Fox News knew they were lying about election

[wareyin]

Not read.

Not read.

That's one way to avoid admitting error.

 

[Stacyhs]

The "actual point" was the Republican disenfranchisement efforts.

That was YOUR point. What you continue to either not understand or just refuse to understand is that wasn't MY point! I was strictly referring to Gulliver Foyle's claim regarding the 2016 and 2020 elections which I've pointed out multiple times to you. You then presented 3 laws/events as if they impacted those two elections which I proved were either not passed until AFTER those elections OR were struck down BEFORE those elections.

I gave three examples from 3 states spanning almost a decade. You decided they didn't count because we're only allowed to focus on 2016 and 2020, and are for some reason assuming that Republicans took a break from said disenfranchisement efforts during only those 2 elections.

I even AGREED with you that there are Republican disenfranchisement efforts but that wasn't good enough for you. Oh, no...not until you get me to concede that everything YOU say is correct will you be satisfied. That isn't going to happen.

Now I suggest you stop telling me what I was assuming/saying/meaning.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's one way to avoid admitting error.

The irony of that burns.

You are deliberately being argumentative. Stop it. Grow up.

 

[wareyin]

That was YOUR point. What you continue to either not understand or just refuse to understand is that wasn't MY point! I was strictly referring to Gulliver Foyle's claim regarding the 2016 and 2020 elections which I've pointed out multiple times to you. You then presented 3 laws/events as if they impacted those two elections which I proved were either not passed until AFTER those elections OR were struck down BEFORE those elections.

No, I didn't present those three laws as if they impacted those two elections. I presented them as examples of Republican disenfranchisement. I specifically called them that and did not say those examples specifically impacted the only 2 elections you seem to think have ever happened. Go back and reread my post.

You, and only you, have fixated on the 2016 and 2020 elections, to the exclusion of all else.

I even AGREED with you that there are Republican disenfranchisement efforts but that wasn't good enough for you. Oh, no...not until you get me to concede that everything YOU say is correct will you be satisfied. That isn't going to happen.

Now I suggest you stop telling me what I was assuming/saying/meaning.

If you have agreed that there are Republican disenfranchisement efforts, what exactly is your sticking point with agreeing that 2016 and 2020 were not excluded from those attempts?

Oh, and your final sentence juxtaposed with the error you made in the first quoted bit here, that's the irony that burns.

 

[wareyin]

The irony of that burns.

You are deliberately being argumentative. Stop it. Grow up.

Ladies first, please.

Had you actually read the posts, you'd have seen that I addressed your claims that 2016 and 2020 Republican disenfranchisement examples were needed, as well as your claims about the GA disenfranchisement efforts. Specifically that you claimed they didn't go into effect until 2021, despite them affecting the 2018 elections and 2020 primaries.

 

[gnome]

Fraud may be difficult, on any useful scale, but making voting difficult for those who don't vote Republican is a widely-used tactic; restrict access to the polls, disenfranchise those convicted of a crime et cetera.

That refers to the second part of what I was talking about. Such efforts would not mean that more Republican votes were recorded than occurred, which was the claim I was responding to.

 

[jimbob]

This thread is about Fox News knowingly lying about the 2020 election, not general voter suppression, nor gerrymandering

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Aridas]

Of some interest on the topic -

Dominion Wins Almost Everything On Summary Judgement Against Fox

All that's left is apparently a chance for Fox to try to defend themselves on the actual malice bit. Everything else has been ruled pretty firmly against Fox and their potential defenses have been significantly curtailed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's very upsetting for Fox's lawyers who will have less work and therefore can't charge as many billable hours.

 

[Stacyhs]

Of some interest on the topic -

Dominion Wins Almost Everything On Summary Judgement Against Fox

All that's left is apparently a chance for Fox to try to defend themselves on the actual malice bit. Everything else has been ruled pretty firmly against Fox and their potential defenses have been significantly curtailed.

That's the second piece of great news in two days!

I don't see how Fox can try to defend the malice bit as they KNEW what they were saying was false. That is the legal definition of malice:

"In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either. knowing that it is false; or. acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity."
That has been established with the emails. Dominion should not make a deal; they should go for the whole amount.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Fox withheld information about Rupert Murdoch's contribution to Fox News.

