How Fox News works

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

Can those of us who want to see Fox go to trial set up a massive "collection plate" to fund Dominion before (and after, if necessary) to help them keep going?

[The Dog 43791]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Counterpoint.  Those OAN and Newsmax morons probably don't have gigabytes of data expressing their incredulousness at some of these allegations.  Those dumbfucks probably believed it.  They may actually be able to mount a more credible defense than  Fox.

Nonetheless, I think it's more likely that Dominion winds up completely destroying them, forcing them into bankruptcy or the like.

Naw they even more crooked than Fox and probably have even MORE shit on the record that will destroy them and no money for lawyers to bail them out.

[TwiceHorn 31260]

Just now, The Dog said:

Naw they even more crooked than Fox and probably have even MORE shit on the record that will destroy them and no money for lawyers to bail them out.

Possibly true at management levels.  Their anchor-types seem to be absolute morons.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

"Angertainment?"  Turnbull is brilliant.
 

 

[tx 3 putt 76314]

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Great editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald from former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull calling for a Royal Commission to investigate Rupert Murdoch:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/murdoch-succeeded-where-putin-failed-time-for-a-fox-hunt-20230320-p5ctkd.html


It does highlight a significant issue: how can western governments allow free speech when a significant portion of their populations are too stupid (see TexAgs or Tiger Droppings) to discern what is true and what is not?

If you need a good laugh, go read the Texags politics board 

[atomheartbevo 89405]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

and that's why they can't settle. 

Fox, OAN, Newsmax, and everyone else involved destroyed them with their lies. 

Dominion must destroy them in order to re-emerge.

Not only that, but Fox News did an outstanding job of documenting all of their bullshit through emails and text messages.  The 49% of Surly that are attorneys would probably dream of such a case.

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Here’s the thing: the damage is done, and can’t ever be undone.
Imagine you advised a county government.

sounds like some of those advisors should take the stand. 

“would you advise your county to use dominion as your vendor, and why not?”

cut and dry. 

[Underdog 28444]

Smartmatic is still lurking in all of this, right? 

[TwiceHorn 31260]

5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

sounds like some of those advisors should take the stand. 

“would you advise your county to use dominion as your vendor, and why not?”

cut and dry. 

You can be sure Dominion will present that type of evidence.  Still, quantifying how much they would have grown sales absent that is not a certain thing.  It doesn't need to be certain, legally, but there is considerable room for jury argument and also for a judge to decide that it is just too speculative.

However, given what just transpired before the judge, I don't think he's going to be particularly interested in remitting any damages the jury decides on.

Best most of the tral lawyers guess, damages evidence and the economic/financial models are mostly for the judge and appellate courts and only a little bit for the jury.  Each side puts up their numbers by expert testimony, and juries mostly dead reckon between the options, depending in part on how pissed they are at one party or the other.  The one clear error the jury can commit here is to "average" the numbers put up by each side.  They are strongly encouraged to "pick one," or at least do something more "sophisticated" than that kind of baby split.

@sidis  and @daltxhorn do this for a living, perhaps they can offer greater insight.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

@daltxhorn

bruh

[nbmishoid 938]

10 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

sounds like some of those advisors should take the stand. 

“would you advise your county to use dominion as your vendor, and why not?”

cut and dry. 

Dried

[henrygandorf 29174]

18 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Dried

i say dry ever since the argument in the heat movie thread.  it's a spite thing.

[Eskimohorn 5613]

You can be sure Dominion will present that type of evidence.  Still, quantifying how much they would have grown sales absent that is not a certain thing.  It doesn't need to be certain, legally, but there is considerable room for jury argument and also for a judge to decide that it is just too speculative.
However, given what just transpired before the judge, I don't think he's going to be particularly interested in remitting any damages the jury decides on.
Best most of the tral lawyers guess, damages evidence and the economic/financial models are mostly for the judge and appellate courts and only a little bit for the jury.  Each side puts up their numbers by expert testimony, and juries mostly dead reckon between the options, depending in part on how pissed they are at one party or the other.  The one clear error the jury can commit here is to "average" the numbers put up by each side.  They are strongly encouraged to "pick one," or at least do something more "sophisticated" than that kind of baby split.
@sidis  and @daltxhorn do this for a living, perhaps they can offer greater insight.

There is sophisticated news tracking that really pinpoints the virility of news stories. Dominion will have that data.

We saw the popularity of dewormer explode after Rogan’s podcast.

[The Dog 43791]

8 hours ago, Underdog said:

Smartmatic is still lurking in all of this, right? 

Yup: https://www.smartmatic.com/us/media/article/faq-defamation-lawsuit-against-fox-corporation/

https://www.vox.com/politics/23644951/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-smartmatic-defamation

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[Bookman 4610]

Excuse me if this is a stupid question but I have zero federal appellate experience.

If a jury makes a finding of actual malice, and this case gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on a federal question, is there any way for the U.S. Supreme Court to disturb that jury finding?

Also, could Fox have removed this case to federal court? If so, then why didn't they?

Edited April 18, 2023 by Bookman

[The Dog 43791]

 

[dcbc 14404]

Excuse me if this is a stupid question but I have zero federal appellate experience.
If a jury makes a finding of actual malice, and this case gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on a federal question, is there any way for the U.S. Supreme Court to disturb that jury finding?
Also, could Fox have removed this case to federal court? If so, then why didn't they?

I'm a state court type as well, so I'm answering based on logic rather than any sort of extensive federal knowledge.  If the case goes up, I don't see why the sufficiency of the evidence to support the malice finding would be off limits unless the grant of certiorari is limited from the outset.  Given the nature of the evidence here, I don't understand the mental gymnastics it would take to flip an affirmative malice finding on sufficiency.

Edited April 18, 2023 by dcbc

[Red Five 40631]

Best guesses on the kind of settlement money Dominion turned down? Are we talking a billion dollars here? 

[C-Man 27040]

6 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

[The Dog 43791]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Best guesses on the kind of settlement money Dominion turned down? Are we talking a billion dollars here? 

based on what I have read it's less about the money and more about having the Fox News clowns come on the air and admit to the lies. Not just from any spokesperson either but from the major players themselves - Hannity, Tucker, etc. 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52338]

Is this anything?

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna80134

 

Spoiler

In the statement, Grossberg said she repeatedly told Fox lawyers that she had an inoperable company-issued cellphone that she used during 2020 election coverage. Fox lawyers told her to hang on to the device but never searched it or copied her files, as they did with her other phones, according to the statement. 

Grossberg was fired in March after she filed a lawsuit claiming that Fox lawyers coerced her into giving misleading testimony in the Dominion case and that she was being made a scapegoat for the network’s 2020 election coverage. Fox says she was fired for divulging privileged information.

Grossberg, in the new affidavit, said a forensic expert recently pulled two recordings off the broken phone that she recorded using an app called Otter, which simultaneously records and creates text transcriptions of audio files. The recordings, which she details in the affidavit and audio of which was shared with NBC News, are of phone interviews she participated in with Bartiromo: one with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and another with two sources who claimed to know about Dominion voter fraud. 

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Pato del Muerto

[The Dog 43791]

Live blog from Washington Post if anyone is interested (and it's free):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/04/18/dominion-fox-trial/

[YGIFS 19449]

8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

based on what I have read it's less about the money and more about having the Fox News clowns come on the air and admit to the lies. Not just from any spokesperson either but from the major players themselves - Hannity, Tucker, etc. 

 

Yes, they are asking for, as a condition, for on-air admission by the actual parties with a pre-set date.   And I am here to tell you that those live admissions will be cut away from in order to bring you breaking news about some riot or mass shooting or Trump doing some popup speech.  

[The Dog 43791]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/17/donald-trump-murdoch-fox-false-2020-election/11684375002/

Dotard being helpful:

Quote

Former President Donald Trump on Monday called on Rupert Murdoch to back false information about the 2020 presidential election ahead of the $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit Dominion Voting Systems has pursued against Fox News and its parent company.   

 

[Red Five 40631]

"You should say more of that shit that is currently getting you sued for $1.6 billion."

[YGIFS 19449]

Can declassify documents with his mind.  
 

can mind control Rupert and a judge and jury into still thinking information they knew to be false was true.  
 

I think the middle word in Donald J Trump must be Jedi. 

[TwiceHorn 31260]

On 4/17/2023 at 7:28 AM, Biff Tannen said:

bruh

He's an old with some retrograde political views.  Doesn't mean he's not good at what he does.

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

Excuse me if this is a stupid question but I have zero federal appellate experience.

If a jury makes a finding of actual malice, and this case gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on a federal question, is there any way for the U.S. Supreme Court to disturb that jury finding?

Also, could Fox have removed this case to federal court? If so, then why didn't they?

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 

[Francisco 2.0 32317]

I guess this is typical of Fox News and their employees.  Just do whatever you want.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/04/18/dominion-fox-trial/#link-547QFPLWKREQTOBLHJ7XO7B7LQ

 

Quote

Early on in the proceedings, a public relations staffer for Fox News was asked to leave the court room for taking a photo. The judge reminded the audience not to do so.

 

 

I mean, the rules are pretty clear and established:

 

Quote

Even though the Dominion-Fox News trial will be one of the most closely watched media trials in a generation, most people can’t actually watch it. Cameras are barred inside the courtroom. So the public will have to rely on reporters with live access to the proceedings to find out what is happening moment to moment.

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Francisco 2.0

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

federal question

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 

[tx 3 putt 76314]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Bookman 4610]

Wouldn’t the First Amendment defense be one of a few possible federal questions that the Supreme Court could rule on after the state appeals have been exhausted?

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

8 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Wouldn’t the First Amendment defense be one of a few possible federal questions that the Supreme Court could rule on after the state appeals have been exhausted?

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 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Pig Bellmont

[Red Five 40631]

Right after the jurors and alternate jurors were sworn in, one alternate juror told the judge he couldn’t participate.

“I’ve been up all night — I can’t do this,” he said, without explaining further.

The judge met with him a moment later and excused him. Another alternate juror was quickly sworn in.

[Homercles 10205]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

Live blog from Washington Post if anyone is interested (and it's free):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/04/18/dominion-fox-trial/

“Right after the jurors and alternate jurors were sworn in, one alternate juror told the judge he couldn’t participate.

“I’ve been up all night — I can’t do this,” he said, without explaining further.”

I hear man, if I were on that jury I’d have been up all night too…furiously jacking it to the thoughts of the beat down I was going to see the next day.  

Edited April 18, 2023 by Homercles

[WhatTheBuck 28705]

It’s not just the city that never sleeps.

[The Dog 43791]

Quote

During the same hearing, Davis told lawyers from both sides to live up to their obligations. “Don’t make me look like an idiot by giving something to someone and then having trouble with it later,” he said.

In one notable slight, the judge dismissed the notion that Fox host Maria Bartiromo was a neutral observer of the facts. “She’s clearly neutral,” the judge said after a recording of Bartiromo was played, before clarifying, “I’m being sarcastic.”

 

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

I wonder if Davis knows Chamberlain Haller?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

I guess this is typical of Fox News and their employees.  Just do whatever you want.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/04/18/dominion-fox-trial/#link-547QFPLWKREQTOBLHJ7XO7B7LQ

 

 

 

I mean, the rules are pretty clear and established:

 

 

I bet it was a selfie with an exaggerated OH NO WE'RE GETTING SUED face.

[Beau Vine 53982]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Grossberg, in the new affidavit, said a forensic expert recently pulled two recordings off the broken phone that she recorded using an app called Otter, which simultaneously records and creates text transcriptions of audio files. The recordings, which she details in the affidavit and audio of which was shared with NBC News, are of phone interviews she participated in with Bartiromo: one with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and another with two sources who claimed to know about Dominion voter fraud. 

[Bookman 4610]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

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 

I did not take federal courts but I did take Prof. Rabban's First Amendment class at UT. How did the U.S. Supreme Court have jurisdiction to reverse the Alabama state trial court's verdict based on the First Amendment in NYT v. Sullivan?

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

5 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I did not take federal courts but I did take Prof. Rabban's First Amendment class at UT. How did the U.S. Supreme Court have jurisdiction to reverse the Alabama state trial court's verdict based on the First Amendment in NYT v. Sullivan?

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 

[Gengs1 2583]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/04/18/dominion-fox-trial/#link-Y6AMZN4VSFBQPOMEULV3INAUCQ
 

Judge Eric M. Davis returned to the bench after a lunch break, then immediately left the room to confer with the lawyers.
 

I hope it isn’t to stop the trial 

[Bookman 4610]

Thank you for letting me know I am free to research it. I am not sure how Fox could have a First Amendment claim based on the verdict until there’s actually been a verdict, but if so I’m pretty sure they can appeal that to the U.S. Supreme Court like NYT v. Sullivan. I don’t know if the U.S. Supreme Court would have any basis or jurisdiction to overturn a finding of malice though. Half of us are lawyers here so I was hoping someone knowledgeable would respond.

[Gengs1 2583]

Settlement reached?

 

“We are in some sort of lengthy delay. Fox’s main lawyer, Dan Webb, is talking on his phone in court while we wait.”

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

5 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Thank you for letting me know I am free to research it. I am not sure how Fox could have a First Amendment claim based on the verdict until there’s actually been a verdict, but if so I’m pretty sure they can appeal that to the U.S. Supreme Court like NYT v. Sullivan. I don’t know if the U.S. Supreme Court would have any basis or jurisdiction to overturn a finding of malice though. Half of us are lawyers here so I was hoping someone knowledgeable would respond.

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. 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

49 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

Settlement reached?

 

“We are in some sort of lengthy delay. Fox’s main lawyer, Dan Webb, is talking on his phone in court while we wait.”

Please no

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

47 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

Settlement reached?

 

“We are in some sort of lengthy delay. Fox’s main lawyer, Dan Webb, is talking on his phone in court while we wait.”

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 

[The Dog 43791]

 

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

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 

great guess!