Dominion Files Suit against Fox News, Smartmatic Piles On

[cubby]

As per usual, I ask @cubby for a mix of (a) informed, expert opinion and (b) I think he'll find it funny, but does FOX News have a case here? Grossberg isn't a lawyer, and I'm pretty sure both intimidation of a witness, and encouraging a witness to lie on the stand, are not covered by privilege. In fact, I think when your boss's lawyer demands that you lie on the stand, you're supposed to tell the judge pretty much immediately.

It's truly hysterical how the crazy MAGAt's flaunt and break the law at will, over everything and anything, and then hide behind those laws to avoid accountability - all the while demanding "Faux" (see also Faux "News") accountability from their honorable adversaries. The GQP and their blind followers are truly bankrupt.

For this particularly funny situation, it's essentially liars trying to hide behind liars, and both parties lying about the people who actually want to tell the truth, seek justice, and make the liars accountable.

Sorry for the brush pass on this one, but all the bullshit and lies and shitshowiness that Trump brought out from hiding just gets overwhelming. Sometimes I just can't even....

[Breccia]

Well FOX News is pushing ahead with the "we were required to say what Trump said" and that defense is meeting some harsh critics. It's time once again for Guess the Speaker!

"It's Greene."

Shh.

To me, it doesn't seem intellectually honest that you apply actual malice and say there's neutral reporting privilege. How can you be neutral if you're knowingly doing false things?

"Clearly some CNN reporter or commie librul blogger."

Nope, that's the judge in the case.

Dominion has proven that FOX News intentionally said things as a statement of fact they knew were false, and that they did it for ratings and money. That, they claim, is "actual malice". Making money for yourself by damaging someone else sounds pretty malicious to me. I believe the term is "mugging". FOX News has tried to argue that all they were saying the allegations existed, but claimed they didn't know if they were valid. Again, we have proof they did know, so I don't expect that to help. The judge seemed to take issue with that.

Now near as Reuters and other sources are saying, the judge isn't planning on making a summary judgement, but it could still happen. If so, the word FOX News will want to avoid hearing is "Dobbs".

As the lawsuit reminds us, Dobbs was working for FOX News at the time, and flat-out said that Dominion was involved. FOX News said, under oath, as a legit defense, that Dobbs didn't invent #DominionVoterFraud when he used it repeatedly, therefore it was okay and not defamatory. No, really, they tried that.

The issue of fact vs. opinion was raised, but this again should not help FOX News much. Dobbs, for example, claimed Dominion was hacked/committing fraud for Venezuela/etc on what was labeled an opinion program. Again, that shouldn't be good enough. Simply saying "It is my opinion that this fact happened" does not make it an opinion. Dobbs wasn't joking, he wasn't being sarcastic, and he wasn't on a comedy show. He was on what claims to be a news channel. I can have an opinion about country music, I don't think it's that bad but I don't like the sounds of a lot of the stringed instruments or some of the messages in the lyrics but "Before He Cheats" is a banger, but if I hypothetically said "It is my opinion that Ashley McBryde routinely uses heroin and clubs baby seals" that would be a statement of fact. Me saying "in my opinion" doesn't change that. And it would be worse if, say, I was her doctor, ran her blood tests, and knew she was heroin and seal-fur free, but said it anyhow as anything but a joke. (And if I did make that joke and were her doctor, she should fire me)

FOX News is desperately hoping that my view does not line up with the law. The judge has also asked Dominion if FOX News is allowed to have an opinion, and Dominion's response was basically "when they know the claims are false but let Team Trump make them anyhow without objection, that's not an opinion anymore".

Also of note: the new Grossberg thing is not part of the case. Even if Dominion struggles here, they have options going forward.

Incidentally I'm giving myself 3 CNN points for this, one for FOX News claiming Dobbs' statements of fact were just opinions, one for saying that they can provide neutral coverage while intentionally espousing false claims, and one for Dominion's rebuttal of their argument.

[Endus]

"Clearly some CNN reporter or commie librul blogger."

Nope, that's the judge in the case.

Like, finally.

