...Fox News and Smartamatic....now in court

[Chillicothe]

The judge cited Carlson’s reporting as a basis for his (the judge’s) expressed belief that it might demonstrate FoxNews “malice.” So, there’s no need to guess

Ummm, yeah.
That was sorta kinda my point.

 

[BackAgain]

Ummm, yeah.
That was sorta kinda my point.

Well, it’s exactly what I had already said.

 

[Chillicothe]

".... pedophiles at CNN (there were 2 listed there by the way, learn how to count).

Ah, my poor avatar asked for names to be named. Your links mention one name.
It's unfortunate I wasn't totally clear on that ask.
,Nonetheless we applaud your eagerbeaverness.
But, ofttimes trying too hard? Eh?

 

[Chillicothe]

Well, it’s exactly what I had already said

Gotta love it when a plan comes together. No?

 

[BackAgain]

Gotta love it when a plan comes together. No?

Ok.

 

[Dadoalex]

You’re retarded. That’s obvious. I didn’t say that anyone was suing Powell. So your arguing against something nobody is claiming. Let me know if you win that one.

The point, you cretin, is that the plaintiff suing FoxNews has to show actual malice or a reckless disregard for the alleged “falsity” of its reporting. It will be difficult (to impossible) to do that when you stop to realize that Carlson works for FoxNews and he publicly shared reasons to harbor doubts about Powell’s representations.

We’re you always retarded?

That you are too Tiny Minded, too stupid, and too ignorant to understand your own posts or to rationally discuss anything beyond the skidmarks you're eating for lunch certainly defines the retard in the conversation.

OH

And the JUDGE said there was evidence of malice so go be stupid elsewhere.

 

[BackAgain]

That you are too Tiny Minded, too stupid, and too ignorant to understand your own posts or to rationally discuss anything beyond the skidmarks you're eating for lunch certainly defines the retard in the conversation.

OH

And the JUDGE said there was evidence of malice so go be stupid elsewhere.

You remain both massively arrogant and galactic-ly stupid. Oh, and in your arrogant stupidity, you remain forever mired in utter futility. You couldn’t convince a freezing person of the advisability of getting warm.

Look, troll. I get it. You’re too shallow to grasp anything beyond black and white, on and off, and positive and negative.

Unkike you, you dope, I already know what the judge said. (By the way, you idiot, just because a judge said it doesn’t mean it’s a correct analysis. A bunch of judges once said that our Constitution allows for “separate but equal” educational opportunities divided by race. Are you intelligent and honest enough to admit that they were fucking wrong?)

But since you are stupid, I doubt you will understand the point now, either. Still, it’s pretty basic. If Plaintiff sues defendant for libel, and the law requires that plaintiff has to prove that defendant acted with “malice” in defendant’s reporting of the story or with a reckless disregard of the alleged falsity of the report, then the defendant’s own on-air reporter or commentator making public note of the questionability of the underlying story’s basis actually undercuts the plaintiff’s ability to prove malice or reckless disregard.

You, of course, won’t grasp that. It’s ok. Keep your eyes firmly closed and stick your fingers ever more deeply in your ears.

You are a bore .

 

[Dadoalex]

You remain both massively arrogant and galactic-ly stupid. Oh, and in your arrogant stupidity, you remain forever mired in utter futility. You couldn’t convince a freezing person of the advisability of getting warm.

Look, troll. I get it. You’re too shallow to grasp anything beyond black and white, on and off, and positive and negative.

Unkike you, you dope, I already know what the judge said. (By the way, you idiot, just because a judge said it doesn’t mean it’s a correct analysis. A bunch of judges once said that our Constitution allows for “separate but equal” educational opportunities divided by race. Are you intelligent and honest enough to admit that they were fucking wrong?)

But since you are stupid, I doubt you will understand the point now, either. Still, it’s pretty basic. If Plaintiff sues defendant for libel, and the law requires that plaintiff has to prove that defendant acted with “malice” in defendant’s reporting of the story or with a reckless disregard of the alleged falsity of the report, then the defendant’s own on-air reporter or commentator making public note of the questionability of the underlying story’s basis actually undercuts the plaintiff’s ability to prove malice or reckless disregard.

You, of course, won’t grasp that. It’s ok. Keep your eyes firmly closed and stick your fingers ever more deeply in your ears.

You are a bore .

WOW.

All that writing and not a single cogent thought.
I see your tiny Mind is in full stupid.

I think I'll look for legal opinions from someone with an IQ above the current temp. 15.
Or, better yet, I'll just check the used toilet paper supply. The contents will be no different than your mental shit show.

 

[BackAgain]

WOW.

All that writing and not a single cogent thought.
I see your tiny Mind is in full stupid.

I think I'll look for legal opinions from someone with an IQ above the current temp. 15.
Or, better yet, I'll just check the used toilet paper supply. The contents will be no different than your mental shit show.

So, you still have nothing of any value to offer? Ok. Thanks for the waste of electrons. Toddle off now.

 

[para bellum]

Not suing Powell you Tiny Minded fool.
Suing FOX and Carlson and, as you pointed out, my Tiny Minded condom failure...

