Rupert Murdoch Can Be Forced to Testify in Defamation Trial, Judge Says

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

What I am saying is they had ample reason to question the validity of the election. 

You had a man so unpopular he could not win his own parties nomination twice.  Yet somehow the man reportedly got 8 million more votes than the previous record held by Barack Obama. Obama  did that by winning at the time what was THE ALL TIME LOW in terms of counties won 689.  Biden now won only 477.  So it is perfectly reasonable to question how a person so unpopular could win 30% fewer counties but end up with 10% more votes than the all time record.  Now is it possible?  Yes if you believe that virtually everyone in those counties voted for Biden. 

If you recall Fox was also accused of covering up the Russia Trump collusion which of course we now know was based on a dossier that the DNC and Hillary Clinton paid for.  We also know that Fox was lambasted for suggesting that the Trump campaign headquarters had been bugged.  We now know that is true.  

What I did say, was that Dominion by bringing suit puts its entire corporate records into play.  Fox is now allowed to go into those records and ascertain based on the Plaintiffs own records if it knew of any vulnerabilities to its system.  Such discovery by the court has its perils since you never know what it might uncover. 
 

You are desperately grasping at straws.

[bamnutsak]

How many jurors in a Delaware Civil case? Six, eight, twelve? How many in the negative? One or two?

 

I'd settle (as Fox), or at least try, given it only takes one, or two jurors, to totally muck up the works. And who knows how Tucker, Sean and Rupert come across on the stand? HUGE roll of the dice. I can see any of these three having a "strawberries and metal-balls" moment on the stand. Or Tucker screaming "You can't handle the truth!"

 

And as Dominion I might settle for $5 B (3X plus a kicker), and a bunch of written apologies from the Fox & Friends. Reason: see "works, mucking up of", above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

What I am saying is they had ample reason to question the validity of the election. 

You had a man so unpopular he could not win his own parties nomination twice.  Yet somehow the man reportedly got 8 million more votes than the previous record held by Barack Obama. Obama  did that by winning at the time what was THE ALL TIME LOW in terms of counties won 689.  Biden now won only 477.  So it is perfectly reasonable to question how a person so unpopular could win 30% fewer counties but end up with 10% more votes than the all time record.  Now is it possible?  Yes if you believe that virtually everyone in those counties voted for Biden. 

Biden-won counties are home to 67 million more Americans than Trump-won counties

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/01/21/a-demographic-contrast-biden-won-551-counties-home-to-67-million-more-americans-than-trumps-2588-counties/

Edited April 9, 2023 by placeholder

[Slip]

9 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

What I am saying is they had ample reason to question the validity of the election. 

You had a man so unpopular he could not win his own parties nomination twice.  Yet somehow the man reportedly got 8 million more votes than the previous record held by Barack Obama. Obama  did that by winning at the time what was THE ALL TIME LOW in terms of counties won 689.  Biden now won only 477.  So it is perfectly reasonable to question how a person so unpopular could win 30% fewer counties but end up with 10% more votes than the all time record.  Now is it possible?  Yes if you believe that virtually everyone in those counties voted for Biden. 

If you recall Fox was also accused of covering up the Russia Trump collusion which of course we now know was based on a dossier that the DNC and Hillary Clinton paid for.  We also know that Fox was lambasted for suggesting that the Trump campaign headquarters had been bugged.  We now know that is true.  

What I did say, was that Dominion by bringing suit puts its entire corporate records into play.  Fox is now allowed to go into those records and ascertain based on the Plaintiffs own records if it knew of any vulnerabilities to its system.  Such discovery by the court has its perils since you never know what it might uncover. 
 

Way back when, I asked you what evidence you had for your claim, and wondered if you pulled it from 'where the sun don't shine'.  All of your responses since then validate my original query.

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

What I am saying is they had ample reason to question the validity of the election. 

You had a man so unpopular he could not win his own parties nomination twice.  Yet somehow the man reportedly got 8 million more votes than the previous record held by Barack Obama. Obama  did that by winning at the time what was THE ALL TIME LOW in terms of counties won 689.  Biden now won only 477.  So it is perfectly reasonable to question how a person so unpopular could win 30% fewer counties but end up with 10% more votes than the all time record.  Now is it possible?  Yes if you believe that virtually everyone in those counties voted for Biden. 

Not that it's really significant in any way except that it shows the unreliability of the sources you rely on, but that figure of 477 was a very preliminary one. The final number of counties won by Biden after all votes were tallied is 551.

