Posted on 02/16/2023 10:09:23 PM PST by Olog-hai
Hosts at Fox News had serious concerns about allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election being made by guests who were allies of former President Donald Trump, according to court filings in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the network.
“Sidney Powell is lying,” about having evidence for election fraud, Tucker Carlson told a producer about the attorney on Nov. 16, 2020, according to an excerpt from an exhibit that remains under seal.
The internal communication was included in a redacted summary judgment brief filed Thursday by attorneys for Dominion Voting Systems.
Carlson also referred to Powell in a text as an “unguided missile,” and “dangerous as hell.” Fellow host Laura Ingraham, meanwhile, told Carlson that Powell is “a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy,” referring to former New York mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani.
Sean Hannity, meanwhile, said in a deposition “that whole narrative that Sidney was pushing, I did not believe it for one second,” according to Dominion’s filing. […]
Fox’s counterclaim is based on New York’s “anti-SLAAP” law. Such laws are aimed at protecting people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights from being intimidated by “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPPs. …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
If their opinions mean squat, why do people get upset if they color outside the lines?
Tucker, Ingraham and Hannity all get paid millions to do a show. They get paid based on RATINGS. Ingraham had just signed a brand new multi million dollar contract with Fox a couple months prior to the election.
Agreed.
In the depositions.
The AP uses the news as a coloring book.
But if its in the depositions then it becomes part of the record. So we can see what was scratched and what wasnt.
I can make a claim. But proof & evidence makes the claim plausible and factual. A lot of people simply like the claim......whether the evidence is there or not.
He could, but I highly doubt it.
First, his whole game with election security has been to talk talk talk, but do little, if anything practical, since J6. In this case, he’s not even talking. Oh he might throw the name Dominion out every few months, but that’s it.
Second, reports are, including from Giuliani himself, that Trump never even paid him for his work in 2020. Apparently that left Giuliani near flat broke and resulted in his friends trying to shame Trump in the press over it, which of course only made Trump mad. Those two have apparently had a falling out, Giuliani wasn’t even at Trump’s 2024 announcement or been seen anywhere near him lately.
How would it help him in regard to 2024 to be on camera whining 24/7?
I didn’t say whine 24/7, which is pretty much all he ever does. I said show us some proof that he’s even in the ACTUAL fight.
He should have taken that $250 million he collected from people for election security and done something tangible with it, like create a new non-profit organization or foundation for helping secure elections. Call it the Election Integrity Center, EIC, and hire some experts who build a nice website and have some knowledgeable people who can speak about all this, and grow that organization in the swing states where this is a problem. Did we get that, no, he redirected that money to his general fund and spends it on rallies and plane rides.
If Tucker once questioned Trump’s claims, it seems he’s changed his mind on that.
Because it’s an ongoing court case. It is not appropriate for anyone to comment on it
Oh, because decorum and protocol are so important to Trump, the ultimate bomb thrower. Gimme a break!
I’ve never once heard him say “well that’s an ongoing case so I’m not going to comment on it.” No, he rips into the very prosecutors prosecuting him all the time.
Have you not seen his twitter attacks against the special prosecutor Jack Smith, and AG Merrick Garland? He blisters them constantly.
Dominion though? Not a peep.
Don’t recall Fox saying anything about the 2000 mules evidence if they did it was short and at 2:00am.
The answer to all your questions is money. How many paid speaking engagements did they get from these?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t 2,000 mules just demonstrate how any efficient “ballot harvesting” operation would work?
And while I don’t agree with it, wasn’t ballot harvesting legal in that state?
And didn’t Trump just announce that he too, will now embrace ballot harvesting, and plan to use it in the future, instead of working to stop this horrible practice?
This is more deceptive reporting from the AP.
You claim that you want to see machines and specifically "Dominion shutdown"? That's your claim.
The guy you support for president, Ron DeSantis, uses machines and specifically Dominion machines in FL. And he encourages the lawyer and law firm that represents Dominion and that is suing Rudy Giuliani and Fox News, by inviting them to his forum and praising them.
Where "TF" is your tough guy and where TF are you?
Because she was being good money and because she loved the spotlight? Or, perhaps, because she working with Deep State, Democrats or the left to discredit the many obvious examples of voter fraud that were presented by Trump's campaign.
State have ballot harvesting rules about who can pick up ballots and how many and many other states rules do also.
2,000 mules book states them and how it was abused and the states the changed the rules by people that had no eligible right to do so all are listed.
Trump is right and legal it’s about early votes not the poll votes.
State have ballot harvesting rules about who can pick up ballots and how many and many other states rules do also.
2,000 mules book states them and how it was abused and the states the changed the rules by people that had no eligible right to do so all are listed.
Trump is right and legal it’s about early votes not the poll votes.
In a defamation suit being decided in a court of law, their opinions indeed mean squat—more than squat.
In order to prove “defamation” (as a legal term) one must prove “actual malice,” and one of the things that determines “actual malice” (as a legal term) is if said statement(s) were published or broadcast
“with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
For multiple Fox employees to broadcast or publish statements about Dominion while questioning the veracity of those statements will make a difference in whether or not Dominion has a case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.