Journalists are expected to be neutral and objective. Neutrality does not mean taking a false middle approach to reporting. It means you take a non-partisan approach. If that leads you to report that one party is centrist and the other party are fruitcake fascist bigot fuckheads, then that's what you report. And the fascist bigot fuckheads can go chew glass about it.

Journalists reporting on WWII weren't expected to presume the Nazi death camps were maybe justified, and the Allies just had a different opinion. No, they reported on the objective horror and crimes against humanity of the Nazis. This is why the Nazis hated the press. They're the ones who originated most of the shit-talk about the "mainstream media", in fact, which should give you pause when you hear Republicans spouting the same.

Sometimes, a fair and honest and open assessment boils down to "you're a monstrously evil and sadistic human being and everything you believe is intended to bring about maximum horror and harm". That can be the neutral take.

Not understanding that just puts you in literally the same Nazi shoes of bitching about how "unfair" the "mainstream media" is to your objectively awful ideas.

Fox News is just the "State Nazi propaganda media" arm of this whole horrible analogy.

[Breccia]

Sometimes, a fair and honest and open assessment boils down to "you're a monstrously evil and sadistic human being and everything you believe is intended to bring about maximum horror and harm". That can be the neutral take.

Leaving aside "chew glass" (shudders) this seems to be more or less the Dominion closing arguments.

Everyone reported Trump's claims.

Almost everyone reported that there was no reason to believe them.

Dominion isn't suing CNN, because CNN didn't take "a neutral stance" (eyeroll) on the issue. Here, let me find an example...

Nov 15, 2020 Hannity transcript, in which he comes just barely shy of saying Dominion was at fault, but spent a dozen paragraphs saying they were at fault, citing the NYTimes as evidence, and a few other things about fake ballots, before "We have not independently confirmed the contents of the footage from Project Veritas, but we will let you watch and decide for yourself. You decide."

And then!

HANNITY: You know, Ari, we used to send election observers to other countries. Maybe we need other countries to send them here -- it's sad. We are capable of so much more but they don't want that capability, do they?

FLEISCHER: You have "The New York Times" on a banner headline saying, there is no fraud. You know, the story was that there wasn't sufficient fraud to put the numbers over the top but the headline said there is no fraud in America.

You know what I want to know, Sean, is we know dead people vote, is it three people, 30, 300, 3,000? We have a right to know that because it can affect a local election, a Senate election. It's a much closer election, we need to run this to ground.

HANNITY: I think we need to have legal standards that apply for everybody, every state so people will have confidence in results, it shouldn't happen again.

That in no way looks like "we are not taking a stance on the issue". Read the rest of the transcript. Hannity does nothing but put forth what he says is evidence of fraud, then say "you decide".

Meanwhile, from Nov 1 to Nov 30, CNN said nothing remotely like this. In fact, people tried to claim CNN showed fraud but they were lying when they did.

What I did find, was the very next day (Nov 16) the headline Fact checking Trump’s barrage of lies over the weekend. So, already, off to a great start.

Trump tweeted

Well that didn't age well.

“All of the mechanical ‘glitches’ that took place on Election Night were really THEM getting caught trying to steal votes.”

Facts First: Again, not true. Election Day glitches are unfortunate but normal, and there is no evidence of anybody trying to use voting technology to steal votes. In the statement last week, Trump administration officials and state election officials said in bold type: “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

Not only is CNN taking that stance, they even point out that Trump is pushing a lie even his own admin doesn't back. You can find more on that from this Nov 13 AP News article that, yes, quotes CISA. Trump responded to that by saying the election was rigged by Democrats. And, yes, Hannity responded to that by pushing what we now know, that he knew at the time, were baseless claims.

If you go down the list of CNN headlines from, say, Nov 2 "FOX News is misleading its audience about Trump's election chances" to Nov 5 "FOX News hosts sow distrust in legitimacy of election" to Nov 14 "Top DHS official ratchets up rebukes of Trump's false election claims" to "Trump wavers between reatlity and election fiction" to "Bonkers conspiracy theory" to "baseless claim" to actually wait I'm quoting this one from Nov 8:

An online movement has these Trump supporters convinced the election was stolen

It's a video, but the language in the headline says it all: CNN does not believe them. A follow up line "CNN's Donie O'Sullivan talks to them about why they believe the election was stolen." only reinforces that. CNN is correctly reporting what people are saying, while pointing out these people are crazy, stupid, insane, stupid, very stupid, and/or wrong. Like FOX News, CNN does talk to people who believe that. Unlike FOX News, at no point do they say the issue is up for debate. Watch it yourself, it's 5 minutes 22 seconds, but again, it does get across the point "these people believe this statement" roasting in the juices of "my God, they're fucking morons".

