https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/busi ... -news.html
Tucker is out of the building.
Fox paying $787,500,000
-
Fun CH
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
-
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Backstory of the secret mediator brought in over the weekend - who was on vacation floating down the Danube River - to bring the two sides to agreement.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/media/fo ... index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/media/fo ... index.html
-
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Mike Lindell the My Pillow Guy just lost $5 million to the guy who proved that his claim that the Chinese...
next up defending the $1.3 billion lawsuit by Dominion
WaPo:
'MyPillow founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell made a bold offer ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota: He claimed he had data showing Chinese interference and said he would pay $5 million to anyone who could prove the material was not from the previous year’s U.S. election.
He called the challenge “Prove Mike Wrong.”
On Wednesday, a private arbitration panel ruled that someone had.
The panel said Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and 63-year-old Trump voter from Nevada, was entitled to the $5 million payout.
Zeidman had examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it not only did not prove voter fraud, it had no connection to the 2020 election. He was the only expert who submitted a claim, arbitration records show.
He turned to the arbitrators after Lindell Management, which created the contest, refused to pay him.
In their 23-page decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.” They directed Lindell’s firm to pay Zeidman within 30 days.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Zeidman said he was “really happy” with the arbitrators’ decision. “They clearly saw this as I did — that the data we were given at the symposium was not at all what Mr. Lindell said it was,” he said. “The truth is finally out there.”
Zeidman’s attorney Brian Glasser said that the panel’s decision stood as a warning to others who made wild allegations about election fraud. “I think the arbitrators thought it important that these claims be vetted, because they’ve done great harm to our country,” he said.
Lindell said in a text to The Post, “They made a terribly wrong decision! This will be going to court!" His attorneys did not reply to a request seeking comment.
A copy of contest rules submitted in the arbitration said disputes would be “resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration” and noted that arbitration “is subject to very limited review by courts.”
Glasser said that the panel’s decision cannot be directly appealed but that Lindell could ask a federal court to quash it on the basis that it represented a “manifest injustice.” The statutory grounds for such a claim are narrow and it is “extremely rare” for such a claim to succeed, according to Glasser.
Lindell also faces a $1.3 billion defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems and a defamation lawsuit from one of Dominion’s former executives.'
next up defending the $1.3 billion lawsuit by Dominion
WaPo:
'MyPillow founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell made a bold offer ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota: He claimed he had data showing Chinese interference and said he would pay $5 million to anyone who could prove the material was not from the previous year’s U.S. election.
He called the challenge “Prove Mike Wrong.”
On Wednesday, a private arbitration panel ruled that someone had.
The panel said Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and 63-year-old Trump voter from Nevada, was entitled to the $5 million payout.
Zeidman had examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it not only did not prove voter fraud, it had no connection to the 2020 election. He was the only expert who submitted a claim, arbitration records show.
He turned to the arbitrators after Lindell Management, which created the contest, refused to pay him.
In their 23-page decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.” They directed Lindell’s firm to pay Zeidman within 30 days.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Zeidman said he was “really happy” with the arbitrators’ decision. “They clearly saw this as I did — that the data we were given at the symposium was not at all what Mr. Lindell said it was,” he said. “The truth is finally out there.”
Zeidman’s attorney Brian Glasser said that the panel’s decision stood as a warning to others who made wild allegations about election fraud. “I think the arbitrators thought it important that these claims be vetted, because they’ve done great harm to our country,” he said.
Lindell said in a text to The Post, “They made a terribly wrong decision! This will be going to court!" His attorneys did not reply to a request seeking comment.
A copy of contest rules submitted in the arbitration said disputes would be “resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration” and noted that arbitration “is subject to very limited review by courts.”
Glasser said that the panel’s decision cannot be directly appealed but that Lindell could ask a federal court to quash it on the basis that it represented a “manifest injustice.” The statutory grounds for such a claim are narrow and it is “extremely rare” for such a claim to succeed, according to Glasser.
Lindell also faces a $1.3 billion defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems and a defamation lawsuit from one of Dominion’s former executives.'
-
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Very interesting piece about the challenges the shareholders' suits against Murdoch's board will face.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... _6e7tZ07C8
'When Fox Corp (FOXA.O) agreed on Tuesday to pay $787.5 million to settle defamation claims by Dominion Voting Systems Corp, it gave shareholder lawyers exactly what they needed to sue Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the Fox board.