"Because small metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties are far less populous than large metropolitan areas, there are many more Trump-won counties than Biden-won counties (2,588 versus 551)."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/01/21/a-demographic-contrast-biden-won-551-counties-home-to-67-million-more-americans-than-trumps-2588-counties/

Those of us who are interested in reality rather than factoids, know that Biden's victory was fueled by a big shift towards the Democratic nominee in large suburbs. It was only partially offset by a shift in small urban centers and rural counties towards Trump.

Edited April 9, 2023 by placeholder

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 4/7/2023 at 8:55 AM, Longwood50 said:

I disagree.  If it raises the issue that the Dominion voting systems were not fully secure it raises "doubt" that the election results were accurate.  The election does not have to be overturned for Fox to prevail. 

Showing that the Dominion systems had vulnerabilities (if indeed they do) will not help Fox.

 

Dominion is not suing Fox for saying their systems had vulnerabilities and so could have been used to alter the results, they are suing Fox for saying that their systems actually were used to alter votes and rig the election, all the while knowing that these claims weren't true.

 

This case doesn't hinge on whether the Dominion systems had vulnerabilities, it hinges on whether Fox knew what they were saying about the results was untrue, when they said it.

 

So unless Fox can show that they did not knowingly broadcast falsehoods about what the Dominion systems actually did (as opposed to what they might potentially have been able to do) it won't help their case.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Showing that the Dominion systems had vulnerabilities (if indeed they do) will not help Fox.

 

Dominion is not suing Fox for saying their systems had vulnerabilities and so could have been used to alter the results, they are suing Fox for saying that their systems actually were used to alter votes and rig the election, all the while knowing that these claims weren't true.

 

This case doesn't hinge on whether the Dominion systems had vulnerabilities, it hinges on whether Fox knew what they were saying about the results was untrue, when they said it.

 

So unless Fox can show that they did not knowingly broadcast falsehoods about what the Dominion systems actually did (as opposed to what they might potentially have been able to do) it won't help their case.

Anyway, as I guess I'm pointing out again, the judge already ruled that it has been established that the charges leveled at Dominion's voting machines were untrue. He stipulated that the issue for the jury is to decide whether Fox's coverage was due to malice or was just simply reporting. So there will be no evidence presented about the reliability of the Dominion machines. I don't understand why Longwood50 finds that point so difficult to grasp.

Edited April 9, 2023 by placeholder

[Tug]

I don’t think Fox should be allowed to settle,they need to be publicly humiliated then bankrupted they have willfully done grievous injury to my country this cannot be tolerated and that goes for the rest of the (news) organizations we need to create laws that punish WILLFUL spreading of lies and fake information not mistakes 

[Credo]

13 minutes ago, Tug said:

I don’t think Fox should be allowed to settle,they need to be publicly humiliated then bankrupted they have willfully done grievous injury to my country this cannot be tolerated and that goes for the rest of the (news) organizations we need to create laws that punish WILLFUL spreading of lies and fake information not mistakes 

I don't care if they settle or not.  Companies (and apparently the people who own them) have no morals.  Money is their stock-in-trade.  Hit them where it matters to them.  And when that case is over, let the Smartmatics case begin.  

 

[Bkk Brian]

Separate to this particular case but related to Fox and Dominion

 

Fox settles defamation lawsuit from Venezuelan businessman over broadcast tying him to Dominion election claim

 

A Venezuelan business has settled with his defamation lawsuit against Fox News Network and former Fox Business host Lou Dobbs for their coverage of him and voting software companies Dominion and Smartmatic.

 

In a complaint filed in New York federal court, Majed Khalil sued the Fox Corporation, Fox News Network LLC, Lou Dobbs, and attorney Sidney Powell over a Dec. 10, 2020, broadcast and related Twitter posts.

 

Khalil’s legal team alleged that the interview and related social media promotion disseminated a “lie totally devoid of reality,” vilifying him as one of four people who worked with Dominion and Smartmatic to “rig or fix the results” of the election in favor of President Joe Biden.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-settles-defamation-lawsuit-from-venezuelan-businessman-tying-him-dominion-election-claim/

[Longwood50]

13 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Showing that the Dominion systems had vulnerabilities (if indeed they do) will not help Fox.

I said 

Giving someone access to your corporate records HAS PERILS

I also disagree that showing vulnerabilities would not help Fox.  If Fox proved the system COULD BE HACKED it would raise doubts as to if it was hacked.  

Again, if there were any cases were it was shown the Dominion System was compromised uncovered during discovery, it would greatly undermine Dominion's claim that its systems could not possibly be hacked. 