Plenty of on the record evidence of malice.

You said it, are you really so stupid as to not understand your own posts.

View attachment 614077

Um, yes they are suing Powell. They are not suing Carlson.

The case is Smartmatic v. Fox News. It's in New York. Named defendants are Fox News, Giuliani, Powell, Dobbs, Bartiromo, and Pirro.

https://www.smartmatic.com/uploads/Smartmatic_Complaint_Against_Fox_Corporation.pdf

The judge tossed out the complaints against Pirro, Giuliani, and Powell, and allowed the suit against Fox, Dobbs, and Bartiromo to proceed.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=zzM8A79PDIpGmSEJdAZbtA==

 

[Dadoalex]

So, you still have nothing of any value to offer? Ok. Thanks for the waste of electrons. Toddle off now.

Offered.
Ignored.
Thus, you remain ignorant.

 

[Dadoalex]

Um, yes they are suing Powell. They are not suing Carlson.

The case is Smartmatic v. Fox News. It's in New York. Named defendants are Fox News, Giuliani, Powell, Dobbs, Bartiromo, and Pirro.

https://www.smartmatic.com/uploads/Smartmatic_Complaint_Against_Fox_Corporation.pdf

The judge tossed out the complaints against Pirro, Giuliani, and Powell, and allowed the suit against Fox, Dobbs, and Bartiromo to proceed.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=zzM8A79PDIpGmSEJdAZbtA==

If I am in error, I stand corrected.

Does not change the fact that the judge pointed specifically at Carlson's words as indicative of malice.

 

[BackAgain]

Offered.
Ignored.
Thus, you remain ignorant.

Not offered. You lie. Thus, you remain worthless.

 

[para bellum]

If I am in error, I stand corrected.

Does not change the fact that the judge pointed specifically at Carlson's words as indicative of malice.

I think you read more into the judges comments that they are intended to convey.

"Substantial basis" has a specific legal meaning in this context. The judge was not making a finding of fact- he was ruling on whether the allegations in the complaint could persuade a jury that a legal standard of malice was met.

The fact finding is done by the jury if the case goes to trial. The judge assumes the allegations are true, and he rules on the motions based on their legal merits.

What it boils down to is this- in the opinion of the judge, the statements by Carlson could possibly be interpreted by a jury to indicate malice at Fox, because they aired Powell and Giuliani without verifying their extraordinary claims, and the network had statements from credible people that contradicted Powell's version of the election.

So the case moves ahead, minus 3 defendants. It's still a high bar for Smartmatic- news orgs have a lot of protections under the laws. Suing someone is pretty easy in this country. Ultimately it comes down to the subjective view of each juror to determine if Fox was just reporting a story, or intentionally spreading lies for the purpose of harming someone else.

I don't believe the 2020 election was legitimate, but I do know it was not stolen by hackers over the Internet, and that version of the election was always a technical non-starter. So I have no sympathy for Powell, Wood, Lindell, etc.

I can't even tell the difference between Mike Lindell and Adam Schiff. They both spewed a continuous stream of lies about the elections. Dennis Montgomery is my side's Christopher Steele. The only difference is we don't have the FBI trying to frame Biden for hacking county election servers, lol.

 

[Dadoalex]

Not offered. You lie. Thus, you remain worthless.

BWAHAHAHA

Like you'd have the ability to distinguish the truth from your fantasies.

Go to your Cheeto Colored Truth Teller and see what "truth" he's spreading today.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Dadoalex]

I think you read more into the judges comments that they are intended to convey.

"Substantial basis" has a specific legal meaning in this context. The judge was not making a finding of fact- he was ruling on whether the allegations in the complaint could persuade a jury that a legal standard of malice was met.

The fact finding is done by the jury if the case goes to trial. The judge assumes the allegations are true, and he rules on the motions based on their legal merits.

What it boils down to is this- in the opinion of the judge, the statements by Carlson could possibly be interpreted by a jury to indicate malice at Fox, because they aired Powell and Giuliani without verifying their extraordinary claims, and the network had statements from credible people that contradicted Powell's version of the election.

So the case moves ahead, minus 3 defendants. It's still a high bar for Smartmatic- news orgs have a lot of protections under the laws. Suing someone is pretty easy in this country. Ultimately it comes down to the subjective view of each juror to determine if Fox was just reporting a story, or intentionally spreading lies for the purpose of harming someone else.

I don't believe the 2020 election was legitimate, but I do know it was not stolen by hackers over the Internet, and that version of the election was always a technical non-starter. So I have no sympathy for Powell, Wood, Lindell, etc.

I can't even tell the difference between Mike Lindell and Adam Schiff. They both spewed a continuous stream of lies about the elections. Dennis Montgomery is my side's Christopher Steele. The only difference is we don't have the FBI trying to frame Biden for hacking county election servers, lol.

The claim was that the judge was ABSOLVING Fox' resident hate monger.
The judge did no such thing.
I commented on Carlson's ongoing hate mongering and the obvious malice contained therein.

AND

You started off OK then wend into stupid land at this point

"I don't believe the 2020 election was legitimate, b..."

That cost you any legitimacy.