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

[Chomper Higgot]

38 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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/

 

 

Lie and go to prison, tell the truth and loose hundreds of millions of dollars,

 

A tough choice for an old man.

 

And there’s more to come.

[Longwood50]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

As said you can flip a coin 100 times and can it always come up heads. Yes. 

Can you can have Joe Biden win only 477 counties and get 8 million more votes than Obama did when he won 679 counties which was the lowest in recorded history.  Yes, but statistically improbable.  

I don't believe Fox ever stated the Dominion machines were in fact reporting incorrect totals.  However the fact that several statisticians reported that the results stretched statistical norms made the subject of the security of the Dominion voting machines fair commentary. 

When you had a presidential candiate who was so unpopular he failed to garner even enough support inside his party to win the nomination and then suddenly get more votes in history despite winning 30% fewer counties than any candidate in history could make a story on "untold mysteries"  

[Longwood50]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Strawman argument.

 

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

As always Chomper you reply, but of course you don't back it up with anything.  Show just one time that Fox actually stated the election was rigged.  You are inferring something that just was not done.  Did they question the safety and security of the Dominion voting systems - yes.  Was that reasonable given that Biden won 30% fewer counties than the lowest ever recorded yet somehow managed to get 8 million more votes than any other candidate in history. Of course that was cause to question if there were bugs in the system.  

As said numerous times now.  I believe Dominion is foolish to bring this action.  They are opening their entire company up to a corporate colonoscopy where every email, memo, and error noted in one of their machines will be scrutinzed by an army of investigators and computer experts.  They may find that process is not pleasant and may have the unintended result of pointing to deficiencies in the Dominion system.  Will it?  Who knows.  I am pointing out the risks associated with going to trial and exposing all your companies secrets. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

As always Chomper you reply, but of course you don't back it up with anything.  Show just one time that Fox actually stated the election was rigged.  You are inferring something that just was not done.  Did they question the safety and security of the Dominion voting systems - yes.  Was that reasonable given that Biden won 30% fewer counties than the lowest ever recorded yet somehow managed to get 8 million more votes than any other candidate in history. Of course that was cause to question if there were bugs in the system.  

As said numerous times now.  I believe Dominion is foolish to bring this action.  They are opening their entire company up to a corporate colonoscopy where every email, memo, and error noted in one of their machines will be scrutinzed by an army of investigators and computer experts.  They may find that process is not pleasant and may have the unintended result of pointing to deficiencies in the Dominion system.  Will it?  Who knows.  I am pointing out the risks associated with going to trial and exposing all your companies secrets. 

What?

 

I called you out for your Strawman argument regarding FOX stating ‘The election was rigged’ and pointed out that’s not why FOX are in court.

 

The matter is before the court, let’s see what the court has to say.

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

As said you can flip a coin 100 times and can it always come up heads. Yes. 

Can you can have Joe Biden win only 477 counties and get 8 million more votes than Obama did when he won 679 counties which was the lowest in recorded history.  Yes, but statistically improbable.  

I don't believe Fox ever stated the Dominion machines were in fact reporting incorrect totals.  However the fact that several statisticians reported that the results stretched statistical norms made the subject of the security of the Dominion voting machines fair commentary. 

When you had a presidential candiate who was so unpopular he failed to garner even enough support inside his party to win the nomination and then suddenly get more votes in history despite winning 30% fewer counties than any candidate in history could make a story on "untold mysteries"  

Per usual your facts are not correct.

Read this for more accurate information and an explanation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/09/fact-check-joe-biden-won-most-votes-ever-and-fewest-counties/3865097001/

[Longwood50]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What?

 

I called you out for your Strawman argument regarding FOX stating ‘The election was rigged’ and pointed out that’s not why FOX are in court.

As I said, you always think you know but you never show any evidence to back up what you say. 

This is from Cornell University regarding the statistical modeling called Benfords Law.  It is used to identify statistical numbers that are statistically out of the norm.  Note, Cornell states that Benfords law is uncanningly accurate. 

The Biden vote was out of the norm according to Benfords law.  That does not prove fraud.  It points out that it was statistically so out of the norm that it warranted investigation. 

If you don't find it strange that a candidate could win 30% fewer counties than ever recorded but somehow get 8 million more votes, then I suspect you would not find the need to investigate the weighting of a coin that if flipped 100 times comes up a statistically improbable amount of times heads.  

