Oodles of Whack-a-doodles. Seriously, if you're watching Faux, what is wrong with you? Pages 24-25.


What was the evidence for these far-fetched claims that Powell sent to Bartiromo the day before the broadcast? An email entitled “Election Fraud Info” Powell had received from a “source” which the author herself describes as “pretty wackadoodle.” Ex.154 at FNN001_0000009-11. This email—also received by Dobbs—alleged Dominion was the “one common thread” in the “voting irregularities in a number of states.” Ex.154 at FNN001_00000009; Ex.98, Bartiromo 123:19-134:13. In addition to promoting lies about Dominion, the sender claimed that Justice Scalia “was purposefully killed at the annual Bohemian Grove camp…during a weeklong human hunting expedition,” and that former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes (who died in 2017) and Rupert Murdoch “secretly huddle most days to determine how best to portray Mr. Trump as badly as possible.” Ex.154 at FNN001_00000010. The author continued: “Who am I? And how do I know all of this?…I’ve had the strangest dreams since I was a little girl….I was internally decapitated, and yet, I live….The Wind tells me I’m a ghost, but I don’t believe it.” Id. at FNN001_00000011; Ex.98, Bartiromo 133:25-134:13. The full force of the email’s lunacy comes across by reading it in its entirety. Ex.154.

Bartiromo agreed at her deposition that this email was “nonsense,” id. 134:11- 13, and inherently unreliable, id. 141:18-24. Yet Bartiromo (and Dobbs) never reported on the existence of this email. Nor did Bartiromo tell her viewers about the source of Powell’s claims or that Trump’s own Senior Advisor and son-in-law rejected the allegations as conspiracy theories. While the claims were laughable on their face, Bartiromo gave them credibility. As Tucker Carlson texted that night, “[t]he software shit is absurd.…Half our viewers have seen the Maria clip.” Ex.169 at FNN035_03890644.

With the number of redactions in Dominion's libel filing, I'm beginning to think that there's information/evidence contained therein that may be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation and/or additional lawsuits. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

There are 2 sides to every story:

Dominion Voting Systems is in big trouble after the filing by FOX News in its case with Dominion yesterday.  FOX News uncovered through its discovery in the case that Dominion’s own employees expressed serious concerns about the security of its machines. 

Dominion Voting Systems sued FOX News for $1.6 billion in a defamation lawsuit in March 2021.  The AP reported on the suit in a very nasty and biased report.

The AP shared:

Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News on Friday, arguing the cable news giant falsely claimed in an effort to boost faltering ratings that the voting company had rigged the 2020 election.

TRENDING: NEVER BEFORE SEEN VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi's Filmmaker Daughter Alexandra Pelosi Caught on Tape REFUTING J6 NARRATIVE - Admitting Jan. 6 Protests Not an Insurrection, DC Courts Too Biased

The lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal action filed by the voting company and other targets of misleading, false and bizarre claims spread by President Donald Trump and his allies in the aftermath of Trump’s election loss to Joe Biden. Those claims helped spur on rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in a violent siege that left five people dead, including a police officer. The siege led to Trump’s historic second impeachment.

The AP included numerous falsities and biases in its report, so much so that it looked like it was written by Dominion.

Since the 2020 Election, there has been a concerted effort by the Mainstream media to protect the results of the election and label anyone or any entity who challenges the uncertifiable results of the 2020 results as an election denier.

On Thursday, FOX News filed a brief in this case with Dominion Voting Systems.  FOX News uncovered some material issues with Dominion and its voting systems.  These items were so serious that Dominion employees expressed concerns about these issues.

Discovery in this case revealed that Dominion’s own employees expressed serious concerns about the security of its machines. 

Mark Beckstrand, a Dominion Sales Manager, confirmed that other parties “have gotten ahold of [Dominion’s] equipment illicitly” in the past.  Beckstrand identified specific instances in Georgia and North Carolina and testified that a Dominion machine was “hacked” in Michigan.  Beckstrand confirmed that these security failures were “reported about in the news.”