The nine-figure settlement is tangible evidence of the consequences of Fox’s reporting on election fraud claims by supporters of former President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
Last month, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis told the world that Fox aired dozens of false statements about Dominion. Tuesday's settlement resolves any remaining doubt that the network's decision to broadcast the false statements came at a high cost.
With that proof in hand, plaintiffs lawyers are now poised to bring lawsuits accusing Murdoch and other Fox board members of breaching their fiduciary oversight duties by failing to block the network’s flawed reporting, despite red-flag warnings.
One such shareholder complaint is already on file in Delaware Chancery Court. And based on my conversations on Tuesday night with four prominent shareholder lawyers, all of whom asked to remain anonymous as they solidify their legal strategies, additional lawsuits against Fox officers and directors are on the way.
At least two shareholder firms have already demanded to see Fox’s internal corporate records as they investigate the board's conduct. These books-and-records demands under Delaware’s corporate code are often a harbinger of litigation against board members, as my Reuters colleagues Jody Godoy and Helen Coster reported on Tuesday.
A Fox Corp spokesperson declined to comment on the prospective breach of duty litigation.
When shareholders accuse board members of botching their oversight duties, they typically bring their claims on behalf of the corporation itself, arguing that shareholders must step in to sue directors and officers because board members can’t be trusted to represent the company’s interests.
These cases, known as derivative suits, face a unique early obstacle: Shareholders have to convince the judge that it would have been pointless to ask board members to sue on behalf of the company. They typically argue that board members wouldn’t approve litigation that would expose themselves to liability, or that directors are so closely tied to a dominant shareholder – in this case, Rupert Murdoch and his family – that they can’t make independent decisions.
If shareholders can establish their right to sue on the company’s behalf, they must then show that Fox’s board members acted so egregiously that their actions can’t be attributed merely to an error in judgment.
The law in Delaware, where Fox is incorporated, gives corporate board members wide leeway under what’s known as the business judgment rule. As long as directors have acted with good faith and reasonable care, they generally can’t be held liable even when their actions turn out to have bad consequences for the company. Business judgment doctrine provides such powerful protection that for decades, shareholder claims against board members who allegedly breached their oversight duties were considered to be nearly impossible to win.
That’s recently changed, as shareholders have capitalized on Delaware precedent that precludes boards from endorsing illegal conduct under the guise of boosting shareholder value. Both Boeing Co and Blue Bell Creameries, for instance, paid millions to settle derivative suits in the wake of U.S. Justice Department investigations.
So a key question in any prospective case against Fox directors will be whether defamation is outside of the bounds of legality. Fox hasn’t been accused of a crime by state or federal prosecutors, after all. It hasn’t even, as a technical matter, been found liable for defamation, since it settled with Dominion before any judgment against the company. The settlement, moreover, allowed Fox to avoid a direct admission that its reporting was false.
Fox board members will probably argue that the network's election fraud coverage was justifiable, both journalistically and as a matter of business judgment.
Dominion, as you probably recall, uncovered copious evidence that Fox executives were worried about losing audience share to far-right competitors in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Dominion contended that Fox leaders, including Murdoch, knew election fraud claims by Trump and his allies were baseless, yet continued to air their accusations for fear of driving away Fox viewers.
In a derivative suit, Fox board members may argue that the network's coverage decisions were simply good business. (One plaintiffs lawyer told me such an argument would be a stretch: “If the name of your company is Fox News," he said, "it’s not in your job description to proliferate lies.")
Directors might also contend that Fox made a defensible editorial decision to air election fraud assertions from Trump allies amid nationwide post-election turmoil. The company, after all, has argued throughout the Dominion litigation, as well as in a parallel billion-dollar defamation case brought by voting technology company Smartmatic USA Corp, that the allegations themselves were newsworthy enough to warrant coverage.
We'll see how that assertion plays with the Delaware judge, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster, who has been assigned to oversee the first Fox derivative suit and will almost certainly preside over additional lawsuits.
Laster has plenty of experience with this sort of derivative oversight suit. Last December, he tossed a derivative case accusing directors of pharmaceutical distributor AmerisourceBergen Corp of ignoring red-flag warnings that opioids were being fraudulently prescribed, even though the company has paid out billions of dollars in opioid-related litigation. But just a month later, Laster issued a groundbreaking decision that shareholders could proceed with claims against a former McDonald’s Corp executive accused of fostering a corporate culture in which sexual misconduct flourished.