The Dominion systems may be ok and perhaps no fraud.  However given the statistical abberation and anomoly Fox was totally correct in questioning it.  Again, you "say" Fox said that the Dominion Systems were manipulated.  I say you are wrong.  Try backing something up just once with a valid source.  Not just your rhetoric. 

 Forensic accountants, fraud examiners, accountants, and auditors use Benford's law to detect anomalies that require investigation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.08894

[Longwood50]

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Per usual your facts are not correct.

Read this for more accurate information and an explanation.

Your article backs up my comments does not refute them.  It states and I quote. 

On Nov. 10, the Brookings Institution published a report on county-level results. The report showed that Biden won 477 counties, But according to the updated data, Biden won 16.7% of counties with finalized results. That represents a record-low proportion for a winning presidential candidate.

Now is that an abberation, a statistical anomaly.  Perhaps.  but as said when you have Obama who won 689 counties the lowest on record of a winning presidential candidate and it drops by 30% but the vote count goes up by 11% is enough to raise eyebrows.  

Are those counties large.  Of course.  However for him to win by such a large margin those counties would have had to vote in such a huge disproportion that as mentioned, it failed statistical modeling meaning it was "suspect"  Hence Fox was well within bounds to call into question how such a statistical anomaly could occur. 
 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

As I said, you always think you know but you never show any evidence to back up what you say. 

This is from Cornell University regarding the statistical modeling called Benfords Law.  It is used to identify statistical numbers that are statistically out of the norm.  Note, Cornell states that Benfords law is uncanningly accurate. 

The Biden vote was out of the norm according to Benfords law.  That does not prove fraud.  It points out that it was statistically so out of the norm that it warranted investigation. 

If you don't find it strange that a candidate could win 30% fewer counties than ever recorded but somehow get 8 million more votes, then I suspect you would not find the need to investigate the weighting of a coin that if flipped 100 times comes up a statistically improbable amount of times heads.  

The Dominion systems may be ok and perhaps no fraud.  However given the statistical abberation and anomoly Fox was totally correct in questioning it.  Again, you "say" Fox said that the Dominion Systems were manipulated.  I say you are wrong.  Try backing something up just once with a valid source.  Not just your rhetoric. 

 Forensic accountants, fraud examiners, accountants, and auditors use Benford's law to detect anomalies that require investigation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.08894

You are deflecting.

 

I called out your Strawman argument regarding FOX and the statement “The election was rigged”.

 

Your after the fact forays into the world of statistical analysis aren’t getting you off the hook for use of a Strawman argument.

 

“As I said, you always think you know but you never show any evidence to back up what you say.”

 

Accept I posted your Strawman in my response.

[Longwood50]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are deflecting.

No you are as said never backing up anything you say. The Biden vote failed the statistical modeling by Benfords Law methodology.  That meant it was "suspect"  The modeling does not prove fraud, it proves that the results were so far out of norm that they deserved investigation., 

As said now for the third time.  Show me just one time, that Fox said the election results were fraud and that the Dominion systems were altered.  If you can't then stop repeating the assertion that you can not back up. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339615418_Benford's_Law_As_a_Useful_Tool_to_Determine_Fraud_in_Financial_Statements#:~:text=Benford's law is a mathematical,than valid or random samples.

[placeholder]

30 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

As I said, you always think you know but you never show any evidence to back up what you say. 

This is from Cornell University regarding the statistical modeling called Benfords Law.  It is used to identify statistical numbers that are statistically out of the norm.  Note, Cornell states that Benfords law is uncanningly accurate. 

The Biden vote was out of the norm according to Benfords law.  That does not prove fraud.  It points out that it was statistically so out of the norm that it warranted investigation. 

If you don't find it strange that a candidate could win 30% fewer counties than ever recorded but somehow get 8 million more votes, then I suspect you would not find the need to investigate the weighting of a coin that if flipped 100 times comes up a statistically improbable amount of times heads.  

The Dominion systems may be ok and perhaps no fraud.  However given the statistical abberation and anomoly Fox was totally correct in questioning it.  Again, you "say" Fox said that the Dominion Systems were manipulated.  I say you are wrong.  Try backing something up just once with a valid source.  Not just your rhetoric. 

 Forensic accountants, fraud examiners, accountants, and auditors use Benford's law to detect anomalies that require investigation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.08894

No one disputes that there is such a thing as Benford's law. But the fact is, that, not only was the issue of Benford's law raised only in relation to Pennsylvania, but according to an article in Chance, the magazine of the American Statistical Associations, it fails even in Pennsylavia to find fraud.

