Dominion v. Fox News: Parties supposedly now reach settlement.

[Skylar]

No. Their reporting did not show actual malice. You’re wrong.

Says you, citing yourself.....the same hapless soul who predicted that Dominion would lose.

Your source doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[BackAgain]

You had the stakes COMPLETELY wrong.

It was not about Dominion having to justify value impairment....it was about FOX having been so utterly reckless, and so inept in its own defense, that their loss was inevitable.

Those aren’t “stakes,” you retard.

If the case had gone to trial, one of the things Dominion would have had to have proved was the alleged damages. You may not wish to admit that. It’s ok. I know you’re perpetually ignorant. But it’s true just the same.

Sucks to be you.

 

[rightwinger]

No. Their reporting did not show actual malice. You’re wrong.

Their reporting, however, was certainly lower than proper journalism standards should require.

Also, Dominion could provide any evidence to Fox News it wished about allegedly independent validation. That doesn’t make it verified. If Dominion had actually chosen to prove it to Fox News, they could have shared their programming and the associated algorithms. Then, Fox News could have had their own experts test it.

Yes it did show malice

If Fox makes a statement and Dominion provides data to show that statement is false and Fox continues to broadcast the misinformation…..that is actual malice

Fox claimed Dominion provided election SW to Hugo Chavez
Dominion provided data showing that claim is ridiculous
Fox continued to allow that claim to be made on air

That is malice

 

[Skylar]

Zzz. Ok. That is what you say.

I’m again very happy that it makes you happy.

Fox has settled twice just this month for defamation related to the 2020 election. I'm saying they should be prepared to keep paying.

Given your *spectacular* record of failure in predicting such legal outcomes, surely you'll understand if your disagreement doesn't amount to much.

 

[BackAgain]

Says you, citing yourself.....the same hapless soul who predicted that Dominion would lose.

I’m not citing myself. Your ignorance is again on display.

The suit required proof by Dominion of actual malice OR a reckless disregard of the truth. I’m not to blame for your ignorance. I can lead you jackasses to water, but I can’t make you drink.

Your source doesn't know what he's talking about.

No. It is you who keeps showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes it did show malice

Wrong.

If Fox makes a statement and Dominion provides data to show that statement is false and Fox continues to broadcast the misinformation…..that is actual malice

Nope. You are free to ignore what I said. But ignoring it won’t make it go away.

Fox claimed Dominion provided election SW to Hugo Chavez
Dominion provided data showing that claim is ridiculous
Fox continued to allow that claim to be made on air

That is malice

Still wrong.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Those aren’t “stakes,” you retard.

If the case had gone to trial, one of the things Dominion would have had to have proved was the alleged damages. You may not wish to admit that. It’s ok. I know you’re perpetually ignorant. But it’s true just the same.

Sucks to be you.

You should desist from presuming to explain anything to me, Strip Mall.

You had THE STAKES completely wrong.

The payment was calculated from a base of Dominion's full ask. Discounted back for the years FOX could have stretched out a fruitless appeal.

Which you would recognize if you understood time value of money, and the stakes.

 

[Skylar]

I’m not citing myself. Your ignorance is again on display.

Of course you're citing yourself. You are your favorite source. And your source is utterly inadequate to carry your argument.

Fox didn't settle for the largest public defamation payout in US history because they were going to win on malice. But because Fox was going to lose.

You predicted Fox would win. You were laughably, obviously and completely wrong.

Sorry, Back. Your source sucks

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong.

Nope. You are free to ignore what I said. But ignoring it won’t make it go away.

Still wrong.

I would like to say Fox was stupid

But they had high priced lawyers and Dominion threatening to sue if Fox did not cease with the lies.

Fox chose to continue providing the stories their viewers wanted to hear….even if they knew it was lies

Cost them $787 million

 

[Skylar]

I would like to say Fox was stupid

But they had high priced lawyers and Dominion threatening to sue if Fox did not cease with the lies.

Fox chose to continue providing the stories their viewers wanted to hear….even if they knew it was lies

Cost them $787 million

There is still the issue of witness tampering. An ex-producer from Fox has admitted that Fox compelled her to lie. And she produced recordings about Dominion that Fox had claimed didn't exist.

Witness tampering is a criminal offense. This could get a little ugly.

 

[BackAgain]

You should desist from presuming to explain anything to me, Strip Mall.

You are ill-equipped to benefit from any and all explanations, Horseshit.

You had THE STAKES completely wrong.

You persist in misusing that term. No surprise.

The payment was calculated from a base of Dominion's full ask. Discounted back for the years FOX could have stretched out a fruitless appeal.

