Are you Trump-sensitive? Have you ever been Trump-sensitive? Do you have an autonomic response to slights of President Trump with formulations such as “GOPe” and ad hominem attacks on those who don’t see the world exactly as you do?
I responded to readers who disparaged Power Line in a steady stream of emails and comments following the 2020 presidential election in “Confessions of a limp noodle.” I mocked the allegations of “rigging” based on Dominion voting machines retailed by the Trump campaign and adopted by others whom we heard from one way or another “A conspiracy so immense.” See also, for example, my post on “American Thinker’s Dominion statement” (i.e., retraction).
Dominion has sued Fox News in Delaware state court for defamation. Dominion’s claims are predicated on statements made on air by Fox hosts and guests in post-election coverage. As a public figure that is given the least protection from defamation, Dominion has necessarily compiled evidence bearing on Fox’s state of mind regarding the allegations made on Fox against Dominion and filed a long (176-page) brief supporting its claim that Fox crossed the line of “actual malice” — the line being knowledge of a defamatory statement’s falsity or recklessness disregard of whether the statement was true or false.
The New York Times has posted Dominion’s brief online here in its story on it. The AP covers Dominion’s brief here.
Dominion’s brief sets forth the factual background of its defamation claims against Fox over 30 pages of its brief, at pages 14-44. The brief is redacted, but what survives is of great interest. The brief commingles statements of Fox hosts with those of Fox guests. Sidney Powell plays a starring role. Mike Lindell makes a cameo appearance. In a heavily redacted section of the brief at pages 35-43, Dominion argues that Fox “participated in the narrative.” Among the quotable quotes of Fox management and Fox hosts is Fox executive Bill Sammon’s observation: “It’s remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things.”
Having written about events following the election and heard from readers, I find the look inside Fox News of personal interest. However, it is impossible to assess the merits of Dominion’s legal claims based on the presentation of its side of the case alone, let alone this heavily redacted brief. Insofar as the brief supports Dominion’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, however, I think it highly unlikely that Dominion’s motion will be granted. I think the issue of liability will be submitted at trial to the jury. That much I can say.
As I read it, the brief makes things difficult by commingling statements of Fox News guests with those of Fox News itself — though it makes the case that the hosts knew Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell were spouting nonsense (i.e., blatantly false statements of fact) disparaging Dominion. On the crazed November 19 “conspiracy so immense” press conference that was broadcast live on Fox, to take one example, see pages 35-37. I can only reiterate that I found the brief to be of interest and that readers may want to take a look at it for themselves.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.