Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[CGVT]

Speaking of What's New Pussycat, this is pretty funny

[THE_WIZARD_]

heh

[Da Geezer]

An op-ed by William Barr in today's WSJ:

in particular, I'd like to temper DSL's glee at the "trouble" he feels FOX is in.


Queue The mainstream press has reacted predictably in recent weeks after Fox News’s internal communications and witness depositions were disclosed in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against the network. Blinded by resentment at Fox’s success as an alternative media voice, many media organizations offered a distorted narrative—largely parroting Dominion’s spin—that the disclosures doom Fox’s legal defense. Commentators from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and other outlets, gleeful at the prospect of a Fox setback, cheer on as the defamation case heads toward a trial date.

But the real significance of the disclosures is exactly the opposite of what these media outlets claim. Two things are clear: First, if the applicable law is faithfully applied, the facts completely upend Dominion’s defamation claim against Fox. The case should be decided in Fox’s favor, if not at the trial stage, then on appeal.

Second, a ruling against Fox would be a major blow to media freedoms generally, subjecting news outlets to the prospect of outsize liability whenever they report on newsworthy allegations that turn out to be false.

Right after the 2020 election, President Trump and his team repeatedly alleged that Dominion machines had been used in a voting-fraud scheme. Although these allegations weren’t substantiated, as attorney general, I couldn’t immediately discount them. Finding the truth required an investigation, which I authorized. Over the next few weeks we found no substantiation or discrepancies, and based on expert assessments I became increasingly convinced the claims against Dominion were unfounded.

---

Meanwhile, several Fox News hosts interviewed members of the president’s team—Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell chief among them—about their Dominion claims and whether they had evidence to support them. As the record shows, the hosts presented the claims as unproven allegations and didn’t say they were true. Nonetheless, Dominion is suing Fox News for $1.6 billion in damages (20 times Dominion’s 2018 valuation), claiming that in reporting on the Trump team’s allegations, Fox effectively was promoting them as true.

Emotions seem to have gotten the better of the mainstream media’s judgment. The theory advanced by Dominion is profoundly dangerous to the media industry as whole. Memories are very short and imaginations very limited if the left thinks that only Fox would be vulnerable to lawsuits in a world where defamation liability could be incurred for simply reporting allegations made by others. Does anyone remember the endless false claims of “Russian collusion” that dominated the news from the 2016 presidential election through most of the Trump administration; or the false “Iraqgate” claims with which George H.W. Bush was bombarded during his 1992 re-election campaign; or the lurid allegations, which were given wall-to-wall cable news coverage, that Michael Avenatti made during the Senate confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh?

The press can report on these matters without incurring liability for defamation because existing laws give them wide latitude to do so to encourage uninhibited discourse on matters of public concern. The scope of this legal protection is well-settled, and Fox acted well within it for three reasons. First, it isn’t defamatory for journalists to report on newsworthy allegations made by others, even when those allegations turn out to be false. As long as claims are presented only as allegations and not asserted to be true, legal responsibility for any defamatory content rests with those making the allegations, not the news outlet. If you examine the relevant statements by Fox hosts in context, it is clear the company was simply reporting the allegations, not reporting that those allegations were true.

Second, defamation applies only to false statements of fact, not statements of opinion. Thus, it isn’t defamatory for a journalist to provide commentary—stating an opinion about an allegation—as long as he doesn’t assert that the defamatory aspects of the allegations are true. Thus, in Fox’s case, to the extent hosts made comments suggesting the claims were troubling, or serious, or warranting an investigation, those comments were opinions and can’t serve as the basis for a defamation claim.

Finally, it has long been held that First Amendment considerations require giving media speakers more “breathing space” for protecting unintentional false statements made when reporting on issues of serious public concern or on actions of key players in those controversies. These cases are governed by the “actual malice” standard first enunciated by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In these circumstances, a media speaker isn’t liable for defamation, even for a false statement of fact, unless he knows when he makes the statement that what he is saying is false or gravely doubts its truth.

What counts is the speaker’s state of mind. Serious doubts that others in the speaker’s organization may have about a statement’s truth can’t be attributed to the speaker. Thus, in Fox’s case, even if Dominion could show that a Fox host who interviewed Mr. Giuliani or Ms. Powell affirmed their allegations as true, none of the evidence marshaled by Dominion establishes that any of those hosts had grave doubts about the allegations and hence acted with “actual malice.” Instead, Dominion’s evidence relates to possible doubts held by other Fox employees, not the hosts, and is therefore irrelevant.

Although some conservatives have expressed a willingness to consider paring back Sullivan’s actual-malice standard in at least some kinds of cases, it plainly wouldn’t make sense to do so here. This case involves reporting on a presidential election—a contest of paramount public concern that has historically featured false allegations. It also involves reporting on a dispute over the integrity of the election. In these contexts, the public interest in fostering a fully informed electorate through robust debate is at its apex. Subjecting the press to potential defamation liability when it reports on these kinds of controversies would chill the flow of information. It would also result in every election being relitigated for monetary damages, in the deepest blue or red state a lawyer can find.

Conservatives shouldn’t try to weaken the actual-malice standard. For the foreseeable future, we will likely be on the wrong side of the culture-setting consensus. Even when accurate, our views are apt to be treated as “misinformation,” as the reaction to the Hunter Biden laptop story aptly demonstrates. There are precious few conservative news outlets as it is. Why make them more vulnerable to the multitude of left-wing plaintiffs’ lawyers?