If FOX News had done that instead, they would not be sued right now.

But they didn't, and we know why, because they admitted it under oath, effectively. They knew it would cost them viewers and money.

So Hannity lied on the air, by suggesting Dominion was compromised, and saying "you have the evidence, you decide", days after CISA and DHS both said "no, they weren't".

Trump repeatedly attacked the validity of the election results, tweeting that this was a “RIGGED ELECTION,” a “Rigged and Corrupt Election” and a “Rigged Election Hoax.” He also tweeted that this was the “most fraudulent Election in history” and that the results are “fake.”

Facts First: None of this is true. The election was not rigged, and there is no evidence of any fraud large enough to have changed the outcome. Officials from the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security, along with state election officials, said in a statement last week: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.”

-- CNN, still Nov 16

I really hope FOX News gets what they deserve: a giant ten-figure slap across the face reminding them that part of being news is saying what's true, but the other part is pointing out what's not true. Cherry-picking only evidence that supports your theory on an anonymous forum is bad enough. Doing so because you know your argument is false but you want to sell the opposite for cash, to an audience of millions, is far worse.

[Fugus]

@Breccia

Hope they hit that fine along with being court ordered to admit they lied on air.

Doubly so if they can force them to put legal disclaimers on their shows that they aren’t news and shouldn’t be taken as honest or accurate both written and verbally from the hosts.

[Breccia]

We have witness lists from both parties. While there is a lot of overlap, Dominion is asking for Murdoch and FOX News upper-level decision makers, while FOX News just wants the same mouthpieces Dominion wants but not the actual admin staff.

FOX News is claiming Dominion is just trying to make headlines so--

"Isn't FOX News a news company?"

I mean,

Doubly so if they can force them to put legal disclaimers on their shows that they aren’t news and shouldn’t be taken as honest or accurate both written and verbally from the hosts.

hopefully not for long? But they claim to be, at least.

"Why are they complaining about making headlines? Isn't this good for business?"

Well, because the headlines would be bad news for them.

"Are most court cases ruled on by ratings?"

I guess they're worried about the jury pool being contaminated.

"Don't they run OP EDs and the like on their own side?"

Yes. But that's fair, because it's them doing it.

"How would a case involving the claim FOX News intentionally made a bunch of decisions be possible without asking the people making the decisions?"

It would not. FOX News knew this was coming. This is feigned outrage over being caught for all that stuff they did.

Due to the objectlvely known communications with Murdoch and others, keeping them from the stand sounds like an impossible task. FOX News is tilting at this particular windmill because the only other option is to admit guilt.

- - - Updated - - -

Rupert Murdoch called Trump’s Jan. 6 actions ‘pretty much a crime,’ court doc says

“Trump insisting on the election being stolen and convincing 25% of Americans was a huge disservice to the country,” Murdoch wrote to Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott, according to recently unredacted evidence. “Pretty much a crime. Inevitable it blew up on Jan. 6th.”

Murdoch, the executive chairman of Fox Corp., also acknowledged in his deposition testimony given late last year that he told Scott to stop putting Trump on the network.

That ban has since ended as Trump, who is leading in most polls for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, gave a lengthy interview to Fox News host Sean Hannity that is running in multiple parts this week.

Good to know Murdoch is willing to back a criminal over a loser.

[Breccia]

Judge sends Dominion case to full trial.

Giuliani and Powell should be very concerned right now.

[Edge-]

Judge sends Dominion case to full trial.

Giuliani and Powell should be very concerned right now.

Oh boy, more potential rounds of embarrassing materials coming out through discovery?

[Breccia]

Oh boy, more potential rounds of embarrassing materials coming out through discovery?

