Dominion Files Suit against Fox News, Smartmatic Piles On

[Mihalik]

Pretty sure Dominion would be perfectly happy to tie it up in litigation with them, if they've got as strong a case as they appear to. Dragging a case out on technicalities only works if your opponent can't afford to keep prosecuting.

In a case like this, there are probably a few dozen top 100 law firms with armies of lawyers lined up to prosecute this for years before getting paid. Because they'll get paid+ it's free publicity, it's newspaper articles, TV interviews, internet fame, possibly Congressional hearings.

[Breccia]

I see Fox News winning this suit (I do NOT see the individual "attorneys" winning their suits, but that's a different issue).

Okay, thanks for responding.

I admit, I would be a little concerned if a news organization got in trouble for quoting someone. Now, FOX News going into the courtroom and saying "we are entertainment" would be a great side-effect of this lawsuit, giving the WH every reason to eject them.

"But Breccia! Why would FOX News ever do that?"

Because a prosecutor forces the issue, specifically for this reason.

[postman1782]

If they can get this lawsuit in front of the Right Judge. And Find a jury dumb enough. It might work!
BAsically the Thiel/Hulk Hogan plan to sue Gawker.

It should be a 100% guarantee win for Dominion, simply because there is no evidence of anything that Fox and all the other people they have sued, have said to be true. Which is why they are going with the excuse that people aren't stupid enough to believe the shit they are spouting.

[cubby]

Okay, thanks for responding.

I admit, I would be a little concerned if a news organization got in trouble for quoting someone.

And IMO you've hit the nail on the head issue wise. Fox News can readily and quite easily make the claim they were literally quoting someone who was sure enough in their conviction to claim they had evidence of an event. And they were a bar'd attorney filing a law suit. That needs to be protected, because while we KNOW Faux News was lying through their teeth, or rather they were pushing a specific agenda, the shield they were hiding behind is sacrosanct to the First Amendment.

The more I think about it the more I see Fox winning the suit. The caveat being there might be a compelling issue I haven't heard yet that would affect that outcome. I would be delighted to be wrong about this, to be clear.

[Endus]

And IMO you've hit the nail on the head issue wise. Fox News can readily and quite easily make the claim they were literally quoting someone who was sure enough in their conviction to claim they had evidence of an event. And they were a bar'd attorney filing a law suit. That needs to be protected, because while we KNOW Faux News was lying through their teeth, or rather they were pushing a specific agenda, the shield they were hiding behind is sacrosanct to the First Amendment.

The more I think about it the more I see Fox winning the suit. The caveat being there might be a compelling issue I haven't heard yet that would affect that outcome. I would be delighted to be wrong about this, to be clear.

FWIW, one of the sources they quoted was Sydney Powell, and in Powell's own case before the courts, she's literally arguing currently that no reasonable person could have thought she was telling the truth when she said those things.

Kind of hard for Fox News to claim they had a good-faith assumption that her words were truthful when even she admits that they were so ridiculous that no one could actually believe that.

That's where these cases might spectacularly fall apart, for everyone. The testimony Powell and Giuliani are giving are going to torpedo themselves, and quite possibly take down Fox with them.

[postman1782]

FWIW, one of the sources they quoted was Sydney Powell, and in Powell's own case before the courts, she's literally arguing currently that no reasonable person could have thought she was telling the truth when she said those things.

Kind of hard for Fox News to claim they had a good-faith assumption that her words were truthful when even she admits that they were so ridiculous that no one could actually believe that.

That's where these cases might spectacularly fall apart, for everyone. The testimony Powell and Giuliani are giving are going to torpedo themselves, and quite possibly take down Fox with them.

Fox News also said the same thing in the defamation case against Tucker Carlson. But they won that case for some retarded reason.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

Probably why Sidney is using the same shitty defense.

[Bakis]

I will simply be lazy and point to my sig.

[Breccia]

Fox News also said the same thing in the defamation case against Tucker Carlson

Probably why Sidney is using the same shitty defense.

That might be why, but you'd think a lawyer would know it isn't the same situation at all.

Carlson is an opinion-giving talking head.

The Kraken filed legal motions in court.

Granted we know she's not a great lawyer, but anyone with at least half a brain, and even some cultists, know these situations are not the same. It'd be like claiming self defense for a parking ticket.