Benford’s Law and County-Level Votes in US Presidential Elections

"The argument that the failure of Biden’s county-level votes in Pennsylvania to follow Benford’s law is an indication of voter fraud is interesting and cannot be dismissed entirely. The argument rests on three premises, which we investigated using recent presidential election data. Unfortunately, for proponents of the argument, the premises went 0.5 out of 3 and the argument fails."

https://chance.amstat.org/2022/04/benfords-law-votes/

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

No you are as said never backing up anything you say. The Biden vote failed the statistical modeling by Benfords Law methodology.  That meant it was "suspect"  The modeling does not prove fraud, it proves that the results were so far out of norm that they deserved investigation., 

As said now for the third time.  Show me just one time, that Fox said the election results were fraud and that the Dominion systems were altered.  If you can't then stop repeating the assertion that you can not back up. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339615418_Benford's_Law_As_a_Useful_Tool_to_Determine_Fraud_in_Financial_Statements#:~:text=Benford's law is a mathematical,than valid or random samples.

Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States∗
Walter R. Mebane, Jr.† November 10, 2020

 

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Your article backs up my comments does not refute them.  It states and I quote. 

On Nov. 10, the Brookings Institution published a report on county-level results. The report showed that Biden won 477 counties, But according to the updated data, Biden won 16.7% of counties with finalized results. That represents a record-low proportion for a winning presidential candidate.

Now is that an abberation, a statistical anomaly.  Perhaps.  but as said when you have Obama who won 689 counties the lowest on record of a winning presidential candidate and it drops by 30% but the vote count goes up by 11% is enough to raise eyebrows.  

Are those counties large.  Of course.  However for him to win by such a large margin those counties would have had to vote in such a huge disproportion that as mentioned, it failed statistical modeling meaning it was "suspect"  Hence Fox was well within bounds to call into question how such a statistical anomaly could occur. 
 

You can't even get basic facts straight: Once again

 

  On 4/9/2023 at 10:59 AM, 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. 

Expand  

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/

 

[placeholder]

20 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Your article backs up my comments does not refute them.  It states and I quote. 

On Nov. 10, the Brookings Institution published a report on county-level results. The report showed that Biden won 477 counties, But according to the updated data, Biden won 16.7% of counties with finalized results. That represents a record-low proportion for a winning presidential candidate.

Now is that an abberation, a statistical anomaly.  Perhaps.  but as said when you have Obama who won 689 counties the lowest on record of a winning presidential candidate and it drops by 30% but the vote count goes up by 11% is enough to raise eyebrows.  

Are those counties large.  Of course.  However for him to win by such a large margin those counties would have had to vote in such a huge disproportion that as mentioned, it failed statistical modeling meaning it was "suspect"  Hence Fox was well within bounds to call into question how such a statistical anomaly could occur. 
 

And once again:

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 Sunday at 08:16 PM by placeholder

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

<Snip>
As said now for the third time.  Show me just one time, that Fox said the election results were fraud and that the Dominion systems were altered.  If you can't then stop repeating the assertion that you can not back up. 


 

Show me where I made such a claim?

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

As said you can flip a coin 100 times and can it always come up heads. Yes. 

Can you can have Joe Biden win only 477 counties and get 8 million more votes than Obama did when he won 679 counties which was the lowest in recorded history.  Yes, but statistically improbable.  

I don't believe Fox ever stated the Dominion machines were in fact reporting incorrect totals.  However the fact that several statisticians reported that the results stretched statistical norms made the subject of the security of the Dominion voting machines fair commentary. 

When you had a presidential candiate who was so unpopular he failed to garner even enough support inside his party to win the nomination and then suddenly get more votes in history despite winning 30% fewer counties than any candidate in history could make a story on "untold mysteries"  

You are not just twisting facts but reality itself.  Los Angeles county has over 10 million people, making it bigger than forty of the fifty states.  Winning big counties easily allows for a small number of counties to outweigh the votes in a much larger number of small counties. 

 

North Dakota and South Dakota combined have a total of 119 counties but a population one third that of Los Angeles county.  So in that case Biden could have lost every county in the Dakotas (and may have done so) but still have won far more total votes in Los Angeles county alone.

 

Of course you can prove me wrong.  Identify the counties that you think Biden didn't really win and explain how there was fraud there.

 

Or you can identify the "several statisticians" and the work they did to come up with their conclusions.