I'll be honest, based on what little I know about trial law and what we've seen, I don't know what else could come up. Anything FOX News hasn't turned over, they've burned.

[Fugus]

I'll be honest, based on what little I know about trial law and what we've seen, I don't know what else could come up. Anything FOX News hasn't turned over, they've burned.

If they destroyed evidence, that could lead to a whole lot more into them looking into exactly what they destroyed and why and what else that evidence could have led them to.

[Breccia]

If they destroyed evidence, that could lead to a whole lot more into them looking into exactly what they destroyed and why and what else that evidence could have led them to.

If they destroyed evidence -- and yes, I'm suggesting that at least one FOX News employee deleted at least one text message or email, possibly well before they were subpoena'd, that's just how texts and emails work -- and there was evidence of that that a search could find, it'd be found by now. With the information out there, I don't think Dominion is going back for a second pass.

Although, do frame that under "I don't see what else could come up". But I'm modestly convinced discovery is over and that Dominion has all the evidence they asked for and looked for, that was available to find. I am not expecting "oh shit, we forgot about Papa Bear's laptop" to suddenly appear. Quite frankly, the texts we've seen are enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh...I thought we were done for a while.

Dominion Voting Systems on Friday not only beat back Fox News' attempt to skip a defamation trial, it won a summary judgment for some of its claims.

This gives Dominion a head start in trial. A Delaware judge found that it's "CRYSTAL clear" (original emphasis) that Fox News' statements about Dominion are false — making it an issue that won't be disputed at trial.

That's bad. But!

As part of granting part of Dominion's motion, the judge also took away Fox News' ability to use "neutral reporting privilege" and "opinion privilege," two common defenses for news organizations in such lawsuits.

Ooooo. That's going to hurt.

See, the judge saw that FOX News was trying two self-contradictory arguments. One, that they were allowed to repeat the claims made by Trump because they were newsworthy. Two, that they were opinions held by FOX News. Yeah, the judge said you can't do that. This negates the First Amendment defense, since FOX News cannot use the defense they were merely presenting an opinion.

I think many Americans have given no thought to electoral fraud that would be perpetrated through electronic voting; that is, these machines, these electronic voting companies including Dominion, prominently Dominion, at least in the suspicions of a lot of Americans.

-- Lou Dobbs, Nov. 24, 2020, in public, on his show

The judge called that statement out specifically, pointing out that it was not a statement of opinion, but a statement of fact.

As for neutral?

In several recent hearings, the judge indicated that he was losing patience with Fox lawyers and their objections to Dominion’s efforts to introduce evidence into the record. And he said on Friday that he believed Dominion was correct in asserting that Fox had not “conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.”

FOX News will head to the April 17 case with several major self-inflicted handicaps. By this point, we all know the four requirements for defamation. With the massive information dump in the aforementioned evidence FOX News was trying to conceal, and the ruling's impacts above, it is going to be very difficult for FOX News to find a way out of this one.

1) That the statements are false is no longer in question.
2) That FOX News knew they were false is no longer in question.
3) That FOX News broadcast the information to another person is...well, their job, basically.
4) That leaves only malicious intent, which Dominion will try to show was FOX News desperate to keep their viewers from leaving, meaning they spread the lies about Dominion in exchange for money for themselves. I don't know if there's a legal definition that needs to be checked here, but "I did something wrong because I was paid to" would be enough for me.
E) And FOX News' loophole exceptions have been shat upon in public.

As to point 4 above, another story that CNN published today about the trial shows that FOX News admitted they were blacklisting Trump's on-crack legal team, because of the Smartech lawsuit. This leads directly to the "we knew it was wrong but we were doing it for money" issue.

Oh, and then there's the Grossberg issue, which is ongoing and therefore yet more piling on.

On Monday, Ms. Grossberg’s lawyers filed her errata sheet, which witnesses use to correct mistakes in their depositions. She revised her comments to say she did not trust the producers at Fox with whom she worked because they were “activists, not journalists, and impose their political agendas on the programming.”

Which might not be important as the "neutral" issue is resolved, but could also go towards the "malicious" angle, that they were trying to hurt Dominion because they were alt-right fucksticks with cameras.

Look, I think we all knew things looked bad for FOX News, but this is just brutal.