Dominion’s closely-watched case against Fox has already offered a primer on defamation law in the U.S. Get ready for a similar education in Delaware shareholder derivative litigation.'
https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... _6e7tZ07C8
'When Fox Corp (FOXA.O) agreed on Tuesday to pay $787.5 million to settle defamation claims by Dominion Voting Systems Corp, it gave shareholder lawyers exactly what they needed to sue Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the Fox board.
The nine-figure settlement is tangible evidence of the consequences of Fox’s reporting on election fraud claims by supporters of former President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
Last month, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis told the world that Fox aired dozens of false statements about Dominion. Tuesday's settlement resolves any remaining doubt that the network's decision to broadcast the false statements came at a high cost.
With that proof in hand, plaintiffs lawyers are now poised to bring lawsuits accusing Murdoch and other Fox board members of breaching their fiduciary oversight duties by failing to block the network’s flawed reporting, despite red-flag warnings.
One such shareholder complaint is already on file in Delaware Chancery Court. And based on my conversations on Tuesday night with four prominent shareholder lawyers, all of whom asked to remain anonymous as they solidify their legal strategies, additional lawsuits against Fox officers and directors are on the way.
At least two shareholder firms have already demanded to see Fox’s internal corporate records as they investigate the board's conduct. These books-and-records demands under Delaware’s corporate code are often a harbinger of litigation against board members, as my Reuters colleagues Jody Godoy and Helen Coster reported on Tuesday.
A Fox Corp spokesperson declined to comment on the prospective breach of duty litigation.
When shareholders accuse board members of botching their oversight duties, they typically bring their claims on behalf of the corporation itself, arguing that shareholders must step in to sue directors and officers because board members can’t be trusted to represent the company’s interests.
These cases, known as derivative suits, face a unique early obstacle: Shareholders have to convince the judge that it would have been pointless to ask board members to sue on behalf of the company. They typically argue that board members wouldn’t approve litigation that would expose themselves to liability, or that directors are so closely tied to a dominant shareholder – in this case, Rupert Murdoch and his family – that they can’t make independent decisions.
If shareholders can establish their right to sue on the company’s behalf, they must then show that Fox’s board members acted so egregiously that their actions can’t be attributed merely to an error in judgment.
The law in Delaware, where Fox is incorporated, gives corporate board members wide leeway under what’s known as the business judgment rule. As long as directors have acted with good faith and reasonable care, they generally can’t be held liable even when their actions turn out to have bad consequences for the company. Business judgment doctrine provides such powerful protection that for decades, shareholder claims against board members who allegedly breached their oversight duties were considered to be nearly impossible to win.
That’s recently changed, as shareholders have capitalized on Delaware precedent that precludes boards from endorsing illegal conduct under the guise of boosting shareholder value. Both Boeing Co and Blue Bell Creameries, for instance, paid millions to settle derivative suits in the wake of U.S. Justice Department investigations.
So a key question in any prospective case against Fox directors will be whether defamation is outside of the bounds of legality. Fox hasn’t been accused of a crime by state or federal prosecutors, after all. It hasn’t even, as a technical matter, been found liable for defamation, since it settled with Dominion before any judgment against the company. The settlement, moreover, allowed Fox to avoid a direct admission that its reporting was false.
Fox board members will probably argue that the network's election fraud coverage was justifiable, both journalistically and as a matter of business judgment.
Dominion, as you probably recall, uncovered copious evidence that Fox executives were worried about losing audience share to far-right competitors in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Dominion contended that Fox leaders, including Murdoch, knew election fraud claims by Trump and his allies were baseless, yet continued to air their accusations for fear of driving away Fox viewers.
In a derivative suit, Fox board members may argue that the network's coverage decisions were simply good business. (One plaintiffs lawyer told me such an argument would be a stretch: “If the name of your company is Fox News," he said, "it’s not in your job description to proliferate lies.")
Directors might also contend that Fox made a defensible editorial decision to air election fraud assertions from Trump allies amid nationwide post-election turmoil. The company, after all, has argued throughout the Dominion litigation, as well as in a parallel billion-dollar defamation case brought by voting technology company Smartmatic USA Corp, that the allegations themselves were newsworthy enough to warrant coverage.
