The Media Industry

Let me give you an example, Deez. If I'm a guest on your show talking about election fraud and you write an e-mail to someone saying I'm lying doesn't change anything because 1) It is your opinion. 2) I'm much more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.

That's the position Powell is in.

You know they could prove Powell wrong by just opening the machines but they won't. Not saying she's right but to say she's a liar is hogwash. I do believe she's kooky though.

To back up Powell's belief, Arizona uses Dominion machines. The auditors who were hired said in their report there were 30+ incursions into the machines.

 

Maybe, but it's enough to get the case to a jury. And some of the evidence went beyond opinion. For example, Carlson not only said Powell was lying but that he had caught her. That's a statement of fact, not opinion. It is him saying he knows (not just believes) that she is lying. Again, it's going to be enough to get the case in front of a jury.

I haven't followed it closely, but I doubt he called them liars in the presence of the jury. That would likely be cause for a mistrial and/or reversible error on appeal. I can't speak to the discovery limitations because I'm not aware of them, but since truth is an affirmative defense, he would have a harm time justifying not letting them do pretty significant discovery on whether the claims were true.

 

Yet, it never came out what Tucker said he caught. Once again it very well could be that he thinks he knows something but really doesn't.

I called you a liar one time a long ago. I thought I caught you and I was wrong. Remember me messaging my apology to you? How many times have you been wrong about somebody in your life and then you had to apologize. Do you understand at what I'm getting at, Deez?

Here's a further problem with this logic. Suppose I was a commentator with a liberal guest on for their opinion on a subject. Earlier in writing I said that I thought this guy's a liar but I had him on anyway giving him the benefit of the doubt. He then defames a few republicans and in turn the republicans can sue my *** according to this interpretation.

Sorry, I can't agree with your assessment on this.

 

I do understand what you're getting at, but remember what the issue is when it comes to this piece of evidence. They're trying to establish what was in the defendant's mind when he spoke on the air. Did he believe he was telling the truth, or did he believe he was lying?

Whether he actually was telling the truth or lying has to do with a different element of the case, which is whether the allegedly defamatory statements were true or false.

No, they can't. Remember, Fox didn't get sued for what Sidney Powell said. They got sued for what they said. If you brought the liberal guest on and let him make his statements, you'd be fine. However, if you concurred with his BS statements and spoke as though they were true, then you might get sued.

Frankly, I don't know what I would have done had I been a juror on the case, and I haven't studied it sufficiently to form a particularly strong opinion. I'm simply saying how the evidence fits into the key elements of the cause of action and explaining why a jury would at least be permitted to find liability. I'm not necessarily endorsing that liability.

 

I haven't followed so am confused.
So Fox got sued and then settled because Fox employees said off air they didn't believe Powell but on air said they did?

 

Yeah, I've see some mixed action from the attorneys on this. Remarkably, Bill Barr said this was a weak case.

 

It's so complicated so it's hard for me to put it in a nutshell.

 

Garm
got it

 

Preference is there be one included because it stops issues down the line. Let the other side amend it or toss it. That puts them on record of striking so when their client starts screaming about something being released you can shut them up by telling them their counsel tossed the clause. Client on counsel fight does nothing but divert their attention from the matters at can't.

 

I understand the merits of NDAs. I've advocated both for and against them. (One reason I usually advocated against them on the plaintiff's side is that they make an ambiguous portion of the settlement taxable.) My point is that if the parties don't or can't agree to have one, that isn't usually the product of legal malpractice. It's a matter of the parties not finding agreement on one.

 

I agree with the theory. I just want it in on the go-in and force the other guy to be on record of not wanting it.

 

I get that. Having said that, in most cases I handled, a NDA was never requested. When it was asked for, it was usually by an employer paying a settlement to an employee for a work-related injury outside the workers compensation system. I didn't resist them much, so long as 1. the NDA was mutual and that the mutual promises of non-disclosure were the sole consideration for each other or 2. the NDA should specify how much of the settlement was consideration for non-disclosure. Of course, I advised the client that this could lead to income tax liability for that portion of the settlement, though I never heard of a client actually getting a 1099 for it.

 

We probably deal with different issues.

 

Tucker Carlson is leaving Fox News. In fact, he's apparently gone. He has done his last show. Very strange.

 

My guess would be he's going to Newsmax.

 

Other than Tucker, Fox is unwatchable.

 

Hope so.

Fox ratings just took a hit for sure

 

Don Lemon is gone too.

 

Couldn't find a more deserving guy to get canned.

 

Carlson's replacement has been announced.

 

Tucker spoke at Heritage Foundation Sat. I think he explained why he is not at Fox without having to say anything direct. He probably can't anyway
More Americans Need to Stand Up to Left's Insanity, Tucker Carlson Says

 

Fox News will probably hire him to fill the Tucker gap! LOL

 

Lemon is gay, a racist and totally incompetent. He will likely be joining the Biden administration.

 

The sad part is you might be right.

 

You mean being reassigned within the Biden administration, right?

 

CNN insiders slam 'misogynistic, sexist, POS' Don Lemon as he's fired from network | Daily Mail Online

 

Lol.

 

Really good analysis by Dershowitz on the Fox settlement. "It's a Settlement That Never Should Have Happened...Something Else Had to Have Been Involved." - Harvard Professor and Attorney Dershowitz on FOX Settlement with Dominion | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

 

Did Playboy get rid of nudes? Guess I'll have to check for research purposes only. But like you said elsewhere, Fox News survived O'Reilly leaving.

 

Bill O'Reilly was fired because of sexual harassment charges.
I don't remember there being many who questioned it
This firing of Tucker is in a totally different climate .