And just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Dominion’s Director of Product Strategy and Security, Eric Coomer, acknowledged in private that “our shit is just riddled with bugs.”  Indeed, Coomer had been castigating Dominion’s failures for years. In 2019, Coomer noted that “our products suck.”  He lamented that “[a]lmost all” of Dominion’s technological failings were “due to our complete f— up in installation.”

In another instance, he identified a “*critical* bug leading to INCORRECT results.” Ex.H4, Coomer Email (Jan. 5, 2018). He went on to note: “It does not get much worse than that.” And while many companies might have resolved their errors, Coomer lamented that “we don’t address our weaknesses effectively!”

Other internal documents noted that a glitch identified by a security expert in Antrim County should be detected in the software.  Coomer shared that the expert isn’t entirely wrong.

In addition, after the 2020 Election, Dominion received complaints from Georgia noting irregularities with machine counts that required employees to reprogram the machines.

See entire filling below:

Redacted Public Version FNN… by Jim Hoft

TJ25487 said:

There are 2 sides to every story:

Dominion Voting Systems is in big trouble after the filing by FOX News in its case with Dominion yesterday.  FOX News uncovered through its discovery in the case that Dominion’s own employees expressed serious concerns about the security of its machines. 

Dominion Voting Systems sued FOX News for $1.6 billion in a defamation lawsuit in March 2021.  The AP reported on the suit in a very nasty and biased report.

Advertisement - story continues below

A Simple Trick Helps Solve Vision Problems, Throw Away Your Glasses Now!

Doctors Can’t Explain It But This Fixes Toenail Fungus

The AP shared:

Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News on Friday, arguing the cable news giant falsely claimed in an effort to boost faltering ratings that the voting company had rigged the 2020 election.

TRENDING: NEVER BEFORE SEEN VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi's Filmmaker Daughter Alexandra Pelosi Caught on Tape REFUTING J6 NARRATIVE - Admitting Jan. 6 Protests Not an Insurrection, DC Courts Too Biased

The lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal action filed by the voting company and other targets of misleading, false and bizarre claims spread by President Donald Trump and his allies in the aftermath of Trump’s election loss to Joe Biden. Those claims helped spur on rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in a violent siege that left five people dead, including a police officer. The siege led to Trump’s historic second impeachment.

The AP included numerous falsities and biases in its report, so much so that it looked like it was written by Dominion.

Advertisement - story continues below

4 Signs You May Have Parasites (Do This At Home)

Parabroom

Doctors Stunned: This Removes Wrinkles And Eye-Bags

Derm Le Mar

Since the 2020 Election, there has been a concerted effort by the Mainstream media to protect the results of the election and label anyone or any entity who challenges the uncertifiable results of the 2020 results as an election denier.

On Thursday, FOX News filed a brief in this case with Dominion Voting Systems.  FOX News uncovered some material issues with Dominion and its voting systems.  These items were so serious that Dominion employees expressed concerns about these issues.

Discovery in this case revealed that Dominion’s own employees expressed serious concerns about the security of its machines. 

Mark Beckstrand, a Dominion Sales Manager, confirmed that other parties “have gotten ahold of [Dominion’s] equipment illicitly” in the past.  Beckstrand identified specific instances in Georgia and North Carolina and testified that a Dominion machine was “hacked” in Michigan.  Beckstrand confirmed that these security failures were “reported about in the news.”

And just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Dominion’s Director of Product Strategy and Security, Eric Coomer, acknowledged in private that “our shit is just riddled with bugs.”  Indeed, Coomer had been castigating Dominion’s failures for years. In 2019, Coomer noted that “our products suck.”  He lamented that “[a]lmost all” of Dominion’s technological failings were “due to our complete f— up in installation.”

Advertisement - story continues below

This Superfood is a Godsend for Your Aging Body

Youth Switch

The Secret to Treating Knee Pain is Finally Here

Health Insight Journal

Eat This (Twice a Day) To Melt Belly And Arm Fat Over Night

Liver Renew

In another instance, he identified a “*critical* bug leading to INCORRECT results.” Ex.H4, Coomer Email (Jan. 5, 2018). He went on to note: “It does not get much worse than that.” And while many companies might have resolved their errors, Coomer lamented that “we don’t address our weaknesses effectively!”

