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.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
It's their opinion, man. Just because they think she's lying or they don't believe in election fraud does NOT make it fact. Powell has actual backing of cybersecurity experts who says she is telling the truth. Those believing she lied is not the same as knowing she lied.
Click to expand...

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.

Garmel said:
They had to settle because the judge poisoned the jury calling Fox liars when he knows damn well the issues Dominion has. He also didn't let Fox do much in the way of discovery like he did Dominion. He handcuffs Fox where they can't show anything substantial then calls them liars.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr. Deez said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Garmel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Garmel said:
Sorry, I can't agree with your assessment on this.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mr. Deez said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've see some mixed action from the attorneys on this. Remarkably, Bill Barr said this was a weak case.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Not likely. If the lawyer never even mentioned it as a possibility or never attempted to get a NDA after the client requested it, then perhaps malpractice could be on the table.

However, a NDA isn't just boilerplate settlement language. It's something the parties bargain for. If Fox asked for a NDA and Dominion wasn't willing to agree to one (which is possible since the whole idea of a defamation lawsuit is to compensate for a damaged reputation and seek to restore that reputation) or wasn't willing to agree without additional money that Fox wasn't willing to pay, then that definitely isn't Fox's lawyer's failure. It's just a matter of the parties not being able to reach agreement on the matter.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ViperHorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr. Deez said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ViperHorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

 
Carlson's replacement has been announced.

FufqxI8X0AIpb_V
 
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 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top