[Longwood50]

13 hours ago, Slip said:

Way back when, I asked you what evidence you had for your claim, and wondered if you pulled it from 'where the sun don't shine'.  All of your responses since then validate my original query.

You obviously can't read.  The fact is that Biden won fewer 477 counties versus Obama's 689 and yet somehow got 8 million more votes. 

Now is that possible.  Yes if Biden won virtually all of the votes in those counties.  That sir is a stretch and a person would any common sense would at the very least question it. 

Kind of like flipping a coin 100 times and having it always come up heads.  Is it possible yes.  Is it likely no. 

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I said 

Giving someone access to your corporate records HAS PERILS

I also disagree that showing vulnerabilities would not help Fox.  If Fox proved the system COULD BE HACKED it would raise doubts as to if it was hacked.  

Again, if there were any cases were it was shown the Dominion System was compromised uncovered during discovery, it would greatly undermine Dominion's claim that its systems could not possibly be hacked. 

But that's not going to happen because the Judge already ruled that there was no factual basis for any claims disparaging Dominion's machines. The case will proceed solely on deciding whether Fox acted with malice.

Edited April 10, 2023 by placeholder

[placeholder]

Just now, Longwood50 said:

You obviously can't read.  The fact is that Biden won fewer 477 counties versus Obama's 689 and yet somehow got 8 million more votes. 

Now is that possible.  Yes if Biden won virtually all of the votes in those counties.  That sir is a stretch and a person would any common sense would at the very least question it. 

Kind of like flipping a coin 100 times and having it always come up heads.  Is it possible yes.  Is it likely no. 

As pointed out above, your claim is nonsense. The counties Biden won had 67 million more people in them than did the counties that Trump won. Biden won far more of large urban centers and large suburbs than did Trump The big factor in Biden's victory was the fact that the suburbs shifted decisively Democratic as compared to the 2016 elections.

[GroveHillWanderer]

6 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

I said 

Giving someone access to your corporate records HAS PERILS

I also disagree that showing vulnerabilities would not help Fox.  If Fox proved the system COULD BE HACKED it would raise doubts as to if it was hacked.  

Again, if there were any cases were it was shown the Dominion System was compromised uncovered during discovery, it would greatly undermine Dominion's claim that its systems could not possibly be hacked. 

In this defamation lawsuit, Dominion is not claiming that its systems could not be hacked. They may be doing that elsewhere, but if they are it's totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever here.

 

As @placeholder pointed out, the judge has already ruled that as matter of law and of fact, any claims that Dominion systems altered votes is untrue and the only thing left for the jury to consider is whether Fox News acted with actual malice.

 

Fox News’ Claims About Dominion Were False, Judge Rules

 

So just to be clear - once again, whether Dominion's systems could be hacked or not is now totally immaterial to this lawsuit and will not form any part of the jury's deliberations.

Edited April 10, 2023 by GroveHillWanderer

[Longwood50]

17 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

In this defamation lawsuit, Dominion is not claiming that its systems could not be hacked. They may be doing that elsewhere, but if they are it's totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever here.

This is not Thailand.  In the USA truth is a complete and affirmative defense.  I have no idea what you say the judge ruled on.  However if Fox stated the Dominion Voting System could be hacked and in fact that proves to be true.  Now Fox makes the claim that it never claimed that Dominion rigged the election which if false is defamation.  They did claim the Dominion had security issues.  

I am of the opinion that you have a liberal judge who is biased making a ruling that even if upheld will be overturned on appeal.  The only way that by US law Fox could be held to be defaming is if it knew its claims that the Dominion systems were vulnerable were false and chose to present them as true.  Kind of like on the opposite side, that the media knew there was no Russian collusion and that there was the fake dossier but kept pushing the story as if it was true. 

Fox News has never argued in court that Dominion rigged the 2020 election, but its lawyers have repeatedly made the point that there are longstanding and bipartisan security concerns about its voting machines.

[candide]

4 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

This is not Thailand.  In the USA truth is a complete and affirmative defense.  I have no idea what you say the judge ruled on.  However if Fox stated the Dominion Voting System could be hacked and in fact that proves to be true.  Now Fox makes the claim that it never claimed that Dominion rigged the election which if false is defamation.  They did claim the Dominion had security issues.  

I am of the opinion that you have a liberal judge who is biased making a ruling that even if upheld will be overturned on appeal.  The only way that by US law Fox could be held to be defaming is if it knew its claims that the Dominion systems were vulnerable were false and chose to present them as true.  Kind of like on the opposite side, that the media knew there was no Russian collusion and that there was the fake dossier but kept pushing the story as if it was true. 