Davis was clearly disturbed by the disclosure, coming on the eve of the trial.

“My problem is that it has been represented to me more than once that he is not an officer,” the judge said.

Davis suggested that had he known of Murdoch’s dual role at Fox Corp. and Fox News, he might have reached different conclusions in a summary judgment ruling he issued last month. In that ruling, the judge said there was no dispute that the statements aired by Fox were false, but that a jury would have to decide whether Fox News acted with actual malice and whether Fox Corp. directly participated in airing the statements.

To Fox attorney Matthew Carter, Davis said: “You have a credibility problem.”

In response, Carter said he believed Murdoch’s title at Fox News was only “honorific.”

“I’m not mad at you,” the judge later told Carter. “I’m mad at the situation I’m in.”

https://apnews.com/article/03503aea01ba0036e7268744fa263687

 

[The Great Zaganza]

he should be mad at him.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Fox's Strategy seems to be to avoid an Admission of Guilt by all means.
Clearly, they could have settled for a pile of money, but Dominion most likely insisted on an Admission of Guilt plus the right to publish the terms of the settlement including the amount of compensation.
That would be a lodestone around Fox's neck forever, advertising to everyone that they can be milked for billions in order to avoid ding to trial as well as killing their mojo with their viewers.

The current option to be found guilty and having to pay billions is actually the better outcome for Fox, as they can (and will) always claim that is was a political witchhunt against them for their support of Trump by the (((MSM and Deep State))).
If the recent years have shown anything, it's that right-wingers will gladly open their wallets to poor billionaires in need.

 

[wareyin]

Apparently Fox also withheld audiotapes of Giuliani and Powell both admitting they had no evidence for their claims.
And more damningly, a "high-ranking advisor to and spokesperson for President Trump and the Trump 2020 presidential campaign" in December admitting there were no ballot issues but pushing for Fox and "the media" to "highlight the importance of the impending January 6th date as the true ‘backstop’ for determining the validity of the election."

Damn.

 

[Stacyhs]

Fox withheld information about Rupert Murdoch's contribution to Fox News.



https://apnews.com/article/03503aea01ba0036e7268744fa263687

Gee...Fox caught being deceitful? Whoddathunkit?

Also from your link:

The judge granted a motion by Fox to prohibit any reference to specific threats or harassment directed at Dominion, saying he did not want the jury to be prejudiced against Fox because of threats made by people with no connection to the network. But he said he would allow Dominion to talk generally about threats it had received to show how it has been damaged by the Fox broadcasts.

“It has decimated Dominion’s ability to attract and retain employees, because the company is under siege,” said Megan Meier, an attorney for the voting machine company.

I don't agree with the judge on this. The threats made by people to Dominion are a direct result of the lies that FOX spewed about the company.

 

[Darat]

Judge Imposes Sanction on Fox for Withholding Evidence in Defamation Case

…. He also said he would very likely appoint a special master to investigate Fox’s handling of discovery of documents and the question of whether Fox had inappropriately withheld details about Rupert Murdoch’s role as a corporate officer of Fox News. ……​

 

[Orphia Nay]

Good to hear the trial strarts on Monday (jury selection is Thursday). Love me some Legaltainment^TM.

 

[dudalb]

Judge Imposes Sanction on Fox for Withholding Evidence in Defamation Case

…. He also said he would very likely appoint a special master to investigate Fox’s handling of discovery of documents and the question of whether Fox had inappropriately withheld details about Rupert Murdoch’s role as a corporate officer of Fox News. ……​

This is getting more interesting then the TV show Sucession. Once again, life tops art.

 

[Trebuchet]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned in the thread, but in a related case Fox has reached a settlement with a Venezuelan businessman accused by Lou Dobbs of fixing the election.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned in the thread, but in a related case Fox has reached a settlement with a Venezuelan businessman accused by Lou Dobbs of fixing the election.

Interesting. I guess Fox settled that privately so the outcome didn't affect the Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits.