that s part of the burden they have to prove, right. you can t say theoretically, this might have happened. you have to be concrete about how it actually did, right? exactly. you just zeroed in on one of the biggest gaps in her case. she could not point to a single specific conversation with anybody, her family members, her close friends where they said we saw that article. it s terrible, or she called them and said this article is terrible. she couldn t point to anyone who shunned her or thought differently about her. she couldn t point to any financial harm or lost opportunities. it was a glaring, glaring gap in her case, and she was very general and evasive. it was clear she was just trying to tap dance around the fact that she had no harm and no evidence. now earlier in my career, as you know, i did some defamation cases. i didn t want to let the media off the hook here in this respect because there are instances where there is actual malice, right? but it s a very hard sort of
represented cnn in legal matters. ted, i m glad you re back, because i have a lot of questions about what people are asking about here. first of all, this idea of her testimony, you know, part of the standard here is the actual malice, which is why she probably mentioned that notion, which is a higher degree because she is a public figure. and because you re thrust into the limelight, you outout to take a couple of hits on the chin. did she have a compelling case for herself about how actual malice was actually established here? she did not make a compelling case at all, laura. she bears a heavy burden under the first amendment to prove actual malice. it was a very, very week presentation, very palinesque. weird use of words, tried to be folksy, evasive. made a number of false statements herself from the stand. it did not work. and in terms of evasive, was she actually asked about well, how did this actually impact?
represented cnn in legal matters. ted, i m glad you re back because i have a lot of questions here. first of all, this idea of her testimony, you know, part of the standard here is the actual malice, which is why she probably mentioned that notion, which is a higher degree because she s a public figure. and so you think because you re thrust into the limelight you should take a couple hits on the chin. did she have a compelling case for herself about how malice was actually established here? she did not make a have a compelling case at all, laura. she bears a heavy burden under the first amendment to prove actual malice. it was a very, very weak presentation. very palin-esque, weird use of words, tried to be folksy, evasive, made a number of false statements herself from the stand. it did not work. and in terms of evasive, was she actually asked about, well, how did this actually impact?
that s part of the burden for the act to prove. you can t say theoretically this might have happened. you have to be concrete about how it actually did, right? exactly. you just zeroed in on one of the biggest gaps in her case. she could not point to a single specific conversation with anybody, her family members, her close friends, where they said, we saw that article, it s terrible or she called them and said this article is terrible. she couldn t point to anyone who shunned her or thought differently about her. she couldn t point to any financial harm or lost opportunities. it was a glaring, glaring gap in her case. and she was very general and evasive. and it was clear she was just trying to, you know, tap dance around the fact that she had no harm and no evidence. now, early in my career, as you know, i did defamation cases. so, i don t want to let the media off the hook here in this respect because there are instances where there is actual malice, right? but it s a very hard
rapid antigen test to make sure none of us were bringing infectiousness into the gathering and risking spreading it and ruining each other s holidays. i used one yesterday. i want to take a moment to get to a few viewer questions. one viewer is asking, is it possible to contract delta and omicron at the same time? unlikely to catch both at the same time, but there are definitely a lot of reports out of south africa of people who caught delta and then caught omicron. so having had delta doesn t put you at protection from omicron, but unlikely to catch both together. a second viewer asked, with new variants rising every few months, with omicron being partially immune-evasive, will we ever get out of the pandemic phase of covid, or will we continue to have pandemic waves in the future? i wish i had a crystal ball to be able to answer that question. what i, and most experts, are expecting is that at tom point covid is going to become