The left should think twice about cheering for Dominion in this case. While the left has more artillery, it also has more targets for defamation cases as left-wing media outlets far outnumber conservative ones. According to a Gallup poll, only 34% of Americans believe major news organizations will report “fully, accurately and fairly” on current events. Errors have been rife. And then there is the lesson of Harry Reid: Deploying the “nuclear option” and eliminating the judicial filibuster led to a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. A weapon unsheathed by one side today can be turned against it the next.

[Hannibal]

it doesn't matter what the legality is. The ends justify the means. Everyone saw Alex Jones get a $1 Billion judgement against him. Opposition is now effectively illegal. it's open season on Right Wing media.

As DSL has pointed out, they are talking about doing this for Ray Epps as well. All that you have to do is sue Fox News in a hyperpartisan Left Wing district and you win.

Second, a ruling against Fox would be a major blow to media freedoms generally, subjecting news outlets to the prospect of outsize liability whenever they report on newsworthy allegations that turn out to be false.

Liberals aren't afraid of this. As far as they are concerned, they are never wrong. And they don't intend to give up power either, which means that they intend to always benefit from double standards in how the law is applied. On that second point, they might be right.

[crashcourse]

If you're referring to that Feb 2018 letter where Cohen swears he paid it all on his own that's been circulating, Trump already admitted he reimbursed Cohen for all of it just a few months later in May 2018. Cohen hadn't broken with Trump yet and was still trying to protect him.

Trump Admits To Authorizing Stormy Daniels Payoff, Denies Sexual Encounter : NPR

Moving on...

Lake made 7 allegations of fraud. The Supreme Court outright rejected 6 of the 7. As you say she got signature verification sent back to court.

She has to prove Maricopa County failed to follow the law. Not just find signatures that her team personally thinks don't match.

Arizona Supreme Court rejects almost all of Lake’s appeals, sends one back to trial court (kold.com)

guess we will find out Mar 30 --she's already getting access to voter signatures on a much broader basis which is the crux of the argument. If you can prove or disprove thousands of signatures do or don't match that's what this is all about

far as trump cohen goes ought to be pretty easy to verify if cohen got paid by trump---whats that? --got nothing? Just an NPR story? If only you had a NY Times story I'd believ it.--dont you think bragg would be going forward if he had a reciept of said transaction instead of cohens .umm.....word?

shame about big 10 being out of the dance already btw. That was one helluva game though. wiz was 1/2 right I did put a dent in some ketels

[THE_WIZARD_]

put the dent in a STFU...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump and Giuliani both gave interviews in May 2018 admitting Trump knew Cohen was being reimbursed for Stormy's hush money. He got paid out of Trump's personal business via installments over the course of 2017.

ya-check-bg-1024x576.png

Giuliani: Trump repaid Cohen $130,000 for Stormy Daniels hush agreement - POLITICO

I don't think this is a great case or that Cohen & Daniels are particularly credible witnesses. But for you to still claim after 5 years that Trump never even paid her or Cohen is just remarkable. In his own words he says he did!

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU

[AlabamAlum]

Tired of watching crashcourse beat DSL down with the written word. It’s shameful how bad DSL has gotten smacked around yet again.

Do better, DSL. Do better….

[Dr. Strangelove]

Tired of watching crashcourse beat DSL down with the written word. It’s shameful how bad DSL has gotten smacked around yet again.

Do better, DSL. Do better….

I'll try, AA. I'll go back and read some of the legendary smackdowns Prof. Tiger put on yo ass.

[AlabamAlum]

I'll try, AA. I'll go back and read some of the legendary smackdowns Prof. Tiger put on yo ass.

Those were brutal. My head is still bloodied, but unbowed.

[THE_WIZARD_]

horrible

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rumors flying about things escalating in Syria tonight

[Jeff Buchanan]

Rumors flying about things escalating in Syria tonight

More clarity emerging this morning. Iran arms several IS proxy military units as well as it's own Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and Quods Force, the later with a mission of operating regionally and advancing Iran's interests. An advanced drone, supplied by Iran, operated by one of these IS groups managed to penetrate a US base's air defenses (reportedly with a missile system down for maintenance), detonating within the base and killing one US contractor and injuring more. The US air strike was in response to that and reportedly destroyed a couple of facilities. and killed some IS fighters. In response to that several other US bases were attacked with drones and rockets suggesting a widening Iranian/US conflict off-setting efforts to stabilize conflicts in the region and reduce tensions.

Apparently, and it's back burner news, these tit-for tit limited military strikes go on all the time. We just don't hear about them with the Ukraine war taking center stage. Biden, in Canada, stated we do not seek conflict with Iran but will protect our US personnel in the region and respond to attacks like that at a time and place of our choosing. I don't think this signals a wider conflict in the ME. What it does highlight though is the persistence and willingness of the Mullahs in Iran to fuck with the US anyway it can. Iran's alignment with both Russian and Chinese interests in "changing the world order" in a way that makes these countries better able to influence strategic outcomes, possibly in coordinated ways, is definitely at play.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Today's cover of the Murdoch-owned NY Post

Front-Cover-3-25-23.jpg?resize=440,491&quality=90&strip=all.jpg