Fox settles admitting they provided fake news about Dominion

[Delldude]

It was 100% legal, legitimate, valid, and credible.

 

[Rumpole]

We also have a Congress that refused to investigate the election. That was the icing on the cake. It assured an illegitimate senile criminal and pervert would be our president.

That's rich given that the repubs put two perverts in the supreme court and one in the White House, Trump is being sued for rape and has been accused by 25 women of sexual predation.

Pelosi even changed the rules to stop any objections citing new rules to overrule any objections or debate because of the violence instigated by the Feds. All facts.

Some are saying there should be a massive investigation.

First off, given that there are NO irregularities, all of which are common to all elections, which constitute sufficient predicate for an 'investigation'. Audits, yes, investigation, no. All audits confirmed election results, and in a number of states, there were more than one audit. If even one of them were sufficient to toss the state's election for a redo, THAT would be predicate for a national investigation, but, alas, there were NONE.

Second, Trump, et al, (and his surrogates) went to court over 60 times and in those cases where evidence was provided, the court ruled that the evidence wasn't evidence at all. For example, affidavits are supplemental evidence, but they do not stand alone as evidence.

Third, in all court cases where irregularities were argued, none were sufficient to set aside Biden's win.

Fourth, if there were fraud, it would occur in more states than the swing states, yet Trump was only concerned with states he lost in.

Fifth, why would an organized conspiracy allow for such a marginal win? Biden won only by 80,000 votes in two states, that could easily have gone to Trump. Conspirators would not leave it to chance, and would have won by a greater margin.

Sixth, in many states, we won the presidency but lost down ballot to repubs, that indicates people just didn't want Trump, but might have voted repub if the candidate weren't Trump, and, why would conspirators allow down ballots losses to happen?

Seventh, it's not even logical on it's face. Trump is alleging INTERNAL fraud, i.e., ballot tampering, dead people voting, machines switching ballots, ballot stuffing, and on and on. The logistical nightmare required for one party to tamper with the national internal voting apparatus, by it's extremely decentralized design, requiring hiring of operatives and installed in place in at least a dozen key states, months in advance, keeping everyone under the radar, think about it, it is well nigh impossible task, which precludes any possibility of a party rigging the election internally. To accomplish it, it would require months of advance planning, the recruitment of both republicans and democrats (because each election district has both working there, many volunteering ) to cooperate in a vast conspiracy to rig the election for a DEMOCRAT. And, to do that, we would expect that they would be able to do it clandestinely, that the observers,both right and left, would be part of the conspiracy, and no one would leak, all with the threat of being caught and being sent to prison. And what is their gain? Not money. Why would anyone participate in an impossible scheme where they would surely get caught? That the beauty of the AMerican system, it's so big, each state with different systems, no one knows for sure ahead of time which of the few states will wind up being the swing states ( out of a dozen or more potential swing states, which is why they will need operatives in all of them, they don't know which ones in advance will be the actual swing states), it is absurd,

Moreover, a vast conspiracy with NO 'whistleblowers". Highly doubtable.

WHERE ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS?

Repubs keep saying it is impossible for Biden who gets not that big of a crowd to beat Trump, who gets large crowds.
There are two reasons why that is wrong. That is specious logic.



1. Demographics are different. Dems are not easily excited, don't care about rallies like Repubs do. We're cut from a different cloth.
So crowd size is no predictor, per se, of voter turn out.

2. Many Democrats voted more against Trump than they did for Biden. It wouldn't have matter who was on the Dem ticket.

Eighth, the ONLY reason everyone on the right is raising this issue is because:

1. Before the first ballot was ever cast, at every rally on and on and on, Trump declared that 'the only way Democrats can win is if they rigged the election".
2. This primed the pump for fraud allegations given that, as is true of all elections, Trump exploited the fact of 'irregularities' as 'proof of fraud'.

And then, on 2020, Trump did, in fact, try to steal the 2020 elect, but via EXTERNAL means, because external is doable, internal is not.

 

[toobfreak]

Fox settles admitting they provided fake news about Dominion​

Hey idiot, not only isn't that true but anyone can provide fake news when giving an opinion or basing their view on misinformation! Doesn't prove a thing about their doing it KNOWINGLY as how could ANYONE have KNOWN the exact role Dominion played AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION or even since as everything about the machines is SECRET, asswipe!

