US elections 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson 'not credible' after Jan 6 coverage, says White House – video

      by

      White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson was ‘not credible’ given his misrepresentation of the January riots after obtaining footage from Republican house speaker, Kevin McCarthy. Carlson aired his first segment on the riots on Tuesday, where he described the mob that attacked Capitol Hill as ‘peaceful sightseers’. Jean-Pierre told reporters: ‘As it relates to the Tucker Carlson question, we agree with the Fox Nation’s own attorneys and executives who have repeatedly stressed in multiple courts of law that Tucker Carlson is not credible when it comes to this issue in particular’

      White House calls Tucker Carlson ‘shameful’ for misrepresenting January 6 footage – live More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      What did Fox News really think of Trump and the 2020 election?

      by

      ExplainerWhat did Fox News really think of Trump and the 2020 election?Revelations stem from evidence in $1.6bn defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against the networkFox News’s reputation as an unyielding backer of Donald Trump is in tatters after revelations that many of its top executives and on-air personalities never believed his lies about the 2020 election, and even personally disliked the former US president.Tucker Carlson, who ‘passionately hates’ Trump, shows more Capitol footageRead moreThe details stem from documents released as part of a $1.6bn defamation lawsuit brought against the network by Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine firm Trump and Fox News singled out for unfounded allegations of rigging in the aftermath of the presidential race two years ago.The case is viewed as potentially the biggest financial threat to Fox News since it came on the air in 1996, but the details that have trickled out have already reshaped views of the network and shown a broad gulf between what its top personalities tell their viewers in public and what they privately believe.Here are the key things to know:When did the lawsuit begin?Dominion sells voting machines and tabulators and has headquarters in Denver, Colorado and Toronto, Ontario. It filed its lawsuit in March 2021, claiming Fox News spread lies about the 2020 election in an effort to stop viewers from switching to other networks.The firm’s complaint singled out some of Fox’s biggest personalities, such as Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro “and their chosen guests”, saying they plucked “defamatory falsehoods” from obscure far-right websites and broadcast them to their tens of millions of viewers. “Fox took a small flame and turned it into a forest fire,” Dominion said.When will the case go to trial?The trial is scheduled to begin on 17 April, and expected to last five weeks.Why do we know so much about behind-the-scenes happenings at Fox News?Dominion began making evidence in the case public in mid-February as part of court filings, which included emails and text messages exchanged between Fox News personalities and executives, as well as depositions made as part of the suit.What did Fox News hosts really think about the 2020 election?Even as they went on the air to cast doubt about whether the vote went off fairly, many Fox News personalities privately doubted Trump’s claims. “He’s acting like an insane person,” Hannity, one of the network’s best-known personalities, allegedly said of Trump, according to a Dominion court filing.They also released messages from the Fox News owner, Rupert Murdoch, in which he wrote that it was “very hard to credibly claim foul everywhere”, and the then president’s insistence on doing so was “terrible stuff damaging everybody”.Carlson, Fox’s most popular commentator, took aim at Sidney Powell, a top lawyer for Trump who repeatedly claimed on air that Dominion’s machines changed votes from Trump to his Democratic opponent Joe Biden. “Sidney Powell is lying,” Carlson wrote to a producer, later calling her “dangerous as hell”.Murdoch also said that several of the network’s top stars “endorsed” Trump’s false claims, and “I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight,” according to a deposition in the case.What do we now know about their views of Donald Trump?Publicly, Trump has few friends like the personalities on Fox News. Privately, some of them loathe him. The case’s filings reveal that Carlson, for instance, wrote of Trump: “I hate him passionately … What he’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”Murdoch felt that Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani were “both increasingly mad. The real danger is what he might do as president.” And on 4 January, two days before Trump riled up a crowd of supporters who went on to attack the US Capitol, Carlson wrote in a text, “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights.“I truly can’t wait.”Why did Fox News continue promoting election lies?With competitors like Newsmax and One America News Network waiting in the wings, Fox executives apparently feared losing their dominant place among America’s conservative viewership if they broke with Trump over the 2020 election.“We need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers,” Fox News’s chief executive, Suzanne Scott, told Murdoch the day before the January 6 attack.The network’s concern with maintaining advertising revenue also comes through in the documents. “It is not red or blue, it is green,” Murdoch said in his deposition, when asked why Fox allowed the conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell to run ads for his MyPillow product on the network.Fox has released its own evidence to argue against some of Dominion’s assertions, including comments from the Fox Corp co-chairman and CEO, Lachlan Murdoch, who said he was “concerned” but “not overly concerned” by a dip in the network’s ratings after the 2020 vote.TopicsFox NewsUS elections 2020TV newsTelevision industryUS politicsDonald TrumpexplainersReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Murdoch feared Fox News hosts went ‘too far’ on Trump election lie, files show