 

BTW:  Biden did win his party's nomination.  That's why he was the Democratic candidate.

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

As I said, you always think you know but you never show any evidence to back up what you say. 

This is from Cornell University regarding the statistical modeling called Benfords Law.  It is used to identify statistical numbers that are statistically out of the norm.  Note, Cornell states that Benfords law is uncanningly accurate. 

The Biden vote was out of the norm according to Benfords law.  That does not prove fraud.  It points out that it was statistically so out of the norm that it warranted investigation. 

If you don't find it strange that a candidate could win 30% fewer counties than ever recorded but somehow get 8 million more votes, then I suspect you would not find the need to investigate the weighting of a coin that if flipped 100 times comes up a statistically improbable amount of times heads.  

The Dominion systems may be ok and perhaps no fraud.  However given the statistical abberation and anomoly Fox was totally correct in questioning it.  Again, you "say" Fox said that the Dominion Systems were manipulated.  I say you are wrong.  Try backing something up just once with a valid source.  Not just your rhetoric. 

 Forensic accountants, fraud examiners, accountants, and auditors use Benford's law to detect anomalies that require investigation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.08894

Wow!  Benford's Law!

 

Just how exactly does Benford's Law support your argument?  Nothing in the link does so.  Please show your work.

[heybruce]

25 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

No you are as said never backing up anything you say. The Biden vote failed the statistical modeling by Benfords Law methodology.  That meant it was "suspect"  The modeling does not prove fraud, it proves that the results were so far out of norm that they deserved investigation., 

As said now for the third time.  Show me just one time, that Fox said the election results were fraud and that the Dominion systems were altered.  If you can't then stop repeating the assertion that you can not back up. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339615418_Benford's_Law_As_a_Useful_Tool_to_Determine_Fraud_in_Financial_Statements#:~:text=Benford's law is a mathematical,than valid or random samples.

Do you think that repeatedly referencing Benford's Law without showing how it applies to the election somehow makes you appear to be correct?

[Bkk Brian]

Re Trial hearings are getting messy and the judge getting annoyed:

 

Fox attorneys in libel case reveal dual roles for Rupert Murdoch

Attorneys defending Fox in a defamation case related to false claims about the 2020 election withheld critical information about the role company founder Rupert Murdoch played at Fox News, a revelation that angered the judge when it came up at a Tuesday hearing.

It was not clear whether the development would affect a trial scheduled to begin Thursday with jury selection. Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox for $1.6 billion, saying it damaged its reputation by repeatedly airing false claims that the company helped orchestrate a fraud that cost former President Donald Trump re-election.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/11/fox-libel-rupert-murdoch-00091587

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Re Trial hearings are getting messy and the judge getting annoyed:

 

Fox attorneys in libel case reveal dual roles for Rupert Murdoch

Attorneys defending Fox in a defamation case related to false claims about the 2020 election withheld critical information about the role company founder Rupert Murdoch played at Fox News, a revelation that angered the judge when it came up at a Tuesday hearing.

It was not clear whether the development would affect a trial scheduled to begin Thursday with jury selection. Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox for $1.6 billion, saying it damaged its reputation by repeatedly airing false claims that the company helped orchestrate a fraud that cost former President Donald Trump re-election.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/11/fox-libel-rupert-murdoch-00091587

According to the article, if Murdoch's titles were properly disclosed, Fox would have been liiable to submit a lot more documents.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Your article backs up my comments does not refute them.  It states and I quote. 

On Nov. 10, the Brookings Institution published a report on county-level results. The report showed that Biden won 477 counties, But according to the updated data, Biden won 16.7% of counties with finalized results. That represents a record-low proportion for a winning presidential candidate.

Now is that an abberation, a statistical anomaly.  Perhaps.  but as said when you have Obama who won 689 counties the lowest on record of a winning presidential candidate and it drops by 30% but the vote count goes up by 11% is enough to raise eyebrows.  

Are those counties large.  Of course.  However for him to win by such a large margin those counties would have had to vote in such a huge disproportion that as mentioned, it failed statistical modeling meaning it was "suspect"  Hence Fox was well within bounds to call into question how such a statistical anomaly could occur. 
 

The article refutes your statement he won 477 counties.

The article also shows how a low county count can result in the number of votes won by Biden. It is not a statistically anomaly as you claim.

 

Good to see other posters are still posting factual information despite your attempts to distract from those facts.

[candide]

7 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. 

 

In which parallel universe are you living?