Other internal documents noted that a glitch identified by a security expert in Antrim County should be detected in the software.  Coomer shared that the expert isn’t entirely wrong.

In addition, after the 2020 Election, Dominion received complaints from Georgia noting irregularities with machine counts that required employees to reprogram the machines.

Advertisement - story continues below

Forge Strategic Alliances With Others In This Hit Browser Game.

Urologist: Enlarged Prostate? Do This Immediately (Genius!)

See entire filling below:

Redacted Public Version FNN… by Jim Hoft

Why yes, there are two sides to every story, that's true. But its also true that one side may have verifiable and irrefutable facts while the other may have conjecture, bullshit and wishful thinking. From Pages 68-73 of Dominion's filing. Pay particular attention to the words and sentences in quotes or with reference numbers after them, as they are things said and alleged in Faux News' broadcasts. I really look forward to this going to trial. And sure, Dominion is in "big trouble." More like Faux is.

e. Fox’s lack of evidence

Fox has nothing to rebut this evidence. Its corporate representative offered no evidence of vote flipping, manipulating, dumping, adding, or deleting by Dominion or its software and has conceded that he has not seen evidence of votes for Donald Trump blowing up the algorithm or the vote-flipping evidence that Powell referenced on air, Ex.127, Lowell 30(b)(6) 127:6-14, 179:3-180:5, 185:19-186:5, and conceded that Fox does not have evidence to support that Dominion had an algorithm used to modify the votes to make sure Biden won, id. 126:5-127:5.

Indeed, Fox appears not to contest numerous statements that fall under the algorithm lie. For example, in its responses to Dominion’s Requests for Admissions, Fox does not contest (instead claiming it can neither admit nor deny) that “there is not an algorithm that Dominion used and planned to use from the beginning to modify the votes in this case to make sure Biden won,” Ex.319, No.212 (¶¶179(a, g, j, n, o, q)); “Dominion does not allow votes to be mirrored and monitored,” id. No.208 (¶179(g)); “Dominion did not run an algorithm that shaved votes,” id. No.219 (¶179(m, n)); “Dominion did not use an algorithm to calculate the votes they would need to flip and use computers to flip those votes from Trump to Biden,” id. No.202 (¶179(a)); and “Dominion did not have algorithms that would stop the vote count and go in and replace votes for Biden and take away Trump votes,” id. No.204 (¶179(a)); see also No.225 (admitting Trump did not “blow up” the algorithm) (¶179(q)).

Nor could Fox credibly argue otherwise. Multiple Fox witnesses have admitted under oath at depositions that the algorithm lie was false or lacked evidentiary support. See, e.g., Ex.96, Andrews 31:22-32:2; Ex.111, Dobbs 87:13-25, 90:15-91:15; Ex.105, Carlson 163:21-24; Ex.121, Grossberg 263:5-10; Ex.135, Pirro 89:3-13; Ex.146, Stirewalt 154:20-155:17; Ex.145, Smith 34:15-22, 35:14-22.

Nonetheless, Fox has said that it plans to offer evidence that “some votes were flipped,” though Fox couldn’t say what evidence that might be. Ex.127, Lowell 30(b)(6) 53:5-13. To the extent Fox’s focus appears to be the isolated incident in Antrim County, Michigan, that was human error by a local election official; it caused inaccuracies in unofficial election results of the Presidential Election; and government officials repeatedly confirmed Dominion’s system had correctly tabulated votes. See, supra, §I.A.2.c. Michigan officials also confirmed they would have caught the error during canvassing, if not caught earlier (as it was). See id.