Then there is the matter of proving they did so with malicious intent to HARM the company.

NONE of that was proven, in fact, nothing was proven as there was no trial hearing---- the parties both agreed to settle out of court for an intermediate amount.

 

[toobfreak]

It was 100% legal, legitimate, valid, and credible.

Gee, you're magic! You know everything! Where were you during the election and the hearing? You could have saved the country billions!

Guess you ain't so magic after all.

 

[Delldude]

That's rich given that the repubs put two perverts in the supreme court and one in the White House, Trump is being sued for rape and has been accused by 25 women of sexual predation.


Some are saying there should be a massive investigation.

First off, given that there are NO irregularities, all of which are common to all elections, which constitute sufficient predicate for an 'investigation'. Audits, yes, investigation, no. All audits confirmed election results, and in a number of states, there were more than one audit. If even one of them were sufficient to toss the state's election for a redo, THAT would be predicate for a national investigation, but, alas, there were NONE.

Second, Trump, et al, (and his surrogates) went to court over 60 times and in those cases where evidence was provided, the court ruled that the evidence wasn't evidence at all. For example, affidavits are supplemental evidence, but they do not stand alone as evidence.

Third, in all court cases where irregularities were argued, none were sufficient to set aside Biden's win.

Fourth, if there were fraud, it would occur in more states than the swing states, yet Trump was only concerned with states he lost in.

Fifth, why would an organized conspiracy allow for such a marginal win? Biden won only by 80,000 votes in two states, that could easily have gone to Trump. Conspirators would not leave it to chance, and would have won by a greater margin.

Sixth, in many states, we won the presidency but lost down ballot to repubs, that indicates people just didn't want Trump, but might have voted repub if the candidate weren't Trump, and, why would conspirators allow down ballots losses to happen?

Seventh, it's not even logical on it's face. Trump is alleging INTERNAL fraud, i.e., ballot tampering, dead people voting, machines switching ballots, ballot stuffing, and on and on. The logistical nightmare required for one party to tamper with the national internal voting apparatus, by it's extremely decentralized design, requiring hiring of operatives and installed in place in at least a dozen key states, months in advance, keeping everyone under the radar, think about it, it is well nigh impossible task, which precludes any possibility of a party rigging the election internally. To accomplish it, it would require months of advance planning, the recruitment of both republicans and democrats (because each election district has both working there, many volunteering ) to cooperate in a vast conspiracy to rig the election for a DEMOCRAT. And, to do that, we would expect that they would be able to do it clandestinely, that the observers,both right and left, would be part of the conspiracy, and no one would leak, all with the threat of being caught and being sent to prison. And what is their gain? Not money. Why would anyone participate in an impossible scheme where they would surely get caught? That the beauty of the AMerican system, it's so big, each state with different systems, no one knows for sure ahead of time which of the few states will wind up being the swing states ( out of a dozen or more potential swing states, which is why they will need operatives in all of them, they don't know which ones in advance will be the actual swing states), it is absurd,

Moreover, a vast conspiracy with NO 'whistleblowers". Highly doubtable.

WHERE ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS?

Repubs keep saying it is impossible for Biden who gets not that big of a crowd to beat Trump, who gets large crowds.
There are two reasons why that is wrong. That is specious logic.



1. Demographics are different. Dems are not easily excited, don't care about rallies like Repubs do. We're cut from a different cloth.
So crowd size is no predictor, per se, of voter turn out.

2. Many Democrats voted more against Trump than they did for Biden. It wouldn't have matter who was on the Dem ticket.

Eighth, the ONLY reason everyone on the right is raising this issue is because:

1. Before the first ballot was ever cast, at every rally on and on and on, Trump declared that 'the only way Democrats can win is if they rigged the election".
2. This primed the pump for fraud allegations given that, as is true of all elections, Trump exploited the fact of 'irregularities' as 'proof of fraud'.

And then, on 2020, Trump did, in fact, try to steal the 2020 elect, but via EXTERNAL means, because external is doable, internal is not.