 

"Davis’ ruling means jurors will need to decide whether Fox News defamed Dominion by repeatedly promoting false claims that the voting technology company rigged the 2020 presidential election by flipping millions of votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Dominion wants $1.6 billion in damages."

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/31/media/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit/index.html

 

TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT

 

Published November 23, 2020 10:20pm EST

Tucker Carlson: Yes, the election was rigged for Joe Biden. Here's how

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-2020-presidential-election-rigged-big-tech-mainstream-media

 

Compare the election-fraud claims Fox News aired with what its stars knew

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1157972219/fox-news-election-fraud-claims-vs-what-they-knew

 

Rupert Murdoch says Fox News hosts endorsed false election fraud claims

"Some of our commentators were endorsing it," Mr Murdoch said in a sworn deposition filed on Monday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64794606

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

4 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

As always Chomper you reply, but of course you don't back it up with anything.  Show just one time that Fox actually stated the election was rigged.  You are inferring something that just was not done.  Did they question the safety and security of the Dominion voting systems - yes.  Was that reasonable given that Biden won 30% fewer counties than the lowest ever recorded yet somehow managed to get 8 million more votes than any other candidate in history. Of course that was cause to question if there were bugs in the system.  

Again, you're slightly misrepresenting things by using wording that doesn't quite match what's being used in the lawsuit. 

 

As stated in the Reuters article below, what Dominion claims is that:

 

Quote

Fox hosts did not merely report on allegations about Dominion voting machines but instead "endorsed" assertions of election fraud.

Dominion Vs Fox

 

And if you want proof that they did indeed endorse this notion, then it was provided by none other than the head of that organisation, Rupert Murdoch.

 

When asked under oath in his deposition related to the lawsuit, if Fox News hosts had endorsed these false claims, here's the most relevant (and most damning) part of his answers.

 

Quote

Did Fox's Bartiromo endorse it?

 

Murdoch's reply: "Yes. C'mon."

 

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro? "I think so."

 

Then-Fox Business Network host Dobbs? "Oh, a lot."

 

Fox News prime-time star Sean Hannity? "A bit."

 

Pressed whether they endorsed the narrative of a stolen election, Murdoch finally gave in: "Yes. They endorsed."

Rupert Murdoch says Fox stars 'endorsed' lies about 2020

[Longwood50]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Show me where I made such a claim?

 called out your Strawman argument regarding FOX and the statement “The election was rigged”. Ask and you shall receive.

Now  your arguement that the 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

The article also shows how a low county count can result in the number of votes won by Biden. It is not a statistically anomaly as you claim.

Again you are misquoting me.  I did not say it was impossible.  I said it was an anomaly.  That means when tested it was out of the normal range.  As said, you can flip a coin 100 times and get all heads. Can that result, yes.  Is that normal.  No. and neither is winning 477 counties 30% less than the all time low recorded by Obama and getting 11% more vote.  That sir is an anomaly.  His voting pattern did not pass Benfords law which statisticians use to determine when statistics are out of the normal range.  Benfords law is used to determine when things like spending, tax deductions, insurance claims etc are out of statistical and therefore SUSPECT.  It does not prove fraud.  It merely says the numbers presented are significantly out of the range of normal.  

CNBC - President-elect Joe Biden won 477 counties that...

I did say he won 477 counties  I also said that was 30% lower than Obama who previously held the record at 689.  So if you subtract 477 from 689 he won 212 FEWER counties.  212/689 = a decrease of 30.7%.  However he reportedly won 81,284,000 votes compared to Obama at 69,498,516  That is 16% increase over the previous Obama record. 

Winning fewer counties and getting more votes are incongruent. Particular when one considers that Obama was a rock star candidate and Biden was so mediocre he could not win his own parties nomination two previous times. 

Now perhaps you think that is "normal" But then again you may believe in Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.  

 

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Again, you're slightly misrepresenting things by using wording that doesn't quite match what's being used in the lawsuit. 

 

As stated in the Reuters article below, what Dominion claims is that:

 

Dominion Vs Fox

 

And if you want proof that they did indeed endorse this notion, then it was provided by none other than the head of that organisation, Rupert Murdoch.

 

When asked under oath in his deposition related to the lawsuit, if Fox News hosts had endorsed these false claims, here's the most relevant (and most damning) part of his answers.