But even assuming that inadvertent human error by an election official that caused erroneous unofficial reporting constitutes “vote flipping” by Dominion, that proposition would not avoid summary judgment on the lie that Dominion’s software and algorithms manipulated vote counts in the 2020 Presidential Election. Fox’s statements did not charge Dominion with merely having software susceptible to user error that could cause inaccurate unofficial reporting. The algorithm lie is far broader. And “[a] plea of truth as justification must be as broad as the alleged libel and must establish the truth of the precise charge therein made.” Crane v. New York World Telegram Corp., 308 N.Y. 470, 475 (N.Y. 1955).

Beyond asserting that Dominion flipped votes, Fox falsely stated that Dominion designed a vote-flipping algorithm, used “backdoors” and “embedded controllers,” and for the purpose of committing fraud monitored, flipped, added, and/or deleted votes, and not just “some votes,” in an isolated county, but “millions” of votes across the country. None of that is true for all the reasons explained above. Thus, even setting aside all references to Antrim County, or even more broadly references to “vote flipping,” the statements remain absolutely false.

Fox’s other apparent critique is that Dominion voting systems have “vulnerabilities” that could allow a malicious actor to breach the system under some circumstances. But that is a red herring: Dominion has not sued for defamation about any statement asserting that Dominion voting systems had alleged vulnerabilities. (Italics are mine in reference to the purported red underlined documents in the post to which I'm replying).

Furthermore, the existence of vulnerabilities does not cover the breadth of the false charges in two ways. Crane, 308 N.Y. at 475. First, this category’s statements indicated Dominion flipped votes, ¶179(e), Dominion could watch votes, ¶179(g), Dominion notifies government officials, ¶179(g), and Dominion sent votes overseas, ¶179(i)—all of which link supposed action by Dominion to the flipping of votes. Security vulnerabilities that theoretically could be breached by an unknown individual are far different, and not “as broad,” as Fox’s false charges about Dominion.

Second, Fox did not frame the lies as a hypothetical. Unlike the assertion that voting machines have vulnerabilities, Fox’s statements alleged manipulation actually occurred through software, algorithms, and external control by Dominion. For example, Sidney Powell declared on a December 10, 2020 airing of Lou Dobbs Tonight, “We now have reams and reams of actual documents from Smartmatic and Dominion, including evidence that they planned and executed all of this....We have evidence of how they flipped the votes, how it was designed to flip the votes. And that all of it has been happening just as we’ve been saying it has been.” ¶179(q). These statements do not concern “vulnerabilities.” They revolve around the false charge of planned and designed vote flipping that actually occurred. As Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer put it when asked by Fox if “concerns” about “the use of voter tabulation” were new in 2020: “I think we went pretty quickly from saying crime could be a problem to person X, Y, Z to Mrs. White with the rope in the study committed the crime.” Ex.139, Richer 108:15-22.

To be clear, as explained above, Fox has zero evidence to suggest Dominion used its software to manipulate votes. And in particular, Fox has admitted Powell never provided the “reams” of proof claimed on air. See Ex.128, Lowell 30(b)(6) 285:6-13; see also Ex.319, RFA No.222 (not denying that Powell lacked credible evidence of how Dominion flipped votes). In fact, Fox host Lou Dobbs admitted that Powell did not reveal such evidence on his show or anywhere else. Ex.111, Dobbs 269:2-271:5.

And in fact, there is zero evidence that any security breach related to Dominion’s systems actually occurred in the 2020 Presidential Election. In fact, Fox’s own expert Dan Wallach confirmed in a November 16, 2020 letter, signed by himself and 58 other scientists, that there was “no credible evidence” of the claim of rigging through exploitation of technical vulnerabilities. Ex.315 (“Merely citing the existence of technical flaws does not establish that an attack occurred, much less that it altered an election outcome.”). At his deposition, Professor Wallach maintained that this letter was correct. Ex.95, Wallach 7:12-9:5.

No reasonable juror could find that Dominion or its software flipped votes in the 2020 Presidential Election. Summary judgment of the falsity of all accused broadcasts containing the algorithm lie, ¶¶179(a), 179(c)-179(q), is thus also proper. 

