Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

Steyn On-Line ^ | January 28, 2024 | Amy K. Mitchell

[Twotone]

Programming Note: As you may have heard at the end of Day 7 of the trial, Room 518 in the DC Superior Court has been experiencing some hot air. Literally. Apparently the temperature control in the room is out of control. So the trial beginning tomorrow has been moved to Room 132 (new link here). Mark's cross-examination of Mann continues tomorrow, so be sure to tune in!

Week 2: Trial of the Century

Let's start our recap of the week with the First Amendment. As the bipartisan Project Democracy puts its, the First Amendment was designed to equally protect not only speech, but also criticism. In other words, the right to disagree with others in a public forum. To cross into defamation – to reiterate again – the person criticizing has to be proven to have had intended malice. That burden of proof in the case of Mann v Steyn is on Mann.

As Ms. Weatherford's excellent, staccato cross-examination of Mann demonstrated this past Wednesday, the good doctor's salary has increased year after year since 2012. Mann regularly pals around with the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Leonardo DiCaprio, as well as receives extensive media coverage (noted by his never-ending CV). And as we've already extensively covered, Mann's sole example of someone who exhibited "revulsion" of Mann after the "statements at issue" is an unknown gentleman who stared at Mann in a Wegmans in State College sometime in the fall of 2012.

Now, as part of his case, Mann has claimed his grant money declined in 2012 after the "statements at issue."

[Twotone]

New link to follow the courtroom events on Monday if any FReepers are following the Steyn vs Mann trial by internet or phone.

[gloryblaze]

Thank you ping.

[Alas Babylon!]

Is this like one of the Trump of J6 defendant trials in DC when the solemn elderly negro jury has already found them guilty and now we’re just going through the motions?

[Twotone]

Pretty much, yes. They’ve already acknowledged that Mann will appeal the verdict whether he wins or loses. The point is to drag National Review & others back into the case. Mann has testified that he has paid NO legal fees for this case & has no associated debt. It is lawfare against conservatives & some shadowy entity is funding the case.