 

Rupert Murdoch says Fox stars 'endorsed' lies about 2020

Imo there is no doubt about guild, the question is whether the statements from fox were allowable under freedom of the press or not.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

 called out your Strawman argument regarding FOX and the statement “The election was rigged”. Ask and you shall receive.

Now  your arguement that the 

Again you are misquoting me.  I did not say it was impossible.  I said it was an anomaly.  That means when tested it was out of the normal range.  As said, you can flip a coin 100 times and get all heads. Can that result, yes.  Is that normal.  No. and neither is winning 477 counties 30% less than the all time low recorded by Obama and getting 11% more vote.  That sir is an anomaly.  His voting pattern did not pass Benfords law which statisticians use to determine when statistics are out of the normal range.  Benfords law is used to determine when things like spending, tax deductions, insurance claims etc are out of statistical and therefore SUSPECT.  It does not prove fraud.  It merely says the numbers presented are significantly out of the range of normal.  

CNBC - President-elect Joe Biden won 477 counties that...

I did say he won 477 counties  I also said that was 30% lower than Obama who previously held the record at 689.  So if you subtract 477 from 689 he won 212 FEWER counties.  212/689 = a decrease of 30.7%.  However he reportedly won 81,284,000 votes compared to Obama at 69,498,516  That is 16% increase over the previous Obama record. 

Winning fewer counties and getting more votes are incongruent. Particular when one considers that Obama was a rock star candidate and Biden was so mediocre he could not win his own parties nomination two previous times. 

Now perhaps you think that is "normal" But then again you may believe in Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.  

 

You're using preliminary results. He won 527 counties.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

 called out your Strawman argument regarding FOX and the statement “The election was rigged”. Ask and you shall receive.

Now  your arguement that the 

Again you are misquoting me.  I did not say it was impossible.  I said it was an anomaly.  That means when tested it was out of the normal range.  As said, you can flip a coin 100 times and get all heads. Can that result, yes.  Is that normal.  No. and neither is winning 477 counties 30% less than the all time low recorded by Obama and getting 11% more vote.  That sir is an anomaly.  His voting pattern did not pass Benfords law which statisticians use to determine when statistics are out of the normal range.  Benfords law is used to determine when things like spending, tax deductions, insurance claims etc are out of statistical and therefore SUSPECT.  It does not prove fraud.  It merely says the numbers presented are significantly out of the range of normal.  

CNBC - President-elect Joe Biden won 477 counties that...

I did say he won 477 counties  I also said that was 30% lower than Obama who previously held the record at 689.  So if you subtract 477 from 689 he won 212 FEWER counties.  212/689 = a decrease of 30.7%.  However he reportedly won 81,284,000 votes compared to Obama at 69,498,516  That is 16% increase over the previous Obama record. 

Winning fewer counties and getting more votes are incongruent. Particular when one considers that Obama was a rock star candidate and Biden was so mediocre he could not win his own parties nomination two previous times. 

Now perhaps you think that is "normal" But then again you may believe in Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. 

Your coin toss analogy is is ridiculous, polls showed that Biden was far more popular in urban and suburban counties than Trump, and far more people lived in these areas.  They were not fifty-fifty toss-ups.

 

As has been explained with sources, Benford's law is not relevant to this situation.

 

Biden got more votes in densely populated urban and suburban counties because people there were really eager to vote against Trump.  It's just that simple.

[placeholder]

 

 

Not that it's really significant but he actually, he won 551 counties.

How many counties did Biden win? Less than any other president — but he still received more votes than Trump

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). Thus, a look at any national map of the 2020 voting results shows seas of red counties surrounding clusters of blue ones. Yet the reason that Biden counties house 67 million more people than Trump counties lies with the fact that the former dominate large urban core and suburban counties in major metropolitan areas.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/how-many-counties-did-biden-win-less-than-trump-fact-check-b1774513.html

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

 called out your Strawman argument regarding FOX and the statement “The election was rigged”. Ask and you shall receive.

 

Right so when I provide a direct quote from your posts, you think that’s me asserting the truth of your own words.

You are clearly not discussing anything at all in good faith.

 

Why is left for others to conclude.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Imo there is no doubt about guild, the question is whether the statements from fox were allowable under freedom of the press or not.

Don’t confuse freedom to speak with freedom from consequences.

 

Sworn testimony has already been given that FOX chose to disseminate lies in order to protect heir own profits.

 

 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t confuse freedom to speak with freedom from consequences.

 

Sworn testimony has already been given that FOX chose to disseminate lies in order to protect heir own profits.

 

 

And that's what the case is about.