We'll see how that assertion plays with the Delaware judge, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster, who has been assigned to oversee the first Fox derivative suit and will almost certainly preside over additional lawsuits.
Laster has plenty of experience with this sort of derivative oversight suit. Last December, he tossed a derivative case accusing directors of pharmaceutical distributor AmerisourceBergen Corp of ignoring red-flag warnings that opioids were being fraudulently prescribed, even though the company has paid out billions of dollars in opioid-related litigation. But just a month later, Laster issued a groundbreaking decision that shareholders could proceed with claims against a former McDonald’s Corp executive accused of fostering a corporate culture in which sexual misconduct flourished.
Dominion’s closely-watched case against Fox has already offered a primer on defamation law in the U.S. Get ready for a similar education in Delaware shareholder derivative litigation.'
-
mister_coffee
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
- Location: Winthrop, WA
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Well, people are free to bring lawsuits to be made whole when they are harmed. Those lawsuits are handled with a (more or less) fair and (pretty) open and transparent process and we can all tell if the results are reasonable.
What we get from that is that Fox News, as an organization (meaning a lot of people in the chain of command) knew that they were pushing a lie (that the election was stolen) and that in particular there was no evidence that Dominion voting machines had been tampered with. The fact that there is a paper (well, electronic) trail showing that they knew that and openly acknowledged that but said very different things in public means they held a losing hand. So they settled so Dominion will get some money now rather than waiting years for this to go through appeals.
Of course, settling for this amount after much of the discovery in the Dominion case has been made public makes Fox News an easy target for other lawsuits. And the shareholders can go after the directors and officers directly as well (the corporate liability shield doesn't do you much good when you do something this stupid).
What we get from that is that Fox News, as an organization (meaning a lot of people in the chain of command) knew that they were pushing a lie (that the election was stolen) and that in particular there was no evidence that Dominion voting machines had been tampered with. The fact that there is a paper (well, electronic) trail showing that they knew that and openly acknowledged that but said very different things in public means they held a losing hand. So they settled so Dominion will get some money now rather than waiting years for this to go through appeals.
Of course, settling for this amount after much of the discovery in the Dominion case has been made public makes Fox News an easy target for other lawsuits. And the shareholders can go after the directors and officers directly as well (the corporate liability shield doesn't do you much good when you do something this stupid).
David Bonn 
-
dorankj
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
- Contact:
-
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
When any media outlet, right, left or foreign intentionally lies to its viewers, particularly to make money, it has to be held accountable.
Problem is the Conservative Right leaning outlets are the only ones who engaged in such egreigeous lying - repeatedly. If there is a circumstance where another media outlet is provably caught lying sign me up as wanting to see them pay just like Fox.
In the meantime I hear lots of rumors, lots of opinions but zip when it comes to real proof that any outlets but the far Right are engaging in these conspiracies.
So, for now, Fox doesn't have a finger pointing whataboutism leg to stand on.
Problem is the Conservative Right leaning outlets are the only ones who engaged in such egreigeous lying - repeatedly. If there is a circumstance where another media outlet is provably caught lying sign me up as wanting to see them pay just like Fox.
In the meantime I hear lots of rumors, lots of opinions but zip when it comes to real proof that any outlets but the far Right are engaging in these conspiracies.
So, for now, Fox doesn't have a finger pointing whataboutism leg to stand on.
-
dorankj
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Well, you need to maintain the same standard! You can’t sustain heads you win and tails I loose for every subject or ignore when the same standard you’re promoting is hypocrisy.
-
mister_coffee
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
- Location: Winthrop, WA
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
The coming shareholder lawsuits are what have the Murdochs terrified.
David Bonn -
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Who told you that Hunter Biden's laptop was filled with information on crimes he had committed? Where did you get that information?
The same sources that you use have told the same lies that Fox, Jones, Bannon, OAN, Newsmax told - they circle source each other. So that's the point, they all tell the same lies. You may not think you get your information from Fox but Fox told the same conspiracies as your sources do - look at all the fact checking I've done on your posts - and so when Fox is outted by a court of law with evidence from within their own company in the form of emails and texts those lies that they shared with the outlets you use are just as much lies even though they were spoken by a different pundit. They're all the same lie.
