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
libel case, which is the new york times against which governs the libel claims on manners of public concern against public figures, and so that requires it s a bit of a misnomer, because people talk about it being a standard of actual malice, rico uses that word. but malice is not required. and then you also hear the term reckless disregard. mint recklessness is not enough, it s not enough that the reporter blew past the facts. what you have to show is, and there s a case from 1968 called and it versus thompson, which says the what you have to show to show reckless disregard is that at a minimum, the publisher of the information, or the broadcaster of information actually entertained serious doubts as the truth of what was being reported. here you have that in droves, and at multiple levels. you have fact-checker, zingers, you have rupert murdoch, all agreeing that this was false. you never see in libel cases,
again or sixth. from a legal perspective, how much trouble do you think that fox news is in with this dominion lawsuit? i can t. it s incredible. i litigated libel cases, one in particular in my practice 25 years ago, and litigated in lots of other cases. when you have a libel case, and do the plaintiff, or the plaintiffs lawyer, you don t expect to get anything remotely like this. these cases are like a kaleidoscope, and what you have is sometimes you turn it one way, and reporters look a little bit careless and look like they re ignoring something on the other end, and you can see how they might have believed the story to be true. and so what is really remarkable is that this comes in the context of the most difficult standard, one of the most difficult standards that you could possibly apply in a
sidney is a complete nut. and then fox kept putting them on the air, floyd. that s exactly and defamed dominion. well, it s clear that they defamed but the legal question is can they say we believed it? and so far as i know, no one from fox has come forward, even even unin the course of lawsuit and said, oh, that s what we believe, we, we, i myself, really believed that these voting machines were fraudulent. so there s none of the validation that occurs so often in libel cases. and instead, fox is left with a situation where they have people on repeatedly saying defamatory
likely to be modest but at the cost of paying for all those lawyers could be north of £2 million. that is what traditional publishers know only too well in libel cases, the only too well in libel cases, the only real winners are the lawyers. mark, thank you. more than 4,000 surviving victims and bereaved partners along with bereaved partners, should receive an immediate compensation payment of at least £100,000 each. that s the recommendation of the judge leading the public inquiry into what s been called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the nhs. the government says it will consider the recommendation with the utmost urgency . if the government accepts it, it ll be the first time compensation will have been paid in the uk, after thousands of people were infected with lethal viruses, including hiv and hepatitis, through contaminated treatments in the 19705 and 805. our health correspondent jim reed has this report. in 1978 richard warrick was given