[Fugus]

@Breccia

Given all that has already been established in the Dominion v Fox case, what would you say the odds of them getting the full judgment against them?

Also, given all that they have attempted in this trial and all that came out, what do you think the odds the judge forces them to actually come clean to their viewers on air and/or other restrictions? I mean if this was any other smaller entity I could see them fully forced to shut down given the actions and history behind it. But I doubt they would be pushed into that.

My personal wish list which I know will never happen would be Fox forced to come clean on air to all their viewers along with all their leadership all the way to Rupert Murdock himself fined enough to bankrupt them given their personal complicity in this and the damage it caused combine with Foxes previous cases and problems with history making them a habitual offender on this. Maybe forcing them to remove their entire commentary and news lineups as well since they have proven repeatedly to abuse them, not even talk shows allowed. But, I know that is not likely at all.

[Breccia]

Given all that has already been established in the Dominion v Fox case, what would you say the odds of them getting the full judgment against them?

Low.

The judge today said the jury would decide damages, but judges always have the right to overrule that. And I don't think Dominion will be able to prove, as a matter of law, that they took $1.6 billion in damages from FOX News.

Now, New York State does not cap punative damages. The jury could, in theory, send a message visible from space. But I think Murdoch is already a step ahead of this. He's been saying things like "we should have done better" and I think the jury will use that as an excuse to go lighter on the punative side.

And the judge, tired of FOX News' bullshit he may be, seems to be pretty by-the-book. I don't think Dominion will get the full $1.6 billion unless they can prove they lost that much...and I don't think they did.

Finally, if the award is high, FOX News will appeal, taking any jury outrage out of the equation.

[Fugus]

Low.

The judge today said the jury would decide damages, but judges always have the right to overrule that. And I don't think Dominion will be able to prove, as a matter of law, that they took $1.6 billion in damages from FOX News.

Now, New York State does not cap punative damages. The jury could, in theory, send a message visible from space. But I think Murdoch is already a step ahead of this. He's been saying things like "we should have done better" and I think the jury will use that as an excuse to go lighter on the punative side.

And the judge, tired of FOX News' bullshit he may be, seems to be pretty by-the-book. I don't think Dominion will get the full $1.6 billion unless they can prove they lost that much...and I don't think they did.

Finally, if the award is high, FOX News will appeal, taking any jury outrage out of the equation.

I think they could prove 1.6 billion in damages because their business is something that works on a national stage and their stories destroyed their chances in many areas because of it, especially in conservative areas as Dominion will be falsely associated with stealing an election regardless of what the outcome of the trial is and even if Fox was forced to admit they lied on air. And that damage will last for years to come and potentially upwards of a decade or more.

Calculating years and years worth of lost sales due to Fox's actions at the national stage could very easily surpass 1.6 billion, especially since they are also used outside of the US and could negatively impact their products globally.

Given just how broad their market is and how visible Fox personally made this false accusation spread, 1.6 billion could potentially be a low figure.

[Breccia]

Calculating years and years worth of lost sales due to Fox's actions

I don't think they can prove this, not easily. Trump's claims were blatantly false. I don't know what they have to prove they lost "years and years" of sales as it's just past 2 years later and everyone knows this claim was bullshit then and is bullshit now.

[Fugus]

I don't think they can prove this, not easily. Trump's claims were blatantly false. I don't know what they have to prove they lost "years and years" of sales as it's just past 2 years later and everyone knows this claim was bullshit then and is bullshit now.

Everyone with a brain knows, how many do you see in majority conservative areas still pushing the lie or the whole “protect our elections” lines trying to restrict voting while dog whistling it.

Something like 30% of the Republican base still support Trumps claims, that makes Dominion radioactive in any majority conservative district because of it.

If Dominion shows the polls showing how many of Foxes viewers still believe that lie and link it to how that means they will not even be considered in any conservative stronghold, that would effectively prove their case.

[Kaleredar]

I don't think they can prove this, not easily. Trump's claims were blatantly false. I don't know what they have to prove they lost "years and years" of sales as it's just past 2 years later and everyone knows this claim was bullshit then and is bullshit now.

