Probably a forlorn hope, but just maybe Fox will be held accountable for its lies and poison…
2 Likes
I don’t think it is forlorn - I have seen a lot of legal commentary suggesting that Fox should settle this. They don’t have much of a case, and going to trial is going to drag a lot of evidence into the public eye.
1 Like
I wonder how much the Republicans are going to rue their soapbox being ripped open.
Wow Dominion have settled. Nearly 800 million, but I still really surprised they took it at this point.
It was all so stacked in their favour that avoiding a trial seemed so obviously worth paying for to Fox, that the fact Dominion hadnt accepted anything yet was commonly interpreted as them having no interest in doing so and wanting to further expose them in court. Maybe they think with has been made public they’ve already got their pound of flesh, but this feels incredibly unsatisfactory.
Anyway, Smartmatic are now saying “dont forget about us” and have at least got an 750 figure on the table now so not over for Fox.
not proven guilty in court. a payoff always leaves ???'s
If it wasn’t worth it for Fox, they wouldn’t have paid. So while the money certainly indicates guilt, the ability to keep things under wraps was preferable to them.
Not sure what to think of Dominion. They were going for the jugular but stopped short and exited with a bundle of cash.
Meh.
1 Like
They were motivated by business, rather than political, reasons
Which is completely reasonable. It’s just disappointing for those who think Fox is a malign entity given that it had looked like they thought their best path to redemption was critically undermining Fox in a public trial. Still Smartmatic came out immediately and said they were taking up the baton so it’s not over for Fox.
A sober analysis says it’s difficult to think Fox’s reputation could be hurt by the case going to trial. There is enough information is already public and widely reported on to convince people whose attitude to them could be turned. Nothing that happened in court would really move the needle on that. So I guess what we’re left with is the prospect of a combined 1.5b in fees being paid changing their economic reality enough to make changes on their own. This is coming at a time when they are facing possibly losing their biggest source of guaranteed income (the money cable companies pay them to include them in their service, something Fox News famous gets outrageously high fees for and is facing a challenge to retain those in these upcoming negotiations) and a difficult successions issue involving at least one kid whose politics is decidedly liberal. It’s probably a pipe dream to think anything could change there though as they really are responding to demand with their content as much as they are creating demand, and that demand has shown to be fairly inelastic.
I guess the dream scenario would have been one of those iconic moments that sometimes occur in court, something like Carlson or Hannity admitting their dishonesty or being flummoxed by brilliant cross questioning. A moment that would lead to a total collapse of any idea that Fox could be considered a news source. Unlikely, but an enticing prospect.
FN and the maga crowd are all so inextricably intertwined and exist in such a reality free bubble, that it’s hard to see any real world logic ever undermining them.
I bet Murdoch hates losing money though.
1 Like
DeSantis in trouble?
Thank he don’t? That’s a painful headline, an admission they would lose in court. Full-on, well-deserved loss. They were way, way off the reservation allowing themselves to be a megaphone for crackpots. Hopefully, it will change their behavior.
But that’s their business model
This has big implications
I dont know what could be said or demonstrated in court that hasn’t already been revealed in discovery that has been widely reported. The Fox news viewer doesnt care. I get the idea that seeing someone say something themselves rather than just reading what they have allegedly said is powerful, but I just dont see it.
2 Likes
How do you mean ?
It is professional misconduct that will see the attorney reprimanded. But it is something that doesn’t happen by accident. It happens when an attorney is actually protecting someone’s interest other than their clients’ (who would be hurt by these clients taking immunity deals?) and so almost certainly presents another criminal thread to pick at. Furthermore, it likely also can be used as evidence towards cases they are already pursuing.
1 Like
All of these cosy little arrangements that Trump lawyers seem to have with one another and with witnesses and suspects who might incriminate him seem to be in the crosshairs of prosecutors now. The one that’s confusing me atm however is Evan Corcoran. He had to give evidence to the Special Counsel and is now recused from the documents case , but he is still retained by Trump and working on the Jan 6 case. How does that work ?
A lawyer is unable to represent a client in court in a case in which they are a material witness (or co defendant), but supposedly are able to continue offering counsel up until it reaches court. I guess it makes sense from a practicality PoV as I dont know how you stop the parties conferring.
This has definitely been a pattern in Trump’s various cases though and several people have ended up dropping the representation that was provided for them over fears their interests were not being made priority. I wonder if there is some thread the various investigations can tie together strengthening any sort of obstruction charge.