I have zero inclination to tell you where to get your news but when you come here and repeat the lies that Fox gave you, even through a different source, I'll still step up and fact check. And again, if you are trusting the same guys who just agreed to pay 3/4 billion $ because they lied to their viewers, then you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
The same sources that you use have told the same lies that Fox, Jones, Bannon, OAN, Newsmax told - they circle source each other. So that's the point, they all tell the same lies. You may not think you get your information from Fox but Fox told the same conspiracies as your sources do - look at all the fact checking I've done on your posts - and so when Fox is outted by a court of law with evidence from within their own company in the form of emails and texts those lies that they shared with the outlets you use are just as much lies even though they were spoken by a different pundit. They're all the same lie.
I have zero inclination to tell you where to get your news but when you come here and repeat the lies that Fox gave you, even through a different source, I'll still step up and fact check. And again, if you are trusting the same guys who just agreed to pay 3/4 billion $ because they lied to their viewers, then you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
-
dorankj
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Rideback, you don’t get to assign what ‘news’ sources I must follow and then impugn me based on your perception of them. I have only ever utilized info from 2 of those sources at most and like most sources, none are 100% accurate all the time. Which is my point, you all gloating and dancing (making assumptions that aren’t proven) while the exact same thing happens often to many other sources is just willful hypocrisy! And most definitely Hunter’s laptop shows obvious and pervasive corruption but we were all told that it wasn’t even true to effect an election. Who is the “Big Guy” and what exactly were any Biden’s paid millions from foreigners for?
-
Fun CH
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
nothing is wrong with asking for consistency on how law is pursued.
Don't know about that outrage thing. People's POV's and bias vary and determine what emotion is directed where. Post hoc reasoning then follows, often emotional, nasty, illogical and contrary to the facts.
I don't know if I answered your questions, which were perhaps rhetorical, so please expound on your point if you feel so inclined to do so.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
-
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Ken, going back I do hope that you are recognizing that the same Fox news, OAN, AlexJones and Newsmax as well as the Bannon and you tube crowd that have now been exposed as liars are the ones who have told you that Hunter Biden's laptop was filled with fraud and corruption, that Ivermectin was a good tool against Covid and of course that the Democrats are never held accountable. They lied to you. They have now admitted that they knowingly told consumers that they lied.
Unfortunately, they're still lying and people are still believing their lies.
Unfortunately, they're still lying and people are still believing their lies.
-
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Apparently the Fox shareholders are none too pleased and have filed a lawsuit. Under Delaware law they are entitled to not just Board mtg minutes but insider docs, texts etc.
https://www.rawstory.com/dominion-votin ... 659881945/
The judge had ruled that it was 'crystal clear' that statements made by Fox were outright lies. That judgment left hanging whether or not Dominion could get 12 jurors to agree that Fox lied with malice which is the toughest point to prove in a defammation trial. In this case, Dominion had the strongest case on record that most likely would make them prevail but in court cases there's always the chance of one holdout juror which would toss the whole case.
Newsmax and OAN carried the same conspiracy stories, lawsuits against them are pending.
https://www.rawstory.com/dominion-votin ... 659881945/
The judge had ruled that it was 'crystal clear' that statements made by Fox were outright lies. That judgment left hanging whether or not Dominion could get 12 jurors to agree that Fox lied with malice which is the toughest point to prove in a defammation trial. In this case, Dominion had the strongest case on record that most likely would make them prevail but in court cases there's always the chance of one holdout juror which would toss the whole case.
Newsmax and OAN carried the same conspiracy stories, lawsuits against them are pending.
-
dorankj
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
What exactly is wrong with asking for some sort of consistency in what and who we are outraged at, why and how law is pursued?
-
Fun CH
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Deflection much?
" there you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave
And keep on thinking free."
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
-
Fun CH
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Meanwhile on Twitter, many can't seem to comprehend that "the big lie" is a big lie. This is to be expected as we all see and process reality through our own filters.
But first Fox News Statement.
"We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues."
Fox acknowledges here that the Court ruled that Fox lied. That question was settled by the judge even before the trial began and Fox could not argue before the jury that they didn't lie. Fox could argue only whether or not that lie was done with malice.
And yet the true believers say this on Adam Kinzinger's Twitter feed
"CJ Woods
@Woodsj6111
·
19h
When is CNN, NBC, MSNBC going to admit the same thing?
Until they do, this is just noise RINO Pilot!"