      by

      Murdoch feared Fox News hosts went ‘too far’ on Trump election lie, files showEmail from billionaire mogul among reams of new evidence unsealed in defamation suit brought by Dominion Voting SystemsRupert Murdoch said Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham maybe “went too far” in their coverage of Donald Trump’s voter fraud lie, according to an email submitted as evidence in a defamation lawsuit brought by an election operations company.Tucker Carlson, who ‘passionately hates’ Trump, shows more Capitol footageRead moreDominion Voting Systems is suing Fox News for $1.6bn, accusing the cable TV network of amplifying debunked allegations that their voting machines were used to rig the 2020 US presidential election against Trump, in favour of Joe Biden.Documents that became public on Tuesday offered a window into Fox’s internal deliberations. They show executives, producers and hosts discussing concerns about the network’s reputation and casting doubt on the plausibility of Trump’s claims.More than 6,500 pages were released. The full extent of the evidence is not clear as many filings are heavily redacted.In one exhibit, Murdoch, now 91 and chairman of Fox Corporation, emailed the Fox News president, Suzanne Scott, the day after Biden’s inauguration, asking: “Is it ‘unarguable that high-profile Fox voices fed the story that the election was stolen and that January 6th an important chance to have the result overturned’? Maybe Sean and Laura went too far. All very well for Sean to tell you he was in despair about Trump, but what did he tell his viewers?”In an earlier exchange, Murdoch wrote that it had been suggested that primetime hosts say something like “the election is over and Joe Biden won”. Murdoch told Scott some version of this would “go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election stolen” and reasoned that Trump would “concede eventually”.According to the Dominion filings, Murdoch emailed a friend that the notion state legislators could change the election outcome – an idea gaining traction on the right – “sound[s] ridiculous. There’d be riots like never before.”“Stupid and damaging,” Murdoch continues, referring to a news conference by the then Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. “The only one encouraging Trump and misleading him. Both increasingly mad. The real danger is what he might do as president.”In a text, Murdoch described the claims of election fraud as “really crazy stuff”.These exhibits and other material included in Dominion’s summary judgment motion are part of the company’s effort to prove Fox News either knew the statements it aired were false or recklessly disregarded their accuracy. That is the standard of “actual malice”, which public figures must prove in defamation cases.Federal and state election officials and Trump’s own attorney general found no fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election. Trump’s allegations have been rejected by dozens of courts, including by judges he appointed.The lawsuit has given a stunning insight into the gap between what Fox News presented to millions of viewers and what its top stars thought and said in private, as well as their dread of losing audience to competitors.Two days before the January 6 insurrection, the host Tucker Carlson texted a producer to say: “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait. I hate him passionately.”In an exchange more than a month earlier, Carlson said what Trump “is good at is destroy[ing] things. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”Fox News argues claims by Trump and his lawyers were inherently newsworthy and protected by the constitution. The network said in a statement the newly released documents show Dominion using “distortions and misinformation” to “smear Fox News and trample on free speech”.Fox News has said that Dominion’s “extreme” interpretation of defamation law would chill press freedom.Its evidence includes more context of testimony and messages that it says Dominion “cherry-picked” and “misrepresented”.For example, Fox News cites additional testimony by the Fox Corp chief executive, Lachlan Murdoch, who said under oath he was “concerned” but “not overly concerned” by declining ratings after the election.In a reply brief, Dominion pushes back: “The charges Fox broadcast against Dominion are false. Fox does not spend a word of its brief arguing the truth of any accused statement.”“Finally, Fox has conceded what it knew all along,” the brief reads.The exhibits released on Tuesday had several references to accusations against Dominion made by the Trump lawyer Sidney Powell. In one email, the Fox News host Dana Perino referenced a Powell interview with another host, Maria Bartiromo, saying “this is nuts”. Carlson said in a text message: “Sidney Powell is lying.”In another exhibit, Hannity said he was giving Powell time to produce evidence but stopped having her appear on-air after she failed to deliver. Hannity has been quoted by Dominion during a deposition as saying he “did not believe” claims by Powell “for one second”.In his own deposition in January, Murdoch was asked by a lawyer for Dominion, “Do you believe that the 2020 presidential election was free and fair?”The media mogul replied: “Yes.”He added later: “The election was not stolen.”A Dominion spokesperson said the “emails, texts, and deposition testimony speak for themselves. We welcome all scrutiny of our evidence because it all leads to the same place – Fox knowingly spread lies causing enormous damage to an American company.”The trial, set to begin on 17 April, is slated to last five weeks. But there is little sign of it making an impact on the tone and tenor of Fox News coverage. Carlson has this week used footage of the deadly January 6 attack to falsely portray it as a largely peaceful gathering, earning rebukes from Democrats and Republicans in Congress.Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: “It wasn’t about the country, it was about the ratings. It wasn’t about objective, honest journalism. It was about Maga [Make America great again, Trump’s slogan] propagandism.“It’s about further ingratiation of Fox and its cohorts, the folks on TV, being loyal to Trump to the point that they were so afraid of losing him. It is like the worst, most dependent relationship in history because the consequences go beyond Fox and Trump.”Reuters contributed reportingTopicsRupert MurdochUS politicsFox NewsUS television industrySean HannityUS elections 2020Joe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      How Trump’s big lie played out on the CPAC stage

      by

      How Trump’s big lie played out on the CPAC stageMost speakers focused on issues other than election integrity, but prominent election deniers were still given top billingIn the exhibit hall, vendors displayed various styles of hats declaring “Trump won” and attendees referred to former president Donald Trump as the rightful winner of the 2020 election.But on the event stage, most prominent Republican lawmakers at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) didn’t bring up Trump’s big lie. Instead they largely chose not to repeat his common talking point that rampant voter fraud cost him his re-election.A diminished but loyal Trump Maga at CPAC: ‘There’s one choice’Read moreCPAC this year was seen as a crucial barometer of the likely contours of the 2024 fight. In that regard the majority of conservatives here aligned themselves closely with the former president. But they also chose not to relitigate the 2020 election and looked ahead to the 2024 contest, repeatedly calling Trump the former and future president.Attendees said they noticed the absence of a talking point that has in the past, including at last year’s CPAC, been pervasive.“There’s a lot of gaps in the topic list,” said Suzzanne Monk, a DC resident who donned a Maga hat and a T-shirt reading: “Don’t blame me, I voted for Trump.” “The election integrity issues are kind of soft. We could be hitting a lot harder.”While most speakers focused on issues other than election integrity, prominent election deniers were still given top billing. Kari Lake, a former TV news anchor who unsuccessfully ran for Arizona governor in 2022 and who continues to challenge both the results of her own election and the 2020 presidential election, was the keynote speaker at Friday night’s Ronald Reagan dinner.Though Lake didn’t bring up claims that Trump’s election was stolen, she dedicated many minutes to describing how her own election last November was rigged.“They stole that election,” she said, referring to Democrats. “The crime was committed in broad daylight on November 8. They sabotaged election day.”She claimed that Democrats “had to pump in hundreds of thousands of phony ballots” and specifically jammed tabulators in Republican precincts to cause long lines at the polls.“I will not stand by and let these bastards get away with it,” she said.The big lie also snuck its way into other mainstage speeches in small mentions and asides.Kimberly Guilfoyle, former Trump adviser and fiancee to Donald Trump Jr, declared that conservatives must “never let another election be stolen in this country”. Steve Bannon called out Fox News for “illegitimately calling” the race in November 2020 against Trump.In the event hallways, Bannon interviewed conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell, who was promoting an “election crime bureau”. Bannon said that some conservatives view election denialism as a losing issue, to which Lindell replied: “If you give it up, you lose your country.”On Saturday, Hogan Gidley, former press secretary under Trump and now vice-chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for Election Integrity, moderated a panel called They Stole it From Us Legally, which he said would focus on how to “make it easy to vote but hard to cheat”.Abe Hamadeh, an election denier who lost the race for Arizona attorney general in November, claimed that incompetence cost him the election.“What happened on election day is a disgrace to democracy,” he said, calling out what he said were major issues in Maricopa county. “But it ain’t over yet.”Hamadeh, like Lake, has challenged his loss in court and continues to claim that voters were disfranchised. “We need to make sure that there’s competency and people are held accountable,” he said.On the same panel, former Republican representative Lee Zeldin said that if Democrats are going to “ballot harvest”, conservatives need to lean in and do the same.“We’ve got to get out there and ballot harvest the heck out of the next election and they’re going to want to change that policy,” Gidley said, agreeing with Zeldin.Ahead of the panel on Saturday, Monk lamented that too many CPAC discussions focused on topics not as relevant to the conservative audience. “Look, I’m opposed to big tech censorship too, but I don’t think that’s the most pressing issue facing conservatives right now and I think the topics we’re listening to right now demonstrate kind of a soft pedaling rather than where I think these attendees are,” she said.Monk said she thinks Matt Schlapp, the chairman of CPAC who was recently accused of sexual misconduct by a Republican campaign staffer, “might be a little off the pulse”.“Long before Donald Trump and the 2020 election, we’ve had election integrity issues,” she added. “It’s very hard to prosecute election fraud, so we need to start. We need to fix that before we have elections.”But others were less concerned about the readiness to move on from 2020. “I’m not the type of person who thinks it was, per se, stolen,” said Orlando resident Luis Marrero.TopicsCPACUS politicsDonald TrumpRepublicansUS elections 2020US elections 2024featuresReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Rupert Murdoch testified that Fox News hosts ‘endorsed’ stolen election narrative