What was it Niccolò Machiavelli said?

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Yeah, like I'm going to believe that perv.

Sorry.

IF Murdoch had evidence to prove Fox's innocence, he would have went to trial, would win, and have to pay nothing and plaintiffs could be billed for his expenses.

After all the claims by Giuliani, Trump, the pillow guy, Sydney Powell, etc., after all the claims of tons of evidence, okay., so why didn't Fox produce it?

Why?

Because there is no evidence to prove Trump's allegation that 'Democrats stole the election'.

NONE, zilch, nada, zip.

With millions and billions at stake, you are telling me that Fox won't produce it to save millions and billions?

You are not making sense..

I always make sense and I'm right 100% of the time. You are a commie through and through. You are a supporter of the subversion of our constitution and election laws. You need to be taken behind the woodshed and be dealt with.

 

[Faun]

A question many are asking but neither Fox nor Dominion are saying. They surely would have won on appeal.

Clearly, it means Fox didn't think they could prevail in any court.

 

[sartre play]

A lie is just that, dishonesty does not change, even if its for a good cause.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Dominion settled too. Takes two to settle, Jack. Both settled. Dominion settled for less than half. Probably, Fox agreed to the settlement in exchange for giving no concessions to on air apologies or admissions to anything by the hosts involved in the errant "opinions."


They admitted that the JUDGE decided that unilaterally before the hearing even began on his own that HE thought so. Then refused to allow Fox to present much of their case. You really ought to know what you are talking about more often, Jack, then you might not be wrong so often.


Maybe. Then they would have appealed to elsewhere outside of Delaware, gotten a fair trial and beaten it on appeal. Really wish I knew why they chose not to do that. Maybe because Murdock just wanted to get the shit off his neck, pay the fine and move on.


And maybe it might snow in Kenya in July. Bottom line is this whole stupid case proves nothing about the fraud election and suing a news corp for giving opinions on an opinion show will only have a chilling effect on the 1st amendment for all and thus, the freedom of the press.

Spin, spin, spin, spin. You need some anti-nausea meds, Freaky? You probably should take them because the Smartmatic lawsuit is up next.
Fox settled because they knew they were going to get their heads handed to them. All of their on air personalities and the Murdoch's themselves would have to testify in open court. The punitive damages could have possibly bankrupted Fox.
Dominion settled because they got Fox to admit they lied, and got half the money they were asking for...all without Fox unable to drag the process out for years through appeals.

There are limits to the 1st Amendment. These limits have been upheld by case law. You don't just get to mouth off and say whatever you want with no fear of repercussion.

And Fox found that out the hard way. The were allowed discovery, and it came back to bite them in the ass. The judge set a trial date.
Open and shut. Fox is guilty of lying.

Moving on to Smartmatic now.

 

[protectionist]

Thanks for proving Dominion case....

You have been lied too, Fox admitted these were lies and you keep on telling them...

This why Fox lost..

Fox admitted WHAT was lies ? The only thing I've seen them having admitted to, was some vague statement about "certain claims"

Get busy!

Not a bad idea.

 

[Faun]

FALSE! I proved it. And you just proved again what a phony you are (not that any more proof of that was needed after your infamous DOCTORING of the fivethirtyeight 2020 election vote dump chart).

As for the very longggggg list of frauds, you were quizzed on that, and just like all the other leftist deniers, you FLUNKED with flying colors.

Nope, you failed to prove it, gramps. All you did was say 35K ballots were added. You didn't prove they were.

 

[protectionist]

Nope, you failed to prove it, gramps. All you did was say 35K ballots were added. You didn't prove they were.

Not only did I prove it, but twice I gave you the post # where I had posted the proving. My, what a selective memory you have Faux Faun.

 

[Faun]

Hey idiot, not only isn't that true but anyone can provide fake news when giving an opinion or basing their view on misinformation! Doesn't prove a thing about their doing it KNOWINGLY as how could ANYONE have KNOWN the exact role Dominion played AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION or even since as everything about the machines is SECRET, asswipe!

Then there is the matter of proving they did so with malicious intent to HARM the company.

NONE of that was proven, in fact, nothing was proven as there was no trial hearing---- the parties both agreed to settle out of court for an intermediate amount.

