On Monday I was anticipating the release of the Fulton County special grand jury report, thinking that would be the most interesting legal news of the week. Nope. The most interesting revelations came from Dominion’s defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
I. Dominion v. Fox News
To recap: Dominion, the manufacturer of voting machines, is suing Fox News Network for defamation. Here’s the original complaint accusing Fox of “giving life to a manufactured storyline about election fraud that cast a then-little- known voting machine company called Dominion as the villain.”
Dominion alleged that Fox told four basic lies:
- Dominion committed election fraud by rigging the 2020 Presidential Election.
- Dominion’s software and algorithms manipulated vote counts
- Dominion is owned by a company founded in Venezuela to rig elections and
- Dominion paid kickbacks to government officials who used its machines in the 2020 Presidential Election.
From the complaint:
As a result of Fox’s orchestrated defamatory campaign, Dominion’s employees, from its software engineers to its founder and Chief Executive Officer, have been repeatedly harassed. Some have even received death threats. And of course, Dominion’s business has suffered enormous and irreparable economic harm.
Dominion is demanding $1.6 billion in damages, plus punitives and costs.
The idea behind punitives is to deter future bad behavior.
This week Dominion filed a Motion for Summary Judgement. It’s here and it’s🔥— 180 pages filled with documentation that Fox personalities and executives knew they were lying but lied anyway because the truth created a backlash against them from their viewers.
Here is a sample page showing quotations from leading Republicans, Fox personalities, and Fox executives:
“The whole theory is absolutely ludicrous to anyone who bothers researching elections for more than five minutes or speaking with any elections professional,” Stephen Richer, Republican, County Recorder in Maricopa County Arizona (Ex.139, Richer 22:6-23:11)
Incorrect and no evidence of widespread fraud Fox’s internal fact checks regarding the Dominion allegations , November 13 and November 20, 2020 (Ex.318; Ex.159)
That whole narrative that Sidney was pushing. I did notbelieveitfor one second SeanHannity (Ex.122,Hannity322:19-21)
No reasonable person would have thought that.” Fox Politics Editor Chris Stirewalt, on whether the allegation that Dominion rigged the election was true. (Ex.146, Stirewalt 154:18-19, 153:24-157:11)
Fox knew. From the top down, Fox knew the dominion stuff was totalbs. Yet despite knowing the truth or at minimum, recklessly disregarding that truth, Fox spread and endorsed these outlandish voter fraud claims about
Dominion even as it internally recognized the lies as crazy, absurd and shockingly reckless.”
The brief goes on like that. Check it out here.
As an aside, given the prevalence of electronic communication, proving things like intent and knowledge is much easier. This was particularly true during the pandemic when people were not face to face and communicated through electronic devices. All of that communication is discoverable, meaning the other side gets to see it.
Now it’s time to talk about why the First Amendment creates a steep (but not insurmountable) hurdle for Dominion.
New York Times v. Sullivan in a nutshell
The dispute in New York Times v. Sullivan arose during the 1960s Civil Rights movement. The New York Times published an ad seeking contributions to defend Martin Luther King, Jr. Sullivan, a city Public Safety Commissioner in Alabama, understood that the ad was criticizing him and his subordinates. Hoping to put the pro-civil rights New York Times out of business, Sullivan sued the New York Times and a group of Black Alabama ministers for libel on the grounds that the ad contained a few factual inaccuracies and libeled him. (Sullivan was not mentioned by name in the ad.) He sued under Alabama libel law. A local jury in Alabama awarded Sullivan $500,000 in damages against The New York Times, a staggering amount for a newspaper to pay. The Alabama State Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
The New York Times appealed to the US Supreme Court. The question was whether the Alabama libel law constitutionally infringed on the New York Times’ First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of press protections.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court set out a standard for deciding when a publication is liable for lies or inaccuracies:
The standard is meant to be difficult. The idea is that it shouldn’t be too easy for public figures to put newspapers out of business.