      by

      Rupert Murdoch testified that Fox News hosts ‘endorsed’ stolen election narrativeNetwork owner also admitted in $1.6bn defamation lawsuit deposition that Trump’s claims were ‘damaging to everybody’Newly released court documents reveal that Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire owner of Fox News, acknowledged under oath that several Fox News hosts endorsed Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him.The mogul made the admission during a deposition in the $1.6bn defamation lawsuit brought against the network by the voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems, which has accused Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corporation, of maligning its reputation. In his deposition, Murdoch said that the hosts Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro “endorsed” the false narrative promoted by Trump.Will a $1.6bn defamation lawsuit finally stop Fox News from spreading lies? | Margaret SullivanRead more“I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight,” Murdoch said in the deposition, the New York Times reported on Monday.In previous court filings, attorneys for Dominion have argued that Fox News hosts ridiculed Trump’s false claims of a “stolen election” while promoting those lies on television. While Sean Hannity pushed that narrative on his prime-time show, he allegedly wrote that Trump was “acting like an insane person”.Even Murdoch himself dismissed Trump’s claims, describing the former president’s obsession with proving the election was stolen as “terrible stuff damaging everybody”.Murdoch acknowledged in his deposition that he could have ordered the network not to platform Trump lawyers such as Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani on its programs: “I could have. But I didn’t,” he said.Dominion’s defamation case is being described as a “landmark”. A Harvard law professor recently told the Guardian he had “never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues”.How Dominion Voting Systems filing proves Fox News was ‘deliberately lying’Read moreThe Fox hosts were also privately critical of members of Trump’s team, including Sidney Powell, an attorney who claimed that Dominion’s machines had changed votes cast for Trump to Joe Biden. In a deposition, Hannity said: “That whole narrative that Sidney was pushing, I did not believe it for one second”.Still, the network continued to give coverage to proponents of the election fraud narrative as it feared upsetting its viewers. In a conversation about the network’s coverage of the issue on 5 January 2020 – a day before rioters stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to stop the election from being certified – Suzanne Scott, the Fox News media chief executive, and Murdoch debated whether Fox hosts should acknowledge Trump’s defeat and admit that Biden won. “We need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers,” Scott told Murdoch.Dominion sued Fox News and parent company Fox Corporation in March 2021 and November 2021 in Delaware superior court, alleging the cable TV network amplified false claims that Dominion voting machines were used to rig the 2020 election against Trump, a Republican who lost to Democratic rival Biden. Dominion’s motion for summary judgment was replete with emails and statements in which Murdoch and other top Fox executives say the claims made about Dominion on air were false – part of the voting machine company’s effort to prove the network either knew the statements it aired were false or recklessly disregarded their accuracy.In its own filing made public on Monday, Fox argued that its coverage of statements by Trump and his lawyers were inherently newsworthy and that Dominion’s “extreme” interpretation of defamation law would “stop the media in its tracks”.Reuters reported that a Fox spokesperson said that Dominion’s view of defamation law “would prevent journalists from basic reporting”.A trial is scheduled to begin in mid-April.Reuters contributed reportingTopicsRupert MurdochFox NewsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpUS politicsTV newsTelevision industrynewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Former attorney general in key state withheld evidence debunking 2020 election fraud

      by

      Former attorney general in key state withheld evidence debunking 2020 election fraudRepublican Mark Brnovich’s successor releases reports that debunked claims of fraud in Maricopa county in 2020 electionThe former attorney general of Arizona, Mark Brnovich, failed to release documents that showed his office’s investigation into the 2020 election did not find evidence of widespread fraud in the state’s most populous county.The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Brnovich would not turn over public records that detailed his investigators’ findings. His successor, the Democratic attorney general Kris Mayes, released the records, which showed several reports that debunked rampant claims of election problems in Maricopa county.Revealed: Trump secretly donated $1m to discredited Arizona election ‘audit’ Read moreBrnovich, a Republican, was running for US Senate in 2022 while his office oversaw an investigation into the 2020 election. He released two reports related to the work – one that showed just one example of a dead person voting and one “interim report” that made nebulous, unfounded criticisms of the county’s elections.But the unreleased reports show Brnovich’s investigators did not agree with some assertions he made publicly, such as that the county did not follow proper signature verification procedures or that the county had not been responsive to his requests for information.In an interview with the Guardian on Wednesday, Mayes said her office discovered a bunch of unfulfilled records requests upon taking over in January. She also wanted to find any potential final report for the 2020 investigation, which was not found.Her office released two additional interim reports and an investigative summary, which are all publicly posted on the attorney general’s website now.“This office has a solemn duty to be honest and transparent with the people of Arizona,” Mayes said. “The dark cloud cast over the 2020 and 2022 elections because of the insane conspiracy theories perpetrated by high-profile election deniers could have and should have been stopped, especially as it related to Maricopa county and its elections officials. I believe the people of Arizona had a right to know this information before the 2022 election. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.”The investigation is considered closed, though there are hundreds more documents going through the redaction process that will be released once the office has completed that process.The office under Brnovich spent about 10,000 hours on the investigation and each of its 60 investigators spent at least some time on it, the Post reported.Mayes said it is hard to put a dollar figure on how much that cost the state or taxpayers, but the whole effort was clearly a “distraction from the core mission of this office”.“But I also want to say I’m incredibly proud of the work the agents and support staff who worked on these investigations did. They did so diligently, thoroughly and professionally, as they do all of their work here,” she said.Mayes said she did not get any insight into why Brnovich did not release the information while he was in charge, saying Brnovich would need to answer that for himself. Brnovich did not respond to a request for comment.“This kind of failure to release information to the people of Arizona is not how this office will operate moving forward under my leadership,” Mayes said. “My administration will be truthful and transparent.”The Post report compelled elections officials throughout the state to comment on the revelations, especially those who Brnovich had previously criticized publicly.Clint Hickman, the chairman of the Maricopa county board of supervisors, said he was “absolutely disgusted” that Brnovich concealed reports on the 2020 election and applauded Mayes for finally releasing the documents. He implored people who care about elections to read the reports.“This was a gross misuse of his elected office and an appalling waste of taxpayer dollars, as well as a waste of the time and effort of professional investigators,” Hickman said in a statement.He pointed to the onslaught of threats and harassment the board, elections officials and election workers have faced while false claims of impropriety in the 2020 election lingered for years.“For three years, my colleagues have been called traitors, cheaters, and liars … and those are just the names I can print,” Hickman said. “It has been absolute hell on all of us, but I would do it again in a second and I believe that every member of this board would do it again because all of us stayed within the law.”Stephen Richer, the county’s Republican recorder, noted two elements of the reports where investigators contradicted Brnovich’s interim report by saying the county had been responsive and followed signature verification procedures. Those notes from investigators “distinctly show the ways in which our office cooperated with and supported the attorney general’s office in the development of last year’s interim report,” Richer said.Arizona’s Secretary of state Adrian Fontes, a Democrat who in 2020 was the Maricopa county recorder, said he was “deeply disappointed by the wasteful and pointless actions by a top law enforcement official who diverted thousands of hours of staff time to pursue unfounded allegations of election fraud”.TopicsArizonaThe fight for democracyUS politicsUS elections 2020RepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      ‘A big freaking deal’: the grand jury that investigated Trump election pressure