Halifax2TheMax said:

What type of a legitimate "news" organization conducts itself as such? Oh, when the lead personalities own stock and are paid in stock options as part of their compensation packages. Yea, no reason there to lie to your audience. Ratings, stock value decline, you know, motive. And you have to love all the case law references to back their allegations. Pages 87-91.

V. Fox Acted with Actual Malice.

Over and over again—as the Introduction and Factual Background demonstrate—Fox witnesses have admitted in their own words they knew the allegations about Dominion were “false” or “crazy” or “reckless” or “nuts” or “bs.” Yet Fox continued to broadcast them. Repeatedly. Over nearly three months.

Actual malice exists when a statement is made with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Palin, 940 F.3d at 809 (internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, a plaintiff can prove actual malice “through the defendant’s own actions or statements.” Celle, 209 F.3d at 183 (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). “The subjective determination of whether [the defendant] in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement may be proved by inference, as it would be rare for a defendant to admit such doubts.” Solano, 292 F.3d at 1085 (quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 692 F.2d 189, 196 (1st Cir. 1982); see also Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 170 (1979) (noting that “plaintiffs will rarely be successful in proving awareness of falsehood from the mouth of the defendant himself” in the context of allowing plaintiffs to explore circumstantial evidence of knowledge of falsity). This is the rare case where such direct evidence exists.

A plaintiff also can prove actual malice through circumstantial evidence, rather than “from the mouth of the defendant,” because defendants “are prone to assert their good-faith belief in the truth of their publications.” Lando, 441 U.S. at 170. Circumstantial evidence of actual malice comes in many forms. Categories of such evidence include evidence that the defendant: (1) relied on inherently improbable or obviously unreliable sources, see St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 (1968); Zuckerbrot v. Lande, 167 N.Y.S.3d 313, 335-336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022); (2) possessed a financial motive to lie about the plaintiff, see Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 668 (1989); Gilmore v. Jones, 2021 WL 68684, at *8 (W.D. Va. Jan. 8, 2021); (2) relied on inherently improbable or obviously unreliable sources, see St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732; Zuckerbrot v. Lande, 167 N.Y.S.3d 313, 335-336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022); (3) departed from journalistic standards, see Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 667-68; Eramo v. Rolling Stone, LLC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 862, 872 (W.D. Va. 2016); (4) conceived of the false narrative before publication, see Palin, 940 F.3d at 813; Harris v. City of Seattle, 152 F. App’x 565, 568 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished); and (5) refused to retract, and continued to repeat, statements that had been proven false, see Nunes v. Lizza, 12 F.4th 890, 900-901 (8th Cir. 2021); Zerangue v. TSP Newspapers, Inc., 814 F.2d 1066, 1071-1072 (5th Cir. 1987). See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts §580A cmt. (d). No one factor need be conclusive, and actual malice can be demonstrated by the “accumulation” of circumstantial evidence. Celle, 209 F.3d at 183; see Stern v. Cosby, 645 F. Supp. 2d 258, 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

An organizational defendant, just like any other, is subject to liability when it acts with actual malice. Because an organization necessarily acts through individuals, in such cases, “the state of mind required for actual malice” must “be brought home to the persons in the [defendant’s] organization having responsibility for the publication.” Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 287. This requirement, which stems from Sullivan itself, prevents the imposition of liability against a corporate entity solely because some person, somewhere within a vast media organization, possesses knowledge that contradicts the defamatory allegations. Id. (concluding that the “mere presence” of news stories in the Times’ files that contradicted details in the accused advertisement did not establish actual malice, as no individual responsible for the advertisement copy would have had knowledge of the prior news stories). But so long as actual malice is brought home to “at least” one individual who is responsible for the publication of the defamatory statement, the actual malice requirement is satisfied. Page v. Oath Inc., 270 A.3d 833, 850 (Del. 2022); see also Solano, 292 F.3d at 1086 (editorial staff members’ concerns about defamatory statements satisfied actual malice even if staffers were not “the final decisionmakers as to the content”).