Under the heightened standard, Sullivan lost. Imagine if Sullivan had won: Segregationalists would have gone around putting any newspaper that “libeled” them out of business. If you criticized segregationalists, you could be sued.
Under the standard given in New York Times v. Sullivan (assuming Dominion is a public figure), Dominion must prove each of these elements:
- The defendant made a false statement purporting to be fact
- The defendant published or communicated that statement to a third person
- Fault amounting to at least negligence; and
- The plaintiff incurred damages or some harm caused to the reputation
Dominion filed a motion for summary judgment, which essentially says that the other party’s case is not only weak, but they have no evidence or no legal argument so there is no point in going to trial. Obviously it’s hard to get summary judgment in your favor because the other party doesn’t have a chance to go to trial, but it’s a helpful tool if you are the victim of a frivolous lawsuit and you want to get rid of it.
Here you go: More than you ever wanted to know about summary judgment: 
In the alternative, Dominion asks the court to rule that the statements are false and grant partial summary judgement because no reasonable juror could find otherwise. Even winning on partial summary judgment makes their task at trial easier. It also puts more pressure on Fox.
Dominion’s Case Against Fox is Strong, Even Under These Heightened Standards
Given the communications between Fox news producers and personalities demonstrating that they knew they were spreading lies about Dominion, it looks like Dominion can prove the most difficult element: Fox knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth told lies about Dominion that caused damage to Dominion and its executives and employees.
Dominion also offers Fox’s motive. (Showing the motive isn’t necessary, but it gives context for the lies.) Motive: When Fox truthfully called the election in Arizona for Biden, this triggered a backlash among its audience and the “network being rejected.” Rivals farther right like Newsmax took advantage to promote an “alternative universe” of election fraud.
Basically, Fox wanted to please its viewers and didn’t want to lose the popularity contest to Newsmax.
Aside: This demonstrates the dangers of click-based and popularity-based news dissemination like reputational algorithms, which generally dictate how people get their news through social media.
Dominion’s motion lists the ways this case is different from most defamation cases.
Most defamation cases deal with one defamatory statement (or a few). Fox went on with these lies for months.
Another difference: As Fox was spewing lies, reliable third parties and government agencies (and courts) were debunking the lies in real-time. Fox knew but continued.
Yet another difference: As Fox was telling its lies, Dominion made over 3,600 separate communications to FOX offering “verifiable information demonstrating” the falsity of Fox’s statements, but Fox continued.
Fox’s Defense
Fox’s defense, offered here, is that news outlets have a First Amendment right to report the news, and that includes allegations by the sitting President of the United States and his surrogates alleged that the 2020 election was affected by fraud.
In other words, Fox claims to have “truthfully reported the president’s allegations.”
From the document: “According to Dominion, Fox News Network has a duty not to truthfully report the President’s allegations, but to suppress them or denounce them as false.”
Also from the document: “Dominion is fundamentally mistaken. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press would be illusory if the prevailing side in a public controversy could sue the press for giving a forum to the other side.”
On other words, Fox’s position: There was a dispute. Fox reported the dispute. Dominion won. Now Dominion wants to sue the press for giving a forum to the losing side.
Fox says (basically): “We reported both sides. We gave air to Dominion’s side, also.”
This brings me to a propaganda technique called “noise,” widely used in Russia.
Noise is an effective technique: The propagandists do not suppress the truth. Instead, they elevate lies and place them alongside the truth, appearing to give both equal weight, but in fact, putting a thumb on the scale for the lies.
It’s the “both sides” argument: Both sides deserve to be told. But what if one side is a flat-out lie and the other is a verifiable truth?
Noise jams the signals. It confuses listeners and undermines factuality because people don’t know what to believe and come to believe that the truth is unknowable.
If enough people conclude that the truth is unknowable, democracy fails. (Democracy and rule of law require truth. Autocracy rests on lies.)
The technique allows the propagandist to harness the powers of democratic institutions (like freedom of the press) to destroy truth, and thereby destroy democracy.
Fox’s Anti-SLAPPP Counterclaim
Fox is bringing a counterclaim (this this document is an amendment of their counterclaim) under New York’s anti-slappp statute.
As explained by the New York Times v. Sullivan case, a problem with defamation lawsuits is that they are often used to silence people. Consider this scenario (from the ACLU of NY):
SLAPPS (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are frivolous lawsuits intended to punish First Amended protected speech. Anti-Slapp laws (New York has one) prevent people from suing legitimate news sources and driving them out of business for reporting news that they don’t like.
You can bet the same people lying on Fox will sue outlets like the Washington Post for publishing unflattering truths.
Fox is claiming to be protected by New York’s anti-SLAPP laws.
Will this help Fox? I don’t think so. (Disclaimer: I am not an expert in the First Amendment or defamation law.)
Can lawsuits like Dominion’s lawsuit against Fox save democracy from disinformation (which is the primary way democracy is destroyed)?
Not by itself, no.
Democracy will be saved if enough people decide to hold on to the truth, with all of its complexity, and reject lies that make us feel good about our “team” and which affirm our previous biases.
Fox’s defense is all about what kind of country they want to live in.
II. The Big Tease: The Fulton County Special Grand Jury Report
First the timeframe. (Timeframes are so helpful, don’t you think?)
January 2021: Fani Willis was sworn in as the new district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia.
February 10, 2021 Fani Willis announced plans to investigate the attempt of Trump and other Republicans to overturn the results of the election in Georgia.
January 20, 2022: Willis asked for a special grand jury
In Georgia, a special grand jury (SGJ) is an investigative tool. The SGJ hears testimony, views evidence, and makes charging recommendations, but the decisions about whether to bring charges, who to charge, and what to charge is up to the DA.
April 29, 2022: The special grand jury was convened.
December 2022: The special grand jury concluded its work and wrote its report.
January 2023: A number of media entities requested the report to be made public. DA Willis asked the report not to be published because publication could undermine prosecutions and violate the due process rights of potential defendants.
She also said charging decisions are “imminent.”
She said that almost four weeks ago. A reporter recently asked her where the charging decisions were. After all, she had said, “imminent.” Willis said that she meant “legally imminent, not reporter imminent.”
So you can imagine what a lawyer means by “this will take a long time.” (One of my readers on Mastodon suggested that, in private practice, it means, “this will be expensive.”)
February 13: A judge ordered a redacted version of the report published on Thursday, February 16.
Oh, the anticipation! Would we learn whether the special grand jury recommended that Trump be charged with crimes? What about all the others who had a hand in trying to overturn the election in Georgia? Was the moment at last coming?
Journalists marked their calendars.
Then came clues that we might not see the good parts: Because of redactions, we would see only the introduction, the conclusion, and a section about whether any of the witnesses committed perjury. When a reporter asked Willis how she felt about the judge’s decision, she said she was happy and would not appeal.
February 16: The court opened at 8:30 ET. That was 5:30 where I live. I will admit that at 5:30 am, I began hitting refresh to see if the report was out.
And, here it is. We learned that:
- 75 witnesses testified, mostly under oath and the special grand jury heard extensive testimony on the subject of alleged election fraud, including from “persons still claiming that such fraud took place.”
- The special grand jury found by “unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place that could result in the overturning of that election.”
- A majority of the special grand jurors believed that perjury may have been committed by one or more persons testifying before it. The GJ, therefore, recommended that the DA seek appropriate indictments for such crimes where the evidence is compelling.
Nobody was named. See why I called it The Great Tease?
III: Update of my Social Media Comparisons
I updated my page comparing the various social media alternatives to Twitter. You can see it here.
IV. What our Criminal Justice System needs
A reader asked me this:
What do you think needs improvement in our justice system?
