Pig Bellmont

That’s what it looks like. But I’m also assuming the immunity offer negates the ability to self incriminate, so they couldn’t take the fifth

Give me a fucking break. Republicans voted to keep a senile senator on an important committee only because she’s incapable of showing up to work. That’s a shitty move. I’m not saying Dems are blameless but it’s amazing that people just assume GOP will be soulless assholes who only care about power

“Money is accountability," said Stephen Shackelford, Jr., the attorney scheduled to give opening statements for Dominion on Tuesday. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna80285

Ahem, the defense paid 12.5 million *less* than half the 1.6 billion in claimed damages. “I’ve got great news, Rupert. We can be done for less than half the claim.” “How much less?” “It doesn’t matter, it’s the best we’re going to get- and it’s not the full $800million”. Cigars all around

just run the one Southpark does then? lol

This is probably true, but in I’m also willing to bet they’ve been working towards a deal since at least Friday- especially in light of yesterday’s delay. I think the timing of waiting until just before opening statements means Fox was scared of just those being blasted worldwide

No, it shouldn’t be

Settled?! lol Fox didn’t even allow for opening statements. I wonder how much they paid

Yeah- my understanding is the question for the special master isn’t whether there will be sanctions, but rather what/how severe the sanctions will be.

The longer the delay goes on, the more that seems likely to me. I can’t imagine a routine objection taking this long. Alternatively did the court go through with appointing a special master to recommend sanctions? I wonder if this break could be related to that

I’m not being pedantic, sorry if the tone was weird. You’re not picking up the nuance. NYT v Sullivan was granted cert because the freedom of the press allows a news organization to report on what someone else said. For example if Fox could be sued under Delaware law for simply reporting “Trump said X”. That’s not what the Delaware law provides- instead the law is consistent with the first amendment and requires a finding of actual malice, where the Alabama case didn’t. Look I know this SCOTUS doesn’t respect precedent but there’s no first amendment claim here because Delaware’s defamation laws permitting suits against news organizations are not out of bounds. It’s not just because there’s a potential verdict for liability that could give grounds for SCOTUS review. Nothing is impossible but SCOTUS review of a verdict would be stunning. Just trying to help here but I/you got in the weeds. I’ve briefed/argued as lead attorney in federal circuit and district courts over a lot of years, so I’m not completely talking out of my ass.

You’re welcome to Google it/do your own westlaw research but I think the question presented was related to the state’s libel law infringing on first amendment rights. the question about public figures and actual malice have long since been updated in state torts for defamation and this trial is exactly about that heightened standard. long story short Fox doesn’t have a first amendment claim here really (that the standard for liability violates the freedom of the press). Instead they’re just really arguing that they weren’t reckless or intentional in misleading

No- the action has to arise under federal law or constitutional right. A defense invoking that won’t trigger federal jurisdiction Also, (if you have a removal right) time to remove is usually limited to 30 days after you receive notice of suit. You can’t just appeal to SCOTUS because you don’t like the result of your state trial

Just wanted to clarify this usually would be something like a party is getting sued in state court for violations of a federal statute, like Title VII anti-discrimination laws. Those claims could be removed on federal question grounds and the federal court would have the option of taking on any related state claims. This case is a tort (defamation) and those are state claims (not federal). I don’t see how there’s a federal issue that would give any of those courts jurisdiction

This is a Delaware state court case, I don’t see any way an appeal will get to any federal court, much less SCOTUS. Removal can be done typically by diversity jurisdiction (parties are from different states and amount in controversy exceeds $75k) or federal question. Choosing to remove can be a strategic decision. In Delaware state court they have sophisticated judges who often see complex commercial disputes- and in some ways a defamation case isn’t all that complicated. Also, you’re on a fast track, so the discovery process won’t last 2 years and cost millions. Plus they clearly thought the shortened timeline would allow them to obstruct with little consequence. So a lot of ins and outs and what have yous

Speak for yourself- I don’t participate in that hellsite anymore

Did they show the person who came home at the lady junky’s house? Is he the oil lady baron’s fixer? Trying to connect Drake’s detective work to the story

I will say if that first legendary Mandalorian tamed a mythosaur then Bo Katan will also. I guess I thought before they went to the living waters that quote about the beast was that it was defeated or killed, but I haven’t gone back and watched.

Abortion is gone and they’ve laid a threadbare judiciary legal theory allowing for challenges to any progressive legislation. So long as they have a majority, it won’t matter that they won’t rule against GOP administrations. I’d say Trump delivered their best wet dreams

That’s not a thing

The spies had to be the guys on the boat. They just happened to survive the purge? Or maybe have been forced to work for the empire and then walk the Mandalorians into the ambush

“Model” doesn’t seem appropriate but I guess “thot” isn’t approved by the AP Stylebook

I’m sure he did, too, but that underlying ruling is a huge huge mess. I don’t see how there are more votes than just Alito and Thomas on the standing issue alone.