Fox News has never argued in court that Dominion rigged the 2020 election, but its lawyers have repeatedly made the point that there are longstanding and bipartisan security concerns about its voting machines.

Just trying to move the target. The issue is not what Fox news argues in court. It is that it has been publicly and repeatedly stated on Fox News that elections have been rigged thanks to Dominion machines.

 

They claimed on their channels that elections have been rigged thanks to Dominion machines (among others), and they knew it was B.S. So It's a defamation.

 

A comparison may make it more clear. If someone states "this bank has been robbed because the safe had security issues". Then a check is made and no money is missing in the safe. It is defamation.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by candide

[GroveHillWanderer]

5 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

This is not Thailand.  In the USA truth is a complete and affirmative defense.  I have no idea what you say the judge ruled on.  However if Fox stated the Dominion Voting System could be hacked and in fact that proves to be true.  Now Fox makes the claim that it never claimed that Dominion rigged the election which if false is defamation.  They did claim the Dominion had security issues.  

I am of the opinion that you have a liberal judge who is biased making a ruling that even if upheld will be overturned on appeal.  The only way that by US law Fox could be held to be defaming is if it knew its claims that the Dominion systems were vulnerable were false and chose to present them as true.  Kind of like on the opposite side, that the media knew there was no Russian collusion and that there was the fake dossier but kept pushing the story as if it was true. 

Fox News has never argued in court that Dominion rigged the 2020 election, but its lawyers have repeatedly made the point that there are longstanding and bipartisan security concerns about its voting machines.

You just don't get it, do you? Truth as an affirmative defence is not on the table here. The judge has already ruled that the statements by Fox news were completely false so they do not have the option of presenting that defence.

 

You say you don't know what the judge's ruling was but I've already provided a link to it. Did you not read it?

 

Here's what he said (in part):

 

Quote

The evidence in the case “demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” Davis wrote, and found that Fox’s behavior constituted defamation per se, meaning the statements exposed the company “to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace.”

Please note the part where the judge has already ruled that, as a matter of law, "Fox’s behavior constituted defamation per se ..."

 

So when you say that:

 

Quote

The only way that by US law Fox could be held to be defaming is if it knew its claims that the Dominion systems were vulnerable were false and chose to present them as true.

That's not quite true. This case is not about Fox saying Dominion systems were vulnerable, it's about them claiming that the systems actually altered votes and changed the election result, while knowing this to be false - and on that point, the judge has already ruled that Fox knowingly made such false claims, and that this constitutes defamation per se.

 

So once again, and for the umpteenth time, the only thing the jury will have to decide on is whether Fox News acted with malice or not.

Edited April 11, 2023 by GroveHillWanderer

[ozimoron]

57 minutes ago, candide said:

Just trying to move the target. The issue is not what Fox news argues in court. It is that it has been publicly and repeatedly stated on Fox News that elections have been rigged thanks to Dominion machines.

 

They claimed on their channels that elections have been rigged thanks to Dominion machines (among others), and they knew it was B.S. So It's a defamation.

 

A comparison may make it more clear. If someone states "this bank has been robbed because the safe had security issues". Then a check is made and no money is missing in the safe. It is defamation.

 

As has been pointed out to you, the machines NEVER had an internet connection. The chips are flashed with the software code in byte form and the main board is separately sealed with an official lead seal or numbered plastic strip which is registered. The machines are also locked.

 

No evidence has been produced in a court that it was even POSSIBLE for the machines to be hacked.

[candide]

34 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

As has been pointed out to you, the machines NEVER had an internet connection. The chips are flashed with the software code in byte form and the main board is separately sealed with an official lead seal or numbered plastic strip which is registered. The machines are also locked.

 

No evidence has been produced in a court that it was even POSSIBLE for the machines to be hacked.

You are confusing me with another poster ????

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

This is not Thailand.  In the USA truth is a complete and affirmative defense.  I have no idea what you say the judge ruled on.  However if Fox stated the Dominion Voting System could be hacked and in fact that proves to be true.  Now Fox makes the claim that it never claimed that Dominion rigged the election which if false is defamation.  They did claim the Dominion had security issues.  

I am of the opinion that you have a liberal judge who is biased making a ruling that even if upheld will be overturned on appeal.  The only way that by US law Fox could be held to be defaming is if it knew its claims that the Dominion systems were vulnerable were false and chose to present them as true.  Kind of like on the opposite side, that the media knew there was no Russian collusion and that there was the fake dossier but kept pushing the story as if it was true. 