The law falls too heavily on vulnerable communities. Poverty is too often confused with child neglect. Mental illness should be treated in hospitals. We imprison too many people. A lot of states don’t do enough to provide good representation for people who cannot afford to pay. (The public defenders I worked with in California were excellent, but not all states are like California.)
Things have improved as women and members of minority communities have moved into law enforcement and prosecution. Most states elect their prosecutors, so local elections are crucial to make sure we get good prosecutors.
I am in favor of more fairness procedures: California offers everyone convicted the right to appeal, including the right to a court-appointed appellate lawyer (that is what I did for more than 12 years). Everyone should have that right.
Procedures slow things down and add expenses to taxpayers. Lots of people resented the work I did because they thought I was filing appeals and thus creating delays for unworthy people. My clients were often women and members of vulnerable communities, so you can see why I bristle when people want to get rid of procedures for people they don’t like.
The solution is to redirect police and law enforcement resources to fighting white-collar crime, and help people understand why the criminal justice system moves slowly.
The struggle to improve our democratic institutions is ongoing and will encounter continual pushback from those who dislike rules and procedures and prefer quick results. There was certainly something satisfying about putting the bad guys into stocks or pillories and throwing rotten fruit at him.
I think a lot of people miss the speed (and crudeness) of 18th-century justice, but moving backward would be a terrible idea.
I have a little shadow that goes in and out with me
Here’s what happens. I go into the kitchen. JJ follows me. I leave the kitchen. JJ follows me. I go into the garage, and JJ follows me. Occasionally this also happens: I go into the garage to get something. I return to the house. JJ wasn’t quick enough. After a while, I notice that I no longer have a shadow. I go look, and there he is, stuck in the garage, waiting to be reunited with his person:
Does this case have some impact on all the many criminal cases? The rules for civil cases are different right? Thank you for all your work , I would be totally lost without your weekly blog posts.
It is certainly proof that people knew there was no election fraud, which might help some of the criminal cases.
My husband’s shadow is a chocolate lab. Oh the mournful looks when left behind. Hmmm. Reminds me of Tucker “just asking a question”.
“Noise is an effective technique”
*THANK YOU*! That one segment is a real jewel in the otherwise excellent commentary.
> Democracy will be saved if enough people decide to hold on to the truth, with all of its complexity, and reject lies that make us feel good about our “team” and which affirm our previous biases.
> Fox’s defense is all about what kind of country they want to live in.
!!!
Thank you also for your commentary on What our Criminal Justice System needs. We needed that commentary, too. One tiny point about it:
> The struggle to improve our democratic institutions is ongoing and will encounter continual pushback from those who dislike rules and procedures and prefer quick results.
We also need to acknowledge that public service is a *PRIVILEGE* and not a right. People who, more-likely-than-not, have committed some act antithetical to good governance (e.g. assisting an insurrection) need to be barred from service based on that lower standard of evidence. Criminal conviction should not be required. IANAL.
Thanks for the whole post.
Seconded.
Dominion’s lawyers appear to be doing a good job of staying focused on the issue. Thanks for this summary of the case so far. Sounds like a summary judgement against Fox News would shake up business as usual for current journalism!
Maybe so, but let’s not forget that Faux “News” is, by their own admission, not journalism. Nor are they providing news.
They’re “entertainment.” Terrible, awful, horrible, very bad entertainment — lying liars telling massive lies to comfort the frightened (while exploiting them) and gin up the anger and hatred of the bigoted, the racist, the misogynistic, the hypocritical — of those deeply fearful of and therefore hateful toward anything beyond their immediate understanding or experience.
Faux speaks to and for authoritarians among us who want nothing less than a nation that conforms to their every prejudice and denies validity, even humanity, to anyone who looks, thinks, sounds, feels, believes, or loves differently than they do.
It is a narrow, ugly mindset, and it is deadly to the vast majority of us if allowed to gain control of our society.
But it’s not journalism.
“Now it’s time to talk about why the First Amendment creates a steep (but not insurmountable) hurdle”
A non sequitur:
Corporations and other non-natural persons exist based on laws and regulations that enable their existence. It ought to be possible to constrain their continued existence on their not knowingly misleading the public. But for “Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888)” and similar, it could be done. 🙁 *THAT* amendment will never happen, The Overturn Citizens United effort is more narrowly focused.
Your adorable JJ, this week’s news, and your analysis brightened my morning. Thank you!
“Dominion is demanding $1.6Byn”
Too little. Something might survive:
> Fox market cap as of February 17, 2023 is $18.29Byn
I’m sure you’ll let us know that there are legal reasons why they can’t sue for the entire kit and caboodle, I don’t care. It’s an emotional thing.
We are dealing here with two kinds of damages: Actual damages and punitive damages. When you sue you get actual damages. You get enough money to make you whole as if you didn’t suffer an injury at the hands of the defendants. The law doesn’t allow for windfalls (in theory) you get back what you lost. The person who created the harm pays for the harm.
Punitives can go over and beyond in unusual circumstances where the behavior was particularly egregious and might continue, so we really don’t know what will happen.
Fox is challenging the size of Dominin’s actual damages, saying no way they actually lost 1.6 billion. I’m not sure this is the measure because what about lost revenue? They should be entitled to that, which can bring up the losses.
A quick note on pillories: it was, in England, one of the punishments for sodomy, to be exposed in the pillory for a set period of time. But there was no restriction on what people could throw, so once you include rocks and stones, it became (for some) a potential death sentence. There’s a discussion of this in a book by literary critic Louis Crompton, Byron & Greek Love. He notes that wealthy people who were accused typically fled to the continent to escape this fate, having (also typically) been warned hours or days in advance that the warrant had been issued. Offal was also thrown at people pilloried, and anything lying on the street, so not a great experience, even if you didn’t end up concussed or comatose. I don’t know how, or exactly when, but it wasn’t until after the punishment had stopped being used, that it became viewed as comic. Our ancestors had a different sense of humour than we do, I fear.
Interesting info, thanks.
Thanks for another great explanation of what’s going on.
As far as potential changes, I’ve kept wondering off and on about the possibility of limiting DA’s to one term (perhaps lengthening the term) so the incentive to care only about a big win record on which to run for the next term is gone? I feel like an awful lot of injustices seem to happen because they’re so anxious to get another win into the media for the next election campaign. I’d be curious, since I never practiced crim law in the short time I managed to tolerate practicing at all, whether that seems at all reasonable?
One of the complaints of defense lawyers is that they want to win so they’ll do things they shouldn’t. The problem with limits is that some prosecutors are really good and experience makes them better, so you end up with a revolving door of beginners.
I think the best solution is good prosecutors, although that’s an ideal, right?
What about a term limit of, say, ten years? Overlapping terms so that there’s always some who have been in the system for several years.
I begin to wonder if this may be a viable solution to quite a few problems. One extended term for any elected position, from President through judges, Congress, down to the local level.
For the legal system, most or all lawyers would rotate over the years through service as prosecutors, defenders, and judges. Maybe jurors too.
Make the process to recall much simpler and more robust. Make it pretty easy to throw out anyone who sucks at the job, and make the only way to keep it to do a good job.
Reverse the “money is speech” idiocy and make all national elections a three-month season, all expenses paid by the taxpayers. No fundraising allowed period. The last six weeks, all TV broadcasters must provide 4 hours nightly of equal-opportunity debate and town hall time, so all candidates can speak their piece and be interviewed and questioned by each other and the public.
In one fell swoop we’d take away the incentives to fundraise, or to make a career of politics or elective public service. One and done takes money out of politics, no?
Yes, we’d lose a depth of institutional memory and experience, but we could replace that with a broadly educated populace to draw from.
