summary judgment of a massive ought yen of viewers, a past logical fear of a ratings defeat and witches ease brew against in a network s own working journalists and fact checkers. we should tell you at any moment we re expecting breaking news in the form of fresh filens from dominion and fox, to lay out any arguments in the case. while we wait, for years we have turned to phrases lie inside the bubble and the echo chamber to describe that relationship between fox news and its viewers. never before has it been so plain to see from the outside. the discovery filings show that fox hosts were telling their viewers what they knew they wanted to here even when the very same fox news host communicated the truth to one another in private, which was different from what they were broadcasting. dominion s case may very well wrest on their ability to get a jury to understand that distinction. today, though, the story goes even further in the form of something rare. a highly visible i
but the court of appeals as glenn referred to it had the opinion, that was released friday, actually came out in december, and there was a hearing last week and two of the three members of the court were saying hmm, maybe howell is a little too broad to say almost any informal conversation with any third party doesn t get speech or debate protection. so the concrete risk now in the overall refrain of delay is that the court of appeals takes a little bit of time to figure out what should be the right standard, then remands it and we take many months to get to the point we already know that the courts have to come to, namely, when mike pence is talking with trump or when scott perry is plotting the overthrow of the department of justice that is not speech or debate. but the courts and here the court of appeals is being careful to articulate a line that you can draw in the future. and that is the actual concrete risk that this will take a lot