Fox News has never argued in court that Dominion rigged the 2020 election, but its lawyers have repeatedly made the point that there are longstanding and bipartisan security concerns about its voting machines.

Actually, they supported allegations that the machines were hacked. Not could be. So stop creating fiction and stick to the facts.

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, candide said:

You are confusing me with another poster ????

error of parallax ????

[candide]

Meanwhile....

Fox News settles lawsuit with Venezuelan businessman it accused of helping rig the 2020 US presidential election, as it readies for $1.6 billion Dominion trial

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-settles-lawsuit-venezuelan-114132726.html

 

"

Shortly after the election, Dobbs took to Twitter to call it a "cyber Pearl harbor" and said that Khalil was a "liaison with Hezbollah" who had executed an "electoral 9-11."

The former Fox host also accused Khalil and other Venezuelans of being involved in a scheme to oust former president Donald Trump."

 

[Slip]

5 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You just don't get it, do you? Truth as an affirmative defence is not on the table here. The judge has already ruled that the statements by Fox news were completely false so they do not have the option of presenting that defence.

 

You say you don't know what the judge's ruling was but I've already provided a link to it. Did you not read it?

 

Here's what he said (in part):

 

Please note the part where the judge has already ruled that, as a matter of law, "Fox’s behavior constituted defamation per se ..."

 

So when you say that:

 

That's not quite true. This case is not about Fox saying Dominion systems were vulnerable, it's about them claiming that the systems actually altered votes and changed the election result, while knowing this to be false - and on that point, the judge has already ruled that Fox knowingly made such false claims, and that this constitutes defamation per se.

 

So once again, and for the umpteenth time, the only thing the jury will have to decide on is whether Fox News acted with malice or not.

I called him out on this last Thursday on this thread.  He responded with some nonsense and accused me of not being able to read.  He has been trolling the thread ever since and has nothing.

[Longwood50]

15 hours ago, candide said:

Just trying to move the target. The issue is not what Fox news argues in court. It is that it has been publicly and repeatedly stated on Fox News that elections have been rigged thanks to Dominion machines.

I "think" you are wrong. Quote a link to where Fox has said that elections were rigged.  Their attorney's have publicly stated, that at no time did Fox make any such statement. 

 

[onthedarkside]

A post with unsubstantiated claims has been removed

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I "think" you are wrong. Quote a link to where Fox has said that elections were rigged.  Their attorney's have publicly stated, that at no time did Fox make any such statement. 

 

Fox gave lots of prime air time to election deniers without ever pointing out that their disproven claims were nonsense and without giving time to contrary (real world) views.  Fox's dimwitted viewers ate it up.  It did this because presenting the truth was bad for ratings.

 

So the big lie here is that Fox News is a news channel.

[onthedarkside]

UPDATE: Judge Limits Fox’s Options for Defense in Dominion Trial

 

WILMINGTON, Del. — A judge ruled on Tuesday that Fox News could not argue that it broadcast false information about Dominion Voting Systems on the basis that the allegations were newsworthy, limiting a key line of defense for the network as it faces the beginning of a potentially costly defamation trial next week.

 

The judge, Eric M. Davis of Delaware Superior Court, also ruled that Dominion could not refer to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol except in very narrow circumstances, saying he did not want jurors to be prejudiced by events that weren’t relevant to the central question in the case: Did Fox air wild claims about Dominion’s purported involvement in a conspiracy to steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald J. Trump knowing that they were lies?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/business/fox-news-dominion-trial.html

 

 

Archive link

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

I "think" you are wrong. Quote a link to where Fox has said that elections were rigged.  Their attorney's have publicly stated, that at no time did Fox make any such statement. 

 

Fox’s Murdoch Admits Some Fox Hosts ‘Endorsed’ False Election Claims in Dominion Deposition

Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch said in a deposition in an already-explosive defamation case against his company’s top business, Fox News, that “some of our commentators were endorsing” a series of claims that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump, the latest revelation that suggests Fox executives could have been aware that some of the company’s hosts were pushing baseless assertions...

Murdoch was asked, for example, if Jeanine Pirro, an opinion host, endorsed the claims, and replied, “I think so.” He also said Lou Dobbs, a former Fox Business opinion host, endorsed the false claims “a lot,” and that veteran commentator Sean Hannity endorsed the claims “a bit.”

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/fox-pushes-back-against-dominion-voting-defamation-claims-1235537622/

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

I "think" you are wrong. Quote a link to where Fox has said that elections were rigged.  Their attorney's have publicly stated, that at no time did Fox make any such statement. 

 

Strawman argument.

 

FOX are not in court for saying ‘The election was rigged’.