A judge lecturing Fox attorneys about dual roles
A Delaware Judge Lecture on Fox News Defamation after Rupert Murdoch Confirms That Murdoch is a Corporate Officer at Fox
A Delaware judge lectured attorneys defending Fox News in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit on Tuesday, after they revealed that Murdoch is a corporate officer at Fox News.
The court set rules for a landmark defamation trial in advance of the Tuesday hearing, which included several eye-opening exchanges between Davis and attorneys.
Nevertheless, the judge’s comments Tuesday mark the second time in weeks that questions arose about the credibility of Fox attorneys. Last month, former Fox producer Abby Grossberg filed a lawsuit against the network alleging those attorneys “coerced, intimidated, and misinformed” her before she sat for questioning by a Dominion attorney in September (Fox has said Grossberg’s allegations in connection with the Dominion case are baseless).
The voting machine software company is suing Fox News and its parent company Fox Corp, for airing false statements about voter fraud during the presidential election. Those included lies about Dominion’s voting software switching votes from then-President Donald Trump to Democratic nominee Joe Biden – statements that were also pushed by Trump, his inner circle and his supporters. They often did so on Fox News.
Adding to the criticism, Nelson argued Dominion should be allowed to question Fox employees about the Capitol riots as they are relevant to evidentiary issues, particularly why Fox chose to “pivot” its support away from Trump following the event.
Beyond the questions of Rupert Murdoch’s roles, Tuesday’s hearing also featured a testy exchange between Davis and attorneys that touched on a key Fox defense — that the network cannot be sued for defamation because it had a right to air newsworthy allegations made by people close to the president of the United States.
Davis made clear his opinion that the cable network could be held liable for the billion-dollar claim even though its hosts were often not those who uttered the defamatory statements.
“If the person is making a false claim, it’s irrelevant as to whether they were a Fox employee or a Fox guest,” Davis said.
The decisions he has made have shaped the case. Fox had argued that the First Amendment protected it because it accurately reported on voter fraud allegations and its hosts endorsed false claims, but Judge Davis disagreed.
The insurrection at the Capitol could prejudice the jury according to Judge Davis, so his lawyers couldn’t refer to it. He said at the hearing there should be no mention of the specific content of death threats that company employees have received.
The attorney for the company argued that Fox broadcasts motivated people to threaten the voting machine company.
She said Fox yelled fire in a crowded theater but didn’t want to hear about the people who got trampled on.
A question that might be asked in its place was suggested by Davis again. He said Dominion could inquire why Fox executives chose to pull back support from Trump. If their answer brought up Jan. 6, Dominion could pursue the topic, the judge said.
To cap the exchange, Davis stressed that he must strike a “balance” between giving attorneys leeway and ensuring jurors would rule only on the claims in the case — and not the controversial issues that linger just beyond it.
The Ex-President and the Trump Organization: Why he’s back in New York to answer questions about his crimes and what he can do about it
He’s due back in New York on Thursday under a dark legal cloud to answer more questions about his conduct, a week after becoming the first ex-president to be charged with a crime.
A case stemming from the payment of hush money to an adult film star has resulted in a not guilty plea by Trump. He will be back in the city where he got his name to give a deposition in a civil case accusing him and three of his adult children of faking Trump Organization accounts to enrich themselves.
The two trips encapsulate the converging legal battles that are putting Trump’s time-honored strategy of delay, denial and distraction to its ultimate test.
The cases may not be the most serious that Trump has to contend with. He is waiting to find out whether he will be indicted in special counsel probes into his behavior as he led up to the US Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021. And Trump and supporters involved in the democracy-damaging chicanery following the 2020 election still don’t know whether they will be charged in yet another investigation, this one in Georgia, over his attempt to find just enough votes to try to steal President Joe Biden’s victory in the swing state.
Attorneys for Trump are trying to get the civil trial delayed for one month so that it won’t go before a jury this month. His team wants a cooling off period after he was indicted in the case, arguing that jurors would have the charges uppermost in their minds when they are called.
The case, which CNN legal analyst Eli Honig this week predicted would turn into a “full-blown legal and journalistic disaster” for Fox, took another ominous turn on Wednesday when a judge sanctioned the conservative network over the possible withholding of evidence and said he plans to appoint an outside attorney to investigate.
Trump’s trip back to New York on Thursday follows a deposition he gave Attorney General Letitia James’ office last year before the suit against him and the Trump Organization was filed, in which he cited his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to more than 400 questions. Since a jury can make adverse inference against someone if they refuse to testify, his position is more nuanced.
The former president accused legal authorities of a political vendetta against him after James, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit against him.
Similarly, he has responded to his indictment in Manhattan by accusing District Attorney Alvin Bragg, also a Democrat, of seeking to prevent him reclaiming the White House in his 2024 campaign. If he were to be convicted, the ex-president said in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox that he would not stop running for president, even if it meant dropping out of the race.
Trump has denied sexually assaulting Carroll, who alleges Trump raped her in a New York department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. She sued Trump after he denied the rape allegations, and she alleged she made the claim to boost sales of her book.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/politics/donald-trump-criminal-civil-cases/index.html
The Ex-President’s Civil Dispatch: A New Look at the Insights from the Ohio Judiciary Commissioner Jim Jordan
The ex-president announced on Wednesday that he would be filing a $500 million lawsuit against his former personal attorney, accusing him of breaking his contract.
The move raised suspicion that Trump was going to silence or intimidate Cohen, who is likely to be a key witness in Bragg’s prosecution. Prosecutors allege that Trump tried to hide hush money payments to adult actress Stormy Daniels to avoid harming his 2016 campaign.
On Wednesday, the CNN legal analyst said that Trump had been attempting to get around the judge who warned that the case should not be tried in the public eye. The timing and claims are suspect, and I don’t know how this will work, says a former district attorney in Manhattan.
The latest move from Trump’s allies to fight the case in public before it ever reaches the courtroom was taken by the House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan. The Ohio Republican announced a slate of witnesses for a field hearing of his committee in New York on Monday as he attempts to make a case that Bragg went after Trump for political reasons.
A series of recent pretrial rulings has provided more clarity on how Judge Davis operates, and shows he has taken steps to reassure both parties that he had not predetermined the outcomes.
“The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” Judge Davis wrote in a 130-page decision.