Force the system to run on the true idea of public service, civic duty, community engagement. Put real education in history, critical thinking, and civics back in K-12.
Yes, I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one… Imagine … 🙂
One thing I need to research is how a civil trial is actually conducted. The reason why is that you have all of this pre-trial discovery such as depositions where people are answering questions under oath. What do they do at the trial, do they just review all of the pre-trial activities?
The idea is that parties should go into a trial knowing all the facts because this incentivizes settlements, which courts prefer.
Courts, sí, tRUmp, no.
It’s the reason behind so much dancing around depositions in the headlines. He’s a walking intro to civil procedure. 🙁
If Dominion wins, can the judge require Fox to issue a retraction–and not just once at 3 a.m.?
I think that could be part of a settlement, but I’m not sure that can be part of the judgment, but remember I don’t do civil litigation so I can’t say for sure. Criminal law is my thing.
At our house we love your legal analysis. But we also love JJ. When our dog Marais (named after The Marais district in Paris) barks out the window-we say, “she is doing the JJ.”
I love it!
Thank you so much for sharing your legal expertise and calm perspective on the news of the week. I am so appreciative. Your blog calms me down after a week of getting upset about the news! And J.J. is a cute bonus, bless his heart!
I come here for the explanations and discussion. JJ is an adorable bonus.
As I have been following the Dominion vs. Fox (Faux??) lawsuit, the further it has progressed, the more I’ve become convinced it will never be decided by a Jury. I’m thinking Fox (a/k/a Rupert Murdock) will come up with some substantial dollars to make it go away. What are your thoughts about that happening?
As a non-lawyer follower also, my guess is that Dominion doesn’t really want to settle. They want a pound of flesh more than they want the money. But I’m wildly guessing, too. A full trial would certainly be more entertaining.
One thing I haven’t seen much coverage of is how Fox “News”‘ December 2020 2 minute fact check / denial of election fraud claims plays into the current case. I couldn’t find the actual Fox segment, but here is some coverage: https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-debunking-election-fraud-claims-made-by-its-anchors-2020-12?op=1 I don’t see this change of Fox’s position reflected in Dominion’s initial complaint, in Dominion’s summary judgement brief or in Fox’s reply to summary judgement. Dominion’s intital claim does cite a Tucker – Lindell interview 1/26/21 (after the retraction) as part of the claim against Fox. If neither party raises it, it never happened?
In terms of settlement, I would say the viability of Dominion’s $1.6B claim feels poor to me. And since less than that is merely pocket change to Murdoch, settlement is only about the money if Dominion chooses to sell out. Honestly, if Dominion’s private shareholders get $500M from the libel claim, economically, they are well ahead regardless of their reputation. IDK about settlement in the future, but to me, settlement now for Murdoch is about the ’24 election. Seems like he’s likely to attempt to delay trial as long as possible, especially til later than November ’24. Given the nature of the courts, that delay seems like a viable path for Fox, that wouldn’t be available to poorer defendants.
Also lost in the news this week, Smartmatic (Dominion competitor) also has a libel lawsuit against Fox. Also Newsmax settled with a Colorado Dominion executive in 2021, and Dominion’s libel claims against Newsmax are still pending, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3526974-dominion-voting-systems-lawsuit-against-newsmax-can-proceed-judge-rules/
If I were betting, I’d say Dominion or Smartmatic can’t get to trial on any of these before November ’24. Corollary to that, settlement is unlikely until after that election.
Thx Teri for all your journalism, good stuff
Thanks Teri,
My favorite statement:
“Democracy will be saved if enough people decide to hold on to the truth, with all of its complexity, and reject lies that make us feel good about our “team” and which affirm our previous biases”-TK
Fans of authoritarian rule reject complexity and therefore prefer simple lies.
We all gather and define our “teams” that agree with our own biases. It is so easy to ignore inconsistances that come from our “team”.
It is easy to let emotions drive our actions or statements.
