Historian John Flannery warns 'it could be worse' for Fox if the jury agrees with Dominion
Fox and Dominion were in negotiations on Monday, according to several media reports, saying that there have been attempts for a possible settlement. Dominion Voting Systems appears willing to reduce the number in their demand and there were further conversations about how they arrived at that number, NPR reported.
But one major sticking point continues to be that the company wants an on-air apology to run across the Fox platforms. It would be an admission by Fox that they were intentionally reporting fake news.
So far, the options for the Fox company are "closed," MSNBC host Ari Melber explained on Monday. There were three legal doors they could try and slip through. The first was the idea that they were doing nothing more than reporting on the news. The judge has already made it clear that avenue isn't open to them.
The second problem is that the judge has said there isn't anything about the elections that they said critically about the election that was true. That was part of the judge's decision in the request for a summary judgment. The only option left is to make the case that there wasn't "actual malice" intended.
Historian John Flannery said that this had become a case that is just as much about democracy as anything else.
"Well, the thing that strikes me ... about the democracy, what I hear and what I feel and what is my own personal view is that we endorse what Dominion has said, that there wouldn't be a settlement if there had been both an admission of certain facts and an apology. I don't see Fox doing that, although that is a weight you might put against having a trial in which your key anchors are on the witness stand, admitting to things they said in depositions."
Flannery said that it's coming from Dominion, but it's about Americans who want "an accounting for what happened by this misleading, lying interpretation of the election."
`Melber showed the numbers about Fox, bringing in nearly $14 billion in revenue and over $4.8 billion in profits. With a lawsuit in which they are forced to hand over $1.5 billion, it would be the most significant seen.
"It could be worse as you know, as a libel lawyer, this is a per se libel case, meaning you don't have the prove damages," Flannery explained. "And the jury can decide to wipe them off the map, and that would be extraordinary."
It would mean that a jury could hand it to Fox by demanding that they pay the company as much as $200 billion in damages if they determine it to be reasonable.
"But consider the evidence that we have here that you don't get in libel cases," Flannery continued. "Consider the summary judgment decisions you get from the court that you don't get in libel cases that then go to trial. And it feels, to me, like the lawyers, responsibly, went to their client and said, 'You know, we're just heading for — we're going run right into a wall here, and there is not going to be anything left.' And I would guess that Dominion said today, 'Nice to hear from you. But too little too late, and we're going for the gold."
See the full discussion with the panel below or at the link here.
historian john flannery says ‘it could be worse’ for Fox if the jury agrees with Dominion youtu.be