[postman1782]

That might be why, but you'd think a lawyer would know it isn't the same situation at all.

Carlson is an opinion-giving talking head.

The Kraken filed legal motions in court.

Granted we know she's not a great lawyer, but anyone with at least half a brain, and even some cultists, know these situations are not the same. It'd be like claiming self defense for a parking ticket.

You would think so, but the fact that she filed all of those lawsuits, without evidence, suggests she is lucky she isn't disbarred, yet.

[Breccia]

You would think so, but the fact that she filed all of those lawsuits, without evidence, suggests she is lucky she isn't disbarred, yet.

This lawsuit could force the issue. If she admits, under oath, that she was filing lawsuits with evidence she knew was false -- or just as bad, had no idea either way -- then whether that's a successful defense or not, that should come back to bite her.

Also, this TheHill article goes into detail into Dominion's lawsuit(s). Note: they're filed in Delaware, known tax haven with really generous corporate protection laws. Will that help FOX News? Maybe. Will that help the individual lawyers? Hell no. If anything, this is even worse news for them.

[Machismo]

In the end, I doubt these lawsuits end up with an outright victory for Dominion. Fox can simply argue that they weren't in control of what their guests (and hosts) were saying. They can plead ignorance, and say they didn't know 100% that what was said were outright falsehoods.

Sidney Powell is another story. She filed lawsuits, and made very clear claims... in court.

[Santti]

FWIW, one of the sources they quoted was Sydney Powell, and in Powell's own case before the courts, she's literally arguing currently that no reasonable person could have thought she was telling the truth when she said those things.

Kind of hard for Fox News to claim they had a good-faith assumption that her words were truthful when even she admits that they were so ridiculous that no one could actually believe that.

That's where these cases might spectacularly fall apart, for everyone. The testimony Powell and Giuliani are giving are going to torpedo themselves, and quite possibly take down Fox with them.

That, plus her legal defense is also arguing that she really believes everything she has said. Kinda funny that she is arguing for herself to be unreasonable.

[Breccia]

That, plus her legal defense is also arguing that she really believes everything she has said

...so, she's to be committed, then?

[cubby]

FWIW, one of the sources they quoted was Sydney Powell, and in Powell's own case before the courts, she's literally arguing currently that no reasonable person could have thought she was telling the truth when she said those things.

Kind of hard for Fox News to claim they had a good-faith assumption that her words were truthful when even she admits that they were so ridiculous that no one could actually believe that.

That's where these cases might spectacularly fall apart, for everyone. The testimony Powell and Giuliani are giving are going to torpedo themselves, and quite possibly take down Fox with them.

I saw her filing and the quotes from her brief. It's a fascinating case from an academic perspective. And she's utterly fucked herself for her Bar License - because she was filing those claims in court, claims that she now states no one could ever take seriously. So incoming sanctions - with her own testimony being used to boot her out.

Fox won't use Sydney's current words, they will use her previous words, the ones she used on television and in court filings. Fox doesn't have to prove they covered her in good faith NOW, just that they did it in good faith when it was aired. Dominion would have to prove that Fox knew she was lying, or should have known, at the time she was making the statements and filing law suits. The more I see of this, the more I think Fox is going to be fine.

Sydney and Rudi are fucked, however. She is almost literally using the "just kidding" defense, which for those following along, is not a defense at all. She will be arguing that she was kidding all along, even when making statements, and especially when filing court pleadings, and that the entire endeavor was political theater. The court will not be taking that kindly - NOT because of the political theater argument, but because if she can use that defense, than anyone could lie over and over again, including filing court pleadings/lawsuits, and use a "just kidding" defense to slip out of any repercussions. As a precedent, the courts can't let this stand. Dominion will point to actual and theoretical damages she caused, including death threats and insurrection and public harm in the voting process and harm to Dominions reputation, and the court will rule in Dominion's favor.

I think the testimony Sydney and Rudi are giving will actually torpedo their Bar Licenses more than anything else. As always, however, these things can go either way.

- - - Updated - - -

That, plus her legal defense is also arguing that she really believes everything she has said. Kinda funny that she is arguing for herself to be unreasonable.

That's very weird. Are they going for some kind of insanity defense?

[Santti]

That's very weird. Are they going for some kind of insanity defense?

I'm guessing that they just didn't realize it themselves, when they went with the kitchen sink approach.