Once again, thank you for your analysis on the Dominion v Fox case. I was wondering just exactly that SLAPPS was last evening whilst reading a posting on another site. And I rather enjoy the commentary on JJ. We have a dog who acts similarly.
JJ is super cute. I have my own “JJ” called Cosmo, but he’s a cat. One time he even jumped in the bath with me. Now that’s either dedication or utter craziness.
Thank you Teri.
This makes me happy.
JJ is cute. 🙂
I wouldn’t think that FNC would be able to claim protection under SLAPPP because they are not actually a news organization. Per their terms of use, they are an entertainment company.
The beginning of the third paragraph plainly states:
“ Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment.…”
The whole agreement can be found at: https://www.foxnews.com/terms-of-use.
Thank you
Could any of the Fox News “personalities” be sued as individuals?
Hasn’t a judge already held that Tucker Carlson is obviously an entertainer—and he can’t be guilty of liable because his every utterance is nothing but a joke?
Those were different facts. The judge wouldn’t rule that Carlson can never be guilty of libel, but in that case, he wasn’t.
The facts here are devastating and demonstrate actual malice across Fox News Network. That doesn’t make it a slam dunk (there are very few slam dunks) but the facts are much stronger than in the McDougal case.
Thank you, Teri, for another set of informative and enlightening comments.
The Dominion lawsuit had an unintended consequence. Let’s look at the bright side. Without this suit we would never have known that the Fox News disinfotainers occasionally lapse into honesty when communicating with one another.
I follow you for you.
JJ is a bonus.
Your JJ looks just like our Wilson. Our Wilson is a Cavachon…cross between a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and a Bichon Frisé. I’d post a picture of Wilson if I could 🙂
JJ is part miniature schnauzer and part maltese
Interesting combination. We never knew what our JJ was – that shot of the previous cutest dog in the world I sent you a while back. I guess you can claim bragging rights now since I don’t think your JJ and ours were both on the planet at the same time. Ours has been gone for nine years now. How old is your JJ?
JJ is really adorable.
I have heard that Fox claims that its programming is entertainment, not news. If so, does that affect the lawsuit? If they aren’t a news organization, should they have the first amendment rights of an organization that really is a news organization? Or is that idea irrelevant? (PS – I love the JJ photos!)
I don’t see how, and besides, that is not the approach they are taking here.
This is, or is similar to, the ruse that Rush Limbaugh used as his defense in his recent case… the judge didn’t seem to buy it.
Me And My Shadow definitely inspired by the JJ’s amongst us…;)
I like “not reporter imminent”! TV crime shows where they crime at minute 3, are arrested and beat up at minute 16, are in court and break down under the steely gaze of the prosecutor at minute 27 and are marched off to jail at minute 30 set unrealistic expectations.
I sometimes wish I could say “hey, what thing do you do well that takes an hour is helped by people saying I want it yesterday?”
Let’s say you’re baking bread and handover the dough during the first rise. Let the bellyaches begin! Or continue.
Reminds me of the time I saw a show called something like “True Stories of the Navy CIS”. A case typically took them *2 years*!
It’s one thing if Sean Hannity says, “President Trump says the election was rigged.” It’s another if he says, “The election was rigged. Here’s Sydney Powell to explain how.”
Does it come down to that? How the “rigged” thesis was presented on the air? I bet there’s plenty of both: attributions to Trump, and we’ve-got-the-lowdown assertions from the (vile) Fox personalities.
The truth will be easy to prove, right?
The truth regarding what? That the election, in truth, wasn’t rigged? Yes. Tedious, but easy to prove. There’s a ton of evidence that it wasn’t, and zero evidence that it was.
And, since that’s what the Fox people believed, they were deliberately lying if they said anything but “this is what Trump just said.”
I meant it will be easy to prove the truth of how Fox reported election fraud.
Thank you for your posts, and thank you for sharing JJ with us each time!