nothing meaningful.
I have already identified exactly why the lawsuit is stupid and why DVS has no case at all.
If you actually read what I wrote.
I would suggest that you look up OAN v MSNBC for far more egregious and clear defamation that was dismissed.
In the likely event DVS gets a favorable judge and jury, the case will just be dismissed on appeal.
What is evident is that YOU are willfully lying.
You keep trying to pretend the Fox discovery exposes a deep secret – it does not.
There is nothing that fox viewers did not know in November 2020 when they started leaving Fox for OAN, NewsMax, Epoch Times …. over Fox’s failure to take a strong stand on election fraud.
Separately you keep trying to pretend that the discovery means more than it does.
First, it states the OPINION of various Fox people – It does not state facts.
You are Constantly making stupid arguments all over the place equating someones opinion with Fact.
Next, all of this – including the defamation case itself is limited to the claim that DVS rigged the election.
DVS has no standing to raise a claim regarding any other allegations of fraud.
But you are constantly trying to make this – and all kinds of other statements mean far more than they actually state.
What we know from this discovery – something we have known for more than two years is that Fox both publicly and privately was skeptical of the claim that DVS rigged the election.
But you/DVS have a major problem because the standard for legitimate news is not – Proven Fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
The media – left and right are free to report stories that are likely false, and they do all the time.
Are all the outlets and journalists who pushed the collusion delusion nonsense facing huge defamation lawsuits ?
Nope, Fox is facing a hail mary by DVS to prop up their stock.
If the do not settle, ultimately they will lose.
Sevlaz did you see what Jon said? “stupid arguments “ Stupid arguments come from stupid minds.
I have already identifies numerous reasons the lawsuit is stupid.
As well as why DVS have NO CASE AT ALL.
Read OAN vs. MSNBC
or any of several other cases.
I find it interesting that you only quote PARTS of what people say – the parts that for the most part do not mean anything
“letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them”
Then you finish here statement with things that were not said, and constitute YOUR mind reading.
That are also irrelevant.
Again – please make your arguments with FACTS, or actual quotes in context.
If there is merit to your argument – you should not have to explain anything to anyone.
The facts will speak for themselves.
They will not need YOUR spin.
Sounds like another full blown progressive. She has no regard for our constitution or anything else that contradicts her world view. Obviously a product of a modern liberal arts education. Thats why these people never learn anything. They are so busy talking and listening to their own voice nothing else forces its way into their brain. That, of course, presupposes that they have a fully functioning brain and it seems to be trending that they don’t. Starting with our president and on down.
GEB, with all due respect, I think that Ms. Jankowicz might just be narcissistic and delusional. I’m not sure what you mean by your reference to a “modern liberal arts” education. I do see an irony in her willingness to lead the Biden Administration’s now defunct Disinformation Bureau. The administration itself has been one of the biggest sources of disinformation since 01-20-21.
“[S]he is seeking to raise $100,000.”
I’ll contribute. But only if it’s for a one-way ticket to, say, Iran. Or to some other tyranny that shares her desire for government censorship.
“provisions against online gender-based harassment.”
Is that where if anyone criticizes someone of the opposite sex, that person is then accused of harassment, even if criticism is accurate?
As with everything else on social media, one ought to be circumspect with what one places on public forums. As I see it, her own juvenile behavior defamed her character. FOX just gave it a wider audience. Can’t imagine what she deems she has standing for and what damage they caused.
The fact no lawyer would take up her cause on contingency is the tell.
The temper tantrums never cease on the modern left. She is preposterous, the vast majority of us think she is preposterous, clearly, and not unlike Taylor Lorenz, she is too big a baby-coward to self-reflect and acknowledge her flaws. Go back into your British bunker, cow.