he did not consult with
Mcconnell about this decision to
release this footage, Anderson.
>> Manu Raju, appreciate it.
I want to get perspective from
“Washington post” contributing
columnist George Conway.
What do you make of this?
Does it make sense what Mccarthy
is doing?
>> No.
It makes sense as a purely pr
act to placify, to play indicate
tucker Carlson and to play
indicate the Maga base.
But it doesn’t make any sense
from any other standpoint.
For example, the idea that the
defendants need this — need
this in order to defend
themselves.
Well, the government already has
this stuff.
And if there is anything in
there exculpatory, they’re
required to produce it.
And under Brady against
Maryland.
And the fact of the matter is,
what is it that it could
possibly show that would help
these defendants?
I mean, for example, if you
catch one defendant smearing
feces on the walls of the
capitol, and he later then uses
the batter in another video and
washes his hands, that doesn’t
get you off of what he did in
the first place.
And showing that I don’t know
what else they could possibly
glean from it, showing that
capitol police officers at some
points allowed people to come
in?
Well, they did that in part
because they were trying to
prevent a bloodbath.
So I just don’t understand what
it is that they’re trying to
accomplish other than to just
perpetuate the January 6th lie,
that there was nothing
extraordinary that happened on
January 6th.
>> From a legal perspective, how
much trouble do you think fox
News is in with this dominion
lawsuit?
>> It’s incredible.
I litigated libel cases, one in
particular in my practice 25
years ago.
I litigated lots of other cases.
When you a libel case and you’re
the plaintiff’s lawyer, you
don’t expect to get anything
remotely like this.
This is sort of like a — these
cases are like a kaleidoscope.
What you have is sometimes you
turn it one way and the
reporters look a little careless
and they look like they’re
ignoring something.
The other way, you can see how
they might have believed this
story to be true.
And what’s really remarkable is
that this comes in the context
of the most different.
Standard, the most standard that
you could possibly apply in a
libel case, which is “The new
York Times” against Sullivan
standard, which governs the
libel claims on matters of
public concern against public
figures.
And that requires — it’s a bit
of a misnomer.
People talk about it being the
standard of actual malice.
The supreme court uses that
word.
But malice isn’t required.
You heard the term “Reckless
disregard.”
Reckless isn’t enough.
It’s not enough the reporter
blew past some facts.
What you have to show, in a case
from 1968 called St. Amon versus
Thompson that says what you have
to show to show reckless
disregard is at a minimum, the
publisher of the information or
the broadcaster of the
information actually entertained
serious doubts as to the truth
of what was being reported.
And here it’s you have that in
droves, at multiple levels.
I don’t have you the fact
checker, you have the anchors,
you have Rupert Murdoch, all
agreeing that this was false.
And you never see in a libel
case, you just virtually never
see in a libel case the libel
plaintiff moving for summary
judgment, which is a judgment
without a trial, saying there is
really no issue to go to the
jury.
It’s all one-sided.
Because the standard against
libel plaintiffs is so high.
And here they made that motion.
And it’s not a bad motion.
I think ultimately it will be
heard before a jury, but if the
judge actually granted certainly
on falsity, but they’re not
disputing falsity, if the judge
even granted on actual malice
and the state of mind, “The new
York Times” standard, that
wouldn’t be crazy, and that’s
remarkable.
>> Do you think it affects — if
the ruling, if it does go to
trial, and there is a big fine
for fox, does that impact, do
you think kind of right wing
media how it behaves going to
the 2024 election, or even the
former president?
Fox is in this weird position
now of how — if the former
president guess on their air and
repeats lies about dominion
voting machines and the last
election, what did they do?
>> Well, it’s hard to say,
because the law isn’t any
different after a judgment is
entered against fox than it was
before.
You’re not supposed to lie.
You can’t tell lies.
You’re going to be held liable
for lies.
And yet foxes that been taking
this crazy view.
And you saw it in the excerpts
of Rupert Murdoch’s deposition.
You see it in some of the
statements that their pr flakes
have been producing which is oh,
well, fox didn’t endorse the big
lie.
Maybe some of our anchors did.
It doesn’t work that way.
You know, that Anderson.
If you say something and you
report something and you
describe it as fact or even as
something short of established
fact, CNN is on the hook if you
libel somebody.
And your state of mind matters.
>> Yeah.
>> It’s crazy what — they’re
taking a position like these
people, we pay them.