You're deranged, freak. We know they lied intentionally. While on the air they made false claims about Dominion, in private communications, they said they knew those claims were false.

 

[protectionist]

IF Murdoch had evidence to prove Fox's innocence, he would have went to trial, would win, and have to pay nothing and plaintiffs could be billed for his expenses.

After all the claims by Giuliani, Trump, the pillow guy, Sydney Powell, etc., after all the claims of tons of evidence, okay., so why didn't Fox produce it?

Why?

Because there is no evidence to prove Trump's allegation that 'Democrats stole the election'.

NONE, zilch, nada, zip.

With millions and billions at stake, you are telling me that Fox won't produce it to save millions and billions?

You are not making sense..

The reason why Fox didn't produce it (as I have done right here in this thread) is posted in post # 320. Try reading the thread before posting, so as to not come in here late, and be asking questions that have already been answered.

 

[protectionist]

You're deranged, freak. We know they lied intentionally. While on the air they made false claims about Dominion, in private communications, they said they knew those claims were false.

SHOW a shred of evidence that Fox admitted to lying about election fraud.

 

[MagicMike]

I see Delldud' got his cute meme generator up and running today.
Beyond that Deldud do you think you can articulate (that kinda means "to say") what it is exactly in this statement you think is bullshit?
I'm not talking about all the standard, worn out, whiny tropes you know like "Liz Cheney is really not a Republican but just a RHINO," or "But Nancy Pelosi didn't let Republicans pick their members," or "the committee didn't allow for cross examination" or any of that ridiculous stuff.
Those ships of untruths sailed long ago.
No, I'm talking about some REAL, legal reason why this committee might not have been legal and valid?
Come on.
If you're going to try to call "bullshit" on something you should have more than a stupid "c-cuz me and all the other people who THINK like me THINK it should have been an illigitimate committee."
You don't get a participation trophy just for thinking something.
Especially when you've been brainwashed by others into thinking it.

 

[Faun]

SHOW a shred of evidence that Fox admitted to lying about election fraud.

All the Texts Fox News Didn’t Want You to Read

Court filings in the now-settled case brought by Dominion reveal messages from Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson (now of Twitter), and others.

nymag.com

 

[protectionist]

That's rich given that the repubs put two perverts in the supreme court and one in the White House, Trump is being sued for rape and has been accused by 25 women of sexual predation.


Some are saying there should be a massive investigation.

First off, given that there are NO irregularities, all of which are common to all elections, which constitute sufficient predicate for an 'investigation'. Audits, yes, investigation, no. All audits confirmed election results, and in a number of states, there were more than one audit. If even one of them were sufficient to toss the state's election for a redo, THAT would be predicate for a national investigation, but, alas, there were NONE.

Second, Trump, et al, (and his surrogates) went to court over 60 times and in those cases where evidence was provided, the court ruled that the evidence wasn't evidence at all. For example, affidavits are supplemental evidence, but they do not stand alone as evidence.

Third, in all court cases where irregularities were argued, none were sufficient to set aside Biden's win.

Fourth, if there were fraud, it would occur in more states than the swing states, yet Trump was only concerned with states he lost in.

Fifth, why would an organized conspiracy allow for such a marginal win? Biden won only by 80,000 votes in two states, that could easily have gone to Trump. Conspirators would not leave it to chance, and would have won by a greater margin.

Sixth, in many states, we won the presidency but lost down ballot to repubs, that indicates people just didn't want Trump, but might have voted repub if the candidate weren't Trump, and, why would conspirators allow down ballots losses to happen?