Zzzz. When I want your guesswork, I’ll ask. Maybe consider not holding your breath, Horseshit.

Which you would recognize if you understood time value of money, and the stakes.

I recognize your ignorance.

 

[BackAgain]

Of course you're citing yourself.

False.

You are your favorite source.

False.

And your source is utterly inadequate to carry your argument.m

False.

Fox didn't settle for the largest public defamation payout in US history because they were going to win on malice.

They settled after doing a risk reward analysis. This is so obvious even you should be able to grasp it.

But because Fox was going to lose.

I expect that they calculated the risk of loss as being higher than their prospects of winning. As usual, you offer nothing insightful.

You predicted Fox would win.

IF they went to trial.

You were laughably, obviously and completely wrong.

An unknowable thing given the settlement. But, you do you. In other words, continue to be retarded.

Sorry, Back. Your source sucks

You are sorry, Skeve. But my “source” is actual law. Yours? Nobody knows. Because although you bleat a lot, you don’t cite any sources, either.

 

[Skylar]

False.

Your source that there was no malice....is you saying there is no malice.

And you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any legal insights. You just keep insisting that your personal opinion is a legal standard.

Um, no. Not its not.

As demonstrated elegantly by your spectacular failure in predicting any of these legal outcomes. You insisted that Dominion would lose.

So, um....how'd that work out for you.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Murdoch would have taken the rolled up wedge of bank notes out of his pocket, peeled a few notes off and paid the $800m. Loose change to Murdoch.

 

[BackAgain]

Your source that there was no malice....is you saying there is no malice.

Your source for claiming that Fox News made a false statement demonstrating malice is — non-existent.

And you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any legal insights. You just keep insisting that your personal opinion is a legal standard.

False. But again, your own statements remain unsupported. I don’t care that your a pant-load hypocrite, but it is amusing that you are.

Um, no. Not its not.

As demonstrated elegantly by your spectacular failure in predicting any of these legal outcomes. You insisted that Dominion would lose.

IF the case went to trial. Odd that you persist in missing that point.

So, um....how'd that work out for you.

We’ll never know. The case didn’t go to trial.

 

[beagle9]

Really?

Where does Mac1958 actually stand on the issues?

You guys try that one, every single day. Too funny.

Dumb retort... Try again, maybe identify as a conservative today, yeah that ought to do it. ROTFLMBO

 

[Skylar]

Your source for claiming that Fox News made a false statement demonstrating malice is — non-existent.

Thank you for admitting that your source that there is no malice.......is you saying there is no malice.

You've already elegantly demonstrated what your legal assessments are worth with your predictions of how the case would turn out. Fox lost their asses.

My source on malice is $787 million dollars.

You don't pay $787,000,000 dollars because you were going to WIN on malice. You pay because you were going to lose.

So we have your pseudo-legal assurances of you citing yourself on one hand. And the single largest public defamation settlement in US history on the other.

Yeah, your source sucks.

 

[beagle9]

View attachment 777741

The FOX Fetus Four

You take pictures of those in public school biology class ? Donated fresh from planned Parenthood eh ?

 

[BackAgain]

Thank you for admitting that your source that there is no malice.......is you saying there is no malice.

Quote me saying that. Or maybe consider being honest for a refreshing change of pace.

You've already elegantly demonstrated what your legal assessments are worth with your predictions of how the case would turn out. Fox lost their asses.

False.

My source on malice is $787 million dollars.

No no, little retard. That’s the settlement amount on the issue of damages. It has nothing at all to do with “malice.”

You don't pay $787,000,000 dollars because you were going to WIN on malice. You pay because you were going to lose.

Two different issues, you ignorant dolt. I doubt you have the mental resources to follow along, but I’ll simplify it for you:

You settle if you consider the risk of losing as being greater than the chance of winning. “Malice” still has nothing to do with it. Simple illustration: you may legally conclude that the plaintiff cannot prevail on “malice,” but might well prevail on the alternative legal issue which is “reckless disregard for the truth.”

So we have your pseudo-legal assurances of you citing yourself on one hand. And the single largest public defamation settlement in US history on the other.

False dichotomy. But you have my blessing to continue showing your abundant ignorance.

Yeah, your source sucks.

False. The law says what the law says. It’s your understanding of the basics of these matters that sucks.

 

[The5thHorseman]

You are ill-equipped to benefit from any and all explanations, Horseshit.

You persist in misusing that term. No surprise.

Zzzz. When I want your guesswork, I’ll ask. Maybe consider not holding your breath, Horseshit.

I recognize your ignorance.

The stakes are what each has at stake.

It's reflected in the settlement amount.

whether you understand that or not, 0-fer.