      by

      ‘A big freaking deal’: the grand jury that investigated Trump election pressureForeperson Emily Kohrs gives insight into process usually cloaked in secrecy, after portions of grand jury report released last weekAsked if the grand jury she led recommended indicting Donald Trump over his election subversion in Georgia, the foreperson of the jury said: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.”Ron DeSantis gives Donald Trump kid-glove treatment in new bookRead moreShe also said sitting on the jury was “a big freaking deal”.Emily Kohrs, 30, spoke to the New York Times and outlets including the Associated Press and NBC News on Tuesday. She was authorised to speak but not to discuss details of the grand jury report, most of which remains secret after a judge disclosed portions last week.Those portions showed jurors saw possible evidence of perjury by “one or more witnesses”. Trump did not testify. His personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who advanced Trump’s lie about voter fraud in his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden, was among those who did.The grand jury was requested by Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney. Speaking to the AP, Kohrs described how, last May, jurors were led into a garage beneath an Atlanta courthouse, where officers with guns waited. Ushered into vans with heavily tinted windows, jurors were driven to their cars under police escort.“That was the first indication that this was a big freaking deal,” Kohrs said.Kohrs found herself at the center of one of the most significant legal proceedings in US history. She would become foreperson of the panel investigating whether the then president and associates illegally meddled in Georgia election results.The case is one of Trump’s most glaring legal vulnerabilities as he mounts a third presidential run, in part because he was recorded asking officials to “find 11,780 votes” and overturn Biden’s win.Jurors heard from 75 witnesses, from prominent Trump allies to local election workers. A judge, Robert McBurney, advised jurors on what they could and could not share publicly. Kohrs provided insight into a process typically cloaked in secrecy.She told the Times Giuliani, who was mayor of New York at the time of the 9/11 attacks, when she was 11, was “almost like a myth figure in my head”, leaving her “intimidated” in his presence.She told NBC the list of recommended indictments was “not short”, involving more than a dozen people, and that Trump “might” be among them.She told the Times the report would not offer “some giant plot twist. You probably have a fair idea of what may be in there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately”.Her remarks met with criticism in some quarters.Elie Honig, a federal prosecutor turned CNN analyst, said: “This is a very serious prospect. Indicting any person, you’re talking about potentially taking away that person’s liberty. We’re talking about potentially [indicting] a former president for the first time … she does not seem to be taking that very seriously.”Trump’s lawyers might seek to dismiss any indictment based on grand jury impropriety, Honig said.Trump was the first Republican to lose Georgia since George HW Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992. Attempts to overturn Trump’s defeat included the famous call to Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state, in which he asked his fellow Republican to “find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have” to get to win.Kohrs told the Times the jury “definitely started with the first phone call, the call to Secretary Raffensperger that was so publicised”.She told the AP Raffensperger was “a really geeky kind of funny”. She said the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, who fought not to testify, joked with jurors while Brian Kemp, the Republican governor of Georgia, seemed unhappy to be there.Looking to other parts of Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat, she said the jury “definitely talked about the alternate electors a fair amount” and “talked a lot about December and things that happened in the Georgia legislature”.What does the release of Georgia’s grand jury report mean for Trump?Read moreKohrs told the AP she was fascinated by an explainer by a former Dominion Voting Systems executive. She said the jury studied the “concept of vote fraud in Georgia”, finding “unanimously that there was no evidence of vote fraud in Fulton county in the 2020 election”, which they “wanted to make sure we put in” the final report, “because somehow that’s still a question”.Trump and his supporters still claim the 2020 election was stolen.Kohrs sketched witnesses. When jurors’ notes were taken for shredding, she managed to salvage two sketches, of Graham and Marc Short, who was chief of staff to former vice-president Mike Pence, because there were no notes on those pages.Kohrs said she enjoyed learning about the White House from Cassidy Hutchinson, who was much more forthcoming than the former chief of staff Mark Meadows.Several witnesses have immunity deals. Trump’s attorneys have said he was not asked to testify. Kohrs said the jury didn’t think he would offer meaningful testimony.“Trump was not a battle we picked to fight,” she said.Kohrs told the AP she didn’t vote in 2020 and at the time did not know the specifics of Trump’s allegations of widespread election fraud or efforts to reverse his loss. She said she did not identify with any political party, and did not feel political pressure.“I fully stand by our report as our decision and our conclusion,” she said.
      Associated Press contributed reporting
      TopicsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpUS politicsGeorgianewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      How Dominion Voting Systems filing proves Fox News was ‘deliberately lying’