Seventh, it's not even logical on it's face. Trump is alleging INTERNAL fraud, i.e., ballot tampering, dead people voting, machines switching ballots, ballot stuffing, and on and on. The logistical nightmare required for one party to tamper with the national internal voting apparatus, by it's extremely decentralized design, requiring hiring of operatives and installed in place in at least a dozen key states, months in advance, keeping everyone under the radar, think about it, it is well nigh impossible task, which precludes any possibility of a party rigging the election internally. To accomplish it, it would require months of advance planning, the recruitment of both republicans and democrats (because each election district has both working there, many volunteering ) to cooperate in a vast conspiracy to rig the election for a DEMOCRAT. And, to do that, we would expect that they would be able to do it clandestinely, that the observers,both right and left, would be part of the conspiracy, and no one would leak, all with the threat of being caught and being sent to prison. And what is their gain? Not money. Why would anyone participate in an impossible scheme where they would surely get caught? That the beauty of the AMerican system, it's so big, each state with different systems, no one knows for sure ahead of time which of the few states will wind up being the swing states ( out of a dozen or more potential swing states, which is why they will need operatives in all of them, they don't know which ones in advance will be the actual swing states), it is absurd,

Moreover, a vast conspiracy with NO 'whistleblowers". Highly doubtable.

WHERE ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS?

Repubs keep saying it is impossible for Biden who gets not that big of a crowd to beat Trump, who gets large crowds.
There are two reasons why that is wrong. That is specious logic.



1. Demographics are different. Dems are not easily excited, don't care about rallies like Repubs do. We're cut from a different cloth.
So crowd size is no predictor, per se, of voter turn out.

2. Many Democrats voted more against Trump than they did for Biden. It wouldn't have matter who was on the Dem ticket.

Eighth, the ONLY reason everyone on the right is raising this issue is because:

1. Before the first ballot was ever cast, at every rally on and on and on, Trump declared that 'the only way Democrats can win is if they rigged the election".
2. This primed the pump for fraud allegations given that, as is true of all elections, Trump exploited the fact of 'irregularities' as 'proof of fraud'.

And then, on 2020, Trump did, in fact, try to steal the 2020 elect, but via EXTERNAL means, because external is doable, internal is not.

So "sued" and "accused" in your mind = wrongdoing, huh ? Maybe you forgot about all the Democrats who "accused" Trump and his campaign of Russian collusion, only to have had that balloon burst, with the testimony of their prop lawyer.

And maybe you forgot about Trump et al being "sued" by the DNC for Russian collusion also.,

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong.

No. I was right again. You are wrong.

It was 100% legal, legitimate, valid, and credible.

Nope. It was denied membership by representatives chosen by the leadership of the GOP. Purely partisan political crap. It had zero credibility. It deserves just that. It would hard for it to be less valid or more illegitimate.

Even a dunce like you is entitled to his own opinion BackAgain, but not his own facts.

Apply that to your own sophistry moronMike.

Your opinion on what The Jan 6th Committee was or was not does not alter the facts one iota.

Nor does yours.

I don't know how you people got the impression that your opinions are just as "valid" as actual, concrete facts?

You are the one showing that lack of logic. Not is.

It's like you want a freaking participation trophy just for thinking something; however inane and divorced from reality it may be.

Again. Pure projection.

This committee AND its investigation was VERY legitimate and real.

No. It was far from it. Very far. No legitimacy at all and utterly fake.

So are its findings and report.

It’s findings are utterly valueless partisan political crap.

The evidence this committee ammassed is now in the hands of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, to determine whether criminal charges against the twice impeached, currently already indicted, failed one term former POTUS are warranted.

Wrong. It is in the hands of the special counsel who is part of the machinery of the OVERTLY politicized partisan and corrupt DOJ.

In addition, this committee's official findings will forever be attached to this jackals name in the history books right next to his other notable achievements.

It belongs in the anals of history.

*ONLY American President to be impeached twice.

And neither one was meritorious.

*Only American President to be charged with felonies after leaving office.

So what? The shot in NY by the hack Bragg is nonsense.

And we're probably still not done with his fucked up footnotes yet.

Again, so what? Like your posts, it’s meaningless.

 

[MagicMike]

SHOW a shred of evidence that Fox admitted to lying about election fraud.

Here's your shred.

In sworn questioning in January by lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems, Murdoch was asked, "Do you believe that the 2020 presidential election was free and fair?"

"Yes," he replied, according to a transcript.

"The election was not stolen," he said later.

Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch said under oath 2020 election was 'not stolen,' according to court filings

The transcript and other material released Tuesday expand on earlier disclosures that paint a portrait of behind-the-scenes doubt — or outright dismissals — of Trump's voting fraud claims, even as the network gave them airtime.

www.pbs.org