As discussed extensively in the Introduction and Factual Background, supra, this case is the rare defamation case with extensive direct evidence of actual malice. The very fact that Fox understood it had to “thread the needle” of appeasing viewers on the one hand, and not spreading election fraud conspiracy theories on the other, demonstrates that Fox knew these claims about Dominion were false. Ex.252. (Three lines redacted). Ex.330. Fox’s many, many other documents and testimony all confirm the same.

Section A below establishes that Fox had the facts necessary to debunk the accused statements about Dominion, from extensive public record sources and direct communications from Dominion pointing to that evidence, and Fox either knowingly or recklessly disregarded those facts.

Section B explains how individuals throughout Fox’s organization knew the statements were false, illustrating at minimum the reckless disregard of their colleagues who nevertheless broadcast those lies. Together, parts A and B sufficiently establish Fox’s actual malice; but the evidence does not stop there.

Section C discusses the executives responsible for the accused programs’ knowledge or reckless disregard of the truth, and Section D walks through the team of hosts and producers, as well as the aforementioned executives, responsible for each program and highlights additional evidence—on top of what has already been set forth in the Factual Background above and Sections A and B below— demonstrating they likewise knew or recklessly disregarded the truth.

Though unnecessary in light of the overwhelming evidence in Sections A and B, plus the additional evidence in Sections C and D, Section E provides circumstantial evidence further underscoring Fox’s actual malice.

Actual malice requires knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard by any one of the people sharing responsibility for a broadcast. Page, 270 A.3d at 850; Solano, 292 F.3d at 1086; Speer v. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., 828 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir. 1987). Here, every person acted with actual malice.

Sounds like in this case there is one side of the story backed up with evidence and testimony and another side backed up by unhinged lunatics with no proof, that desperately want to be correct.

Wow, imagine that? Pay particular attention to Footnote number 16 and the sentence it refers to. Also know that the section immediately following it has been redacted. Why is that? Ongoing criminal investigation or criminal/civil liability? Again, why anyone chooses this network to be "informed" is beyond me. Pages 127-128. Oh, and LSD, cocaine, heroin and shrooms, oh my!

c. November 16 Broadcast

On November 16, Powell returned to Dobbs’ program and repeated the same falsehoods about the creation of Dominion’s software, claiming that a “high-ranking military officer” was present when the software was designed to “change the vote of each voter without being detected.” Ex.8 at DOM_0071654722. When Dobbs prompted her about the relationship, she cut him off and said “Smartmatic owns Dominion,”16 to which he replied “yes.” Id. at DOM_0071654724. See ¶179(h); Appendix D (fraud, algorithm, and Venezuela lies).

Earlier that very same day, Field and Hooper had received an email from Fox colleague Eric Schaeffer with the subject line “AP ON WHO OWNS DOMINION,” linking to an AP article debunking ownership claims about Dominion and citing in the body of the email Dominion’s CEO John Poulos’s Congressional testimony that an American private equity firm majority-owns Dominion, and Poulos (a Canadian) owns 12%. Ex.439.

16 The produced transcripts omit this statement in the exchange between Dobbs and Powell. However, one can hear it clearly made in the video (as noted in Appendix D). Ex.27 at 04:20-4:24.

Fawcett likewise had reason to doubt Powell’s credibility, texting others at Fox prior to the November 16 broadcast that he believed Powell was “doing lsd and cocaine and heroin and shrooms.” Ex.442. But none of Dobbs’ producers prevented Powell from spouting the lies on air that evening, or corrected her claims in the rebroadcast. 

Good article. Good follow on twitter too....

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/watching-tucker-carlson-for-work

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1630328055049728001

Rupert just put a nail in the coffin I think...

These are testimonies during the deposition phase and as filed in Dominion’s request for a summary judgement. Having read the whole document filing, me thinks Faux is fucked if this goes to trial. The case that Dominion makes is a strong one but as one of our Gateway Punditeers put it, “there’s two sides to every story.”

The NY case law cited and the documentary evidence provided is overwhelming, IMHO. These people act like facts don’t exist.