I'd imagine they could cite contracts that were terminated, a dip in revenue compared to previous years before the accusations, and other palpable aspects of their business being adversely affected to illustrate that these libelous and slanderous conspiracies hurt them as a company.

And while everyone paying attention knew that the claim about Dominion was bullshit, everyone paying attention also knew Trump was a cheat, a dirty rotten liar, and an all around terrible person, and yet millions still voted for him and a small but sizeable portion of the US population thinks he's the second coming of Jesus.

[Endus]

I don't think they can prove this, not easily. Trump's claims were blatantly false. I don't know what they have to prove they lost "years and years" of sales as it's just past 2 years later and everyone knows this claim was bullshit then and is bullshit now.

They really just need to point to their yearly revenues before the accusations, and the drop afterwards due to those accusations. Sure, they do election stuff, so maybe it's not consistent year-to-year, but over a pattern of multiple years, it should be pretty simply demonstrable. Get testimony from those who stopping working with Dominion machines to admit they avoided Dominion because of the allegations, and you can lock it up pretty easily.

[masterhorus8]

They really just need to point to their yearly revenues before the accusations, and the drop afterwards due to those accusations. Sure, they do election stuff, so maybe it's not consistent year-to-year, but over a pattern of multiple years, it should be pretty simply demonstrable. Get testimony from those who stopping working with Dominion machines to admit they avoided Dominion because of the allegations, and you can lock it up pretty easily.

iirc, Shasta County already did away with theirs and even cited the election fraud claims as their reason. So definitely shouldn't be too hard to track.

[Breccia]

So...there's been a lot of "you actually do have to testify" court rulings of late. It really does seem like basically every Republican doesn't want to admit the truth about what they've been doing for the last 6 years...while also asking Bragg to testify. It's so odd, it's like the law actually applies equally to everyone, or something.

Dominion can call Murdoch to testify in Fox News lawsuit, judge rules

Dominion Voting Systems can call Fox Corp. executives Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch as witnesses to testify during a jury trial as part of its $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News, a judge in Delaware said on Wednesday.

In a new letter this week, lawyers for Dominion asked Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis to allow them to call the Murdochs as live witnesses during the trial, which is slated to begin later this month.

Davis indicated during a pretrial hearing on Wednesday he was open to compelling Murdoch to testify if the media mogul is issued a subpoena by Dominion’s lawyers.

Fox, which is defending itself on First Amendment grounds, has argued against having Murdoch testify at the trial and has for weeks accused the voting systems company of “cherry picking” quotes from its leading executives and employees in a bid to embarrass the network.

In depositions given to Dominion’s lawyers made public through recent court filings, Murdoch acknowledged that top hosts at Fox had “gone too far” in promoting Trump’s unfounded claims about the election and called statements made by Trump’s associates about Dominion during a post-election press conference: “Terrible stuff damaging everybody, I fear.”

Once again, I see that stupid fucking stupid "cherry picking" defense. "Your Honor, what about all those days my client didn't murder anyone?" If FOX News, especially Murdoch, indicated they knew their own guests were spreading harmful lies in one text message, another text message about what flavor of ice cream to get for their kids doesn't change that.

Did they know they were spreading lies? Yes? Congrats, that's defamation.

“I think a lot of the noise that you hear about this case is actually not about the law, and it’s not about journalism, and it’s really about politics, right,” Murdoch said during a recent Morgan Stanley investor conference.

“And that’s unfortunately more reflective of this, this sort of polarized society that we live in today.”

FOX News complaining about the public being polarized. Yeah, cry me a river. This is your fault. You intentionally cultivated an audience who wanted conspiracy theories, racism and hatred, then found a situation where you had to keep selling lies or you'd lose the viewers you created. Boo fuckity hoo. Your participation trophy has been (checks site) blocked by legislation by your own viewers, apparently.

Murdoch isn't going to fight this, I don't think. Saying "I think this is all political" is a lame-ass limp-dick way to say "I actually did something horribly wrong, even illegal, but I don't want them to have any way to hit back". But his interviews, and those messages, sound like someone tired of fighting for a cause they don't really believe in. I think the Murdochs know they can take the $1.6 billion hit and they'll be okay.