"Lynette Miller
@Netpetjet1st
Settlements don’t mean an admission of guilt! What a jackwagon! They simply felt it was easier and less expensive in the long run to settle. Sad really that it is cheaper to settle than defend the truth."
"Jody Winegrad
@jodyw5977
·
19h
Did they really admit it? To me it just seemed like a payoff!"
"
@Bender_82
·
8h
It's just as much of a lie to claim that there was no fraud, because there is no way of knowing!"
"
Rearly1
@Rearly1
·
19h
Not sure if they lied but they did settle."
"Ivan’s Thoughts
@Ivans_thoughts
·
19h
They all lie my man. All mainstream media lies."
But first Fox News Statement.
"We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues."
Fox acknowledges here that the Court ruled that Fox lied. That question was settled by the judge even before the trial began and Fox could not argue before the jury that they didn't lie. Fox could argue only whether or not that lie was done with malice.
And yet the true believers say this on Adam Kinzinger's Twitter feed
"CJ Woods
@Woodsj6111
·
19h
When is CNN, NBC, MSNBC going to admit the same thing?
Until they do, this is just noise RINO Pilot!"
"Lynette Miller
@Netpetjet1st
Settlements don’t mean an admission of guilt! What a jackwagon! They simply felt it was easier and less expensive in the long run to settle. Sad really that it is cheaper to settle than defend the truth."
"Jody Winegrad
@jodyw5977
·
19h
Did they really admit it? To me it just seemed like a payoff!"
"
@Bender_82
·
8h
It's just as much of a lie to claim that there was no fraud, because there is no way of knowing!"
"
Rearly1@Rearly1
·
19h
Not sure if they lied but they did settle."
"Ivan’s Thoughts
@Ivans_thoughts
·
19h
They all lie my man. All mainstream media lies."
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
-
dorankj
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Wait, so that catholic school kid with the red hat didn’t harass that nice old Indian man? Plenty of lies (and payouts) to go around! Stones and glass houses.
-
Fun CH
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
wait, you mean the 2020 election wasn't stolen by changing votes on those voting machines through a software back door?pasayten wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:41 pm https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dominion ... 25951.html
Promoting those trump lies cost the Fox tabloid a few bucks…. Lol
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
-
mister_coffee
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
- Location: Winthrop, WA
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
You also have to ask about how the Smartmatic lawsuit, where they are asking for $2.7 billion in damages, will go after all this, though probably not in a way that Rupert Murdoc would like. And that also opens the floodgates for lots of other people and organizations that were harmed by the lies spread by Fox News. I can easily imagine them being out two or three billion dollars by the time the smoke clears.
And then the shareholder lawsuits will start...
And then the shareholder lawsuits will start...
David Bonn -
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
The texts between Rudy, Powell & Lindall with the Fox employees are damning. There's really no where for those defendants to hide anymore which begs the question of whether they will all turn a page and point fingers of blame at Trump.
-
mister_coffee
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
- Location: Winthrop, WA
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
I think a lot of the stuff that came out in the discovery process here doesn't help Powell or Guiliani. And the fact that Fox settled indicates that they were pretty certain they were going to lose. And Fox had a bunch of protections that the other people don't have.
David Bonn -
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
CNN:
Dominion still has pending lawsuits against election deniers such as Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell
From CNN's Marshall Cohen
Dominion Voting Systems still has pending lawsuits against right-wing networks Newsmax and OAN, as well as against Trump allies Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell.
All of these parties and entities deny wrongdoing and are fighting the lawsuits.
Dominion still has pending lawsuits against election deniers such as Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell
From CNN's Marshall Cohen
Dominion Voting Systems still has pending lawsuits against right-wing networks Newsmax and OAN, as well as against Trump allies Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell.
All of these parties and entities deny wrongdoing and are fighting the lawsuits.
-
Rideback
- Posts: 1815
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
- Contact:
Re: Fox paying $787,500,000
Next up in the cue is the Smartmatic case for $2.7 billion against Fox and this afternoon's statement is that they have even more information and plan on going to trial.
-
pasayten
- Posts: 2454
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Fox paying $787,500,000
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dominion ... 25951.html
Promoting those trump lies cost the Fox tabloid a few bucks…. Lol
Promoting those trump lies cost the Fox tabloid a few bucks…. Lol
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Ray Peterson
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests