Connect with us


‘Don’t Settle!’: Internet Freaks Out After Judge Delays Start to Dominion’s $1.6 Billion Defamation Suit Against Fox News



The Delaware judge who admonished Fox News’ lawyers late last week for withholding critical information from Dominion in the voting machines company’s substantially well-documented $1.6 billion defamation case Sunday night announced the start of the trial has been delayed 24 hours until Tuesday morning.

“The Court has decided to continue the start of the trial,” Judge Davis reportedly writes, apparently meaning “delay” instead of continuing, “including jury selection, until Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. I will make such an announcement tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7E.”

Many across social media went into freak-out mode as experts offered guesses that Fox News might try to settle rather than open itself to further reputational devastation. Already Dominion has won a major ruling that blocks the right-wing media outlet from being able to claim the election lies it promoted were newsworthy. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruled the evidence Dominion provided – at least hundreds of pages – “demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.” Davis, as Forbes had reported late last month, “found that Fox’s behavior constituted defamation per se, meaning the statements exposed the company ‘to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace.'”

RELATED: ‘This Is Very Serious’: Judge Sanctions Fox News, Likely to Appoint ‘Special Master’ in Dominion $1.6 Billion Lawsuit

Some suggested the delay was to allow Dominion time to depose Rupert Murdoch, who Fox News’ attorneys only at the last minute admitted is officially an officer of Fox News. The judge repeatedly blasted the lawyers, sanctioned them, and threatened to open an investigation.

Longtime media correspondent Brian Selter offered his insight minutes after Judge Davis’ announcement:

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reports, “Fox has made a late push to settle the dispute with Dominion Voting Systems out of court, people familiar with the situation said Sunday.”

And Stelter adds on Twitter, “As I reported for VF, Fox has already pursued settlement talks on multiple occasions. Dominion, knowing it has tremendous leverage, held firm. Many legal experts have wondered about the odds of a settlement hours before opening arguments…”

Many, as Stelter suggested and the Journal later reported, worry the delay is to allow Fox News time to settle, in a case many feel the propaganda network has effectively already lost.

“I’m feeling settlement talks. Need more time. DON’T SETTLE!” tweeted attorney and Democratic activist Ron Filipkowski.

Journalist Ryan Busse said, “Dominion….if you are listening…pretty sure an army of patriots will crowd fund to keep you in this. I see hands going up now. Don’t settle unless it involves 50minutes of every fox hour with on-air admission of guilt, apologies and graveling.”

Meanwhile, Media Matters for America’s Matthew Gertz offers Dominion some advice: “Something Dominion should probably keep in mind is that after Fox News settled with Seth Rich’s family, Tucker Carlson resumed lying about Rich (albeit without explicitly mentioning his name).”

Writer and activist Victor Shi says, “America deserves to know exactly what happened at Fox & the extent to which they lied. America deserves to know the facts and truth. Dominion, fight until the very end.”

A Twitter account named This Is Debs writes, “Oh I’m so glad to see others say they hope dominion won’t settle. I think the damage Fox did affects the general population as much (or more) than Dominion and it’s in our interest for this case to be heard in open, public court. That is worth a lot more than settlement money.”

Former Asst. U.S. Attorney at SDNY, Richard Signorelli, tweets, “My guess on the @dominionvoting case is that Murdoch has instructed his attorneys to settle this case on the best terms possible but that it has to settle. Dominion knows this and will get a top dollar settlement if they stand firm. Murdoch does not want to go to trial.”

Dr. Allison Gill, who runs the popular Mueller She Wrote account, tweeted simply:

“Dear @dominionvoting,

Please don’t settle.

– America”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


House Votes to Boot George Santos 311-114



Representative George Santos (R-NY) has been expelled from Congress following a 311-114 vote; two House members voted “present.”

The expulsion of Santos follows a debate on his fate on Thursday. The vote required a two-thirds majority, or 290 of the 435-seat chamber. This is Santos’ third vote of expulsion; last month, a vote failed with 31 Democrats voting against, according to The Hill.

While the vote was decisive, some notable Republicans voted to save Santos, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN).

“We’ve not whipped the vote and we wouldn’t,” Johnson told CNN Wednesday. “I trust that people will make that decision thoughtfully and in good faith. I personally have real reservations about doing this, I’m concerned about a precedent that may be set for that.”

READ MORE: ‘If I Leave They Win’: Santos Claims ‘Bullying’ at Off the Rails Press Conference

Santos himself had harsh words for the House following the vote. Leaving the capitol building, he briefly spoke with reporters.

“The House spoke that’s their vote. They just set new dangerous precedent for themselves,” he told CNN. “Why would I want to stay here? To hell with this place.”

He then cut his time short, telling reporters, “You know what? As unofficially no longer a member of Congress, I no longer have to answer your questions.”

Santos also faces 23 federal charges, which include fraud, money laundering and misuse of campaign funds, according to CNN. He has pleaded not guilty. An Ethics Committee report found evidence that Santos used campaign funds for Botox and even an OnlyFans account.

On Thursday, Santos said he refused to resign because otherwise, “they win.”

“If I leave the bullies take place. This is bullying,” Santos said. “The reality of it is it’s all theater, theater for the cameras and theater for the microphones. Theater for the American people at the expense of the American people because no real work’s getting done.”

Santos also threatened to file a resolution to expel Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY). Bowman pulled a fire alarm in September. Bowman pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge, and said it was an accident. He said he thought the fire alarm would open a locked door as he rushed to a vote. Bowman paid a $1,000 fine.

There have only been six total expulsions from the House, including Santos. Santos is the only Republican to ever be expelled from the House.

The previous expulsion was in 2002, when Representative James Traficant (D-OH) was expelled after a 420-1 vote. Traficant had been convicted on 10 counts of corruption-related crimes.

Before Traficant, Representative Michael “Ozzie” Myers (D-PA) was the first representative of the modern era to be expelled. Myers got the boot following his conviction for accepting bribes. Myers couldn’t keep out of trouble; in 2022, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison on charges of election fraud.

Prior to Myers, the only expulsions from the House were in 1861, at the start of the Civil War. Henry Cornelius Burnett (D-KY), John William Reid (D-MO) and John Bullock Clark (Whig-MO) were all expelled for joining the Confederacy.

Continue Reading


Peter Navarro, Former Top Trump White House Advisor, Guilty of Criminal Contempt



Peter Navarro, the controversial economist and former top Trump White House advisor, was found guilty by a jury on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress Thursday afternoon after a short trial that began on Tuesday.

Navarro refused to comply with a congressional subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

Legal experts had predicted a “quick conviction” after Navarro, called a “conspiracy theorist” who promotes “fringe” economic theories, had called no witnesses. The jury deliberated for under five hours. He faces up to two years in prison.

“The defendant chose allegiance to former President Trump over compliance with a subpoena,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Aloi told the jury Thursday, as Politico reported. “The defendant chose defiance.”

“Our government only works when people play by the rules and it only works when people are held accountable when they do not,” Aloi also said, during closing arguments. “When a person intentionally and deliberately chooses to defy a congressional subpoena, that is a crime.”

READ MORE: Fani Willis Slams Jim Jordan’s ‘Illegal Intrusion’ in Scathing Rebuke: ‘You Lack a Basic Understanding of the Law’

Politico reported earlier that “ Navarro has long claimed that Trump told him to defy the committee’s Feb. 9, 2022 subpoena and assert executive privilege, a demand he said conferred immunity from having to cooperate with Congress’ investigation.”

“There’s no mistake, no accident,” prosecutor John Crabb told jurors, NBC News adds.

“That man thinks he’s above the law,” Crabb said. “In this country, nobody is above the law.”

READ MORE: ‘How Much the Former President Should Pay Her’: Judge Hands Trump Big Loss in E. Jean Carroll Case

Continue Reading


‘Look for a Quick Conviction Here’: Navarro Jury Could Reach a Verdict ‘Early This Afternoon’



Peter Navarro‘s criminal contempt of Congress trial is moving quickly and the jury may come to a verdict as early as this afternoon, court watchers say.

Navarro, who has been called a “conspiracy theorist” who holds “fringe” and “oddball” economic views, is a former top Trump White House aide. He advanced “Big Lie” election fraud claims and refused to comply with a February, 2022 subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. He was criminally indicted in June of 2022 by a federal grand jury.

The trial began Tuesday in D.C. federal court.

Just before 11 AM Thursday the case was handed to the jury, Politico’s Kyle Cheney reports.

READ MORE: ‘Going to Go Very Badly’: Marjorie Taylor Greene ‘Demanding’ Biden Impeachment Inquiry, GOP Strategist Warns Against

“Given the brevity of the case, a verdict is highly likely in the next few hours,” Cheney adds, noting: “If convicted, he faces up to one year on each of two counts — one for refusing to testify, one for refusing to provide docs.”

“Navarro has long claimed that Trump told him to defy the committee’s Feb. 9, 2022 subpoena and assert executive privilege, a demand he said conferred immunity from having to cooperate with Congress’ investigation,” Politico reports. “For months, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta wrestled with intricate questions about how executive privilege might apply to a former adviser to a former president, whether Navarro’s belief that Trump had invoked the privilege constituted a defense to the charges and how the Justice Department’s decision to charge him compares with its longstanding views of immunity for some senior executive branch officials from compelled congressional testimony.”

Wednesday evening, former top DOJ official Harry Litman noted, “Peter Navarro evidence already done, closing arguments tomorrow. Basically, it’s an incredibly simple case — he knew he had to comply with the subpoena, and he still thumbed his nose at it.”

Adding the the government called three witness but “Navarro called nobody,” Litman predicted: “Look for a quick conviction here.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.