Saying she really believes what she said, and thus, can't have actual malice behind her words.

And arguing at the same time, that no reasonable person could possibly believe her words.

Both arguments are apparently usable against defamation lawsuits. But the implications of using both creates a funny situation.

[PosPosPos]

Even if Fox loses, so what? It's just another operating cost to them.

There are still enough conservatives to peddle blatant misinformation to and still be wildly profitable, that unless penalties go beyond just having to pay a token fine and involve prison sentences there's no way in hell fake news won't stop being a major social problem in the US.

[Breccia]

Dominion would have to prove that Fox knew she was lying, or should have known, at the time she was making the statements and filing law suits.

Could Dominion bring court statements from the Kraken's lawyers saying "this signed in-court document says no reasonable person should have believed her, and FOX News still aired it anyhow"?

This feels like one of those "both defendants get separate trials/juries" thing, where both blame the other and juries in both have the option to believe them. If Dominion is 110% done with this shit, statements from both the Krakup and the Foxup should be allowed in the other's lawsuit. Neither lawsuit is happening in a vaccum.

[Elegiac]

Fox News can readily and quite easily make the claim they were literally quoting someone who was sure enough in their conviction to claim they had evidence of an event.

This isn't a case of whether or not it's okay for Fox to say untruthful things, y'all.

The case is about whether or not Fox's dissemination of something they knew to be untruthful resulted in damage to Dominion's finances and reputation (i.e. defamation), which it provably has done. Other news organizations also reported on Powell's bullshit but did not do it in such a way that caused similar damage because they adequately pointed out that the claims were bogus, so the notion that Fox simply wasn't aware Powell was making shit up doesn't hold water either.

The best outcome Fox can hope for at this point is an out of court settlement, but it's likely to be financially ruinous either way because of the amount of income their actions cost Dominion in terms of cancelled contracts.

[cubby]

This isn't a case of whether or not it's okay for Fox to say untruthful things, y'all.

The case is about whether or not Fox's dissemination of something they knew to be untruthful resulted in damage to Dominion's finances and reputation (i.e. defamation), which it provably has done. Other news organizations also reported on Powell's bullshit but did not do it in such a way that caused similar damage because they adequately pointed out that the claims were bogus, so the notion that Fox simply wasn't aware Powell was making shit up doesn't hold water either.

The best outcome Fox can hope for at this point is an out of court settlement, but it's likely to be financially ruinous either way because of the amount of income their actions cost Dominion in terms of cancelled contracts.

Never said it was.

Your own underlined point above demonstrably shows how Fox will win their suit. They reported the news, and what they had before them was a licensed attorney filing multiple suits, under oath, that what she was saying was true. At the time it was filed, Fox can reasonably argue that they believed the story to be true. Fox was NOT reporting on something they knew to be wrong - and that's the standard used in cases against the media.

The best outcome Dominion can hope for in their case against Fox is a closed settlement.

On the other side, I would love to have the time and resources to be on Dominion's legal team for their suits against Sydney and Rudi.

- - - Updated - - -

Could Dominion bring court statements from the Kraken's lawyers saying "this signed in-court document says no reasonable person should have believed her, and FOX News still aired it anyhow"?

This feels like one of those "both defendants get separate trials/juries" thing, where both blame the other and juries in both have the option to believe them. If Dominion is 110% done with this shit, statements from both the Krakup and the Foxup should be allowed in the other's lawsuit. Neither lawsuit is happening in a vaccum.

That's an interesting argument to present. Especially when you combine that with what @Elegiac pointed out that almost every other major news organization was pointing out that the claims were bogus.

It's interesting as well, as you pointed out, that there are multiple suits going on with different and often contradicting arguments being made against the same claims. I think you very accurately point out that these suits aren't happening in a vacuum, and any filings made in one suit can readily be used (probably) in another one.

[Breccia]

I think you very accurately point out that these suits aren't happening in a vacuum, and any filings made in one suit can readily be used (probably) in another one.

It's a tad off-topic but while I've stolen your attention from Borderlands 3 and a plate of Tagalongs...oh, wait, that's me. Anyhow my untrained opinion was "two accused people could insist on separate trials and in those separate trials accuse each other, to raise the chances both juries have reasonable doubt but nobody else they can blame". Is that even close?