      by

      AnalysisHow Dominion Voting Systems filing proves Fox News was ‘deliberately lying’Charles Kaiser in New York Document makes clear senior Fox News figures knew after 2020 election voter fraud claims were false – and it’s likely a landmark caseThe Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said Dominion Voting Systems’ brief requesting summary judgment against Fox News for defamation – and $1.6bn – is “likely to succeed and likely to be a landmark” in the history of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.Fox News hosts thought Trump’s election fraud claims were ‘total BS’, court filings showRead more“I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues,” Tribe told the Guardian. “Fox and its producers and performers were lying as part of their business model.”The case concerns Fox News’s repetition of Donald Trump’s lie that his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden was the result of electoral fraud, including claims about Dominion voting machines.Tribe said the filing “establishes that Fox was not only reckless” but also that producers, owners and personalities were “deliberately lying and knew they were lying about the nature of Dominion’s machines and the supposed way they could be manipulated”.Filed last week, the 192-page document makes it clear that senior figures at Fox News from Rupert Murdoch down knew immediately after the election that claims of voter fraud, in particular those aimed at Dominion, were false.Tucker Carlson called the charges “ludicrous” and “off the rails”. Sean Hannity texted about “F’ing lunatics”. A senior network vice-president called one of the stories “MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS”.But none of this knowledge prevented hosts from repeating lies about everything from imaginary algorithms shaving votes from Dominion machines to non-existent ties between the company and Venezuela.Tribe was one of several first amendment experts to call the filing nearly unprecedented.“This is the most remarkable discovery filing I’ve ever read in a commercial litigation,” said Scott Horton, a Columbia Law School lecturer, Harper’s Magazine contributing editor and litigator with clients including CBS and the Associated Press.“A summary judgment motion by a plaintiff in this kind of case is almost unheard of. These suits usually fail because you can’t prove the company you’re suing knew they were spreading falsehoods. That you would have evidence they knew it was a lie is almost unheard of … in this case the sheer volume of all the email and text messages is staggering.”Horton said Dominion’s case gets “huge benefit” from the way Fox employees “express themselves with a huge measure of hyperbole about absolutely everything”.Tribe agreed: “This is one of the first defamation cases in which it is possible to rule for the plaintiff on summary judgment. This is not a request to go to trial. There is no genuinely disputed fact. The defendants were deliberately lying in a manner that was per se libelous and they clearly knew it.”When the Dominion filing was first reported, Fox News said it “mischaracterized the record, cherry-picked quotes stripped of key context and spilled considerable ink on facts that are irrelevant under black-letter principles of defamation law”.Lawyers for Fox News claim everything their anchors said was protected by the first amendment.Other lawyers are skeptical.“You may have a first amendment right to report on what the president said but you have no right to validate a statement that you know to be false,” said Steven Shapiro, former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and counsel or co-counsel on more than 200 supreme court briefs.David Korzenik is a leading libel lawyer whose clients include the Guardian. He said the Dominion case shows it “possible to prove actual malice. If particular people are shown to have believed something to be false, or to have been highly aware of its probable falsehood, and at the same time they made statements endorsing it on air, they are in play.“You’re allowed to be biased … you’re allowed to try to make money. And people should be able to disagree with each other in a newsroom. But if Fox anchors say they don’t believe X and then turn around and endorse X on air after expressing manifest disbelief in it, they have a real problem.“The actual malice standard is very high and it’s supposed to be … it’s a burden that can be overcome in limited but appropriate circumstances.”The biggest irony revealed by the Dominion filing is that Carlson and colleagues quickly decided the greatest threat to their network was one of the only times it reported an accurate scoop: that Arizona had gone for Biden, at 11.20pm on election night.Four days later, another Murdoch property, the New York Post, asked Trump to stop the stolen election claim. Rupert Murdoch thanked the Fox News chief executive, Suzanne Scott, for making sure the editorial got wide distribution, according to the Dominion filing.But later that day, as Fox executives realized they were losing viewers, the tide began to shift.“Getting creamed by CNN!” Murdoch messaged Scott.In a message to his producer, Carlson sounded terrified: “Do the executives understand how much credibility and trust we’ve lost with our audience? We’re playing with fire, for real an alternative like Newsmax could be devastating to us.”And so on 8 November Maria Bartiromo featured the Trump adviser Sidney Powell and said: “I know that there were voting irregularities. Tell me about that.”That alternate reality would be repeated for months. Perhaps most devastating of all is Dominion’s account of what happened on 12 November, after the reporter Jaqui Heinrich “correctly factchecked [a Trump] tweet, pointing out that top election infrastructure officials said that there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”Carlson was incensed. He messaged Hannity: “Please get her fired. Seriously what the fuck? Actually shocked. It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down.”Hannity complained to Scott, who said Heinrich had “serious nerve doing this and if this gets picked up, viewers are going to be further disgusted”.By the next morning, Heinrich had deleted her tweet.TopicsFox NewsUS elections 2020Donald TrumpUS politicsUS televisionUS television industryTV newsanalysisReuse this content More