world, we know news organizations take on enormous risk when they publish things they know to be false. they risk their representations. in the rare instances where actual malice can be established, they also face legal exposure. this knowledge of falsity on fox s part was established through mountains of internal communications that prove that the producers, the executives and the anchors knew that claims of massive voter fraud were false ahead of time and they broadcast them anyway. the case dominion had against fox was so strong that by the time the trial commenced, the only thing the jury was going to have to determine was whether fox met that really, really high legal bar of acting with actual malice when it knowingly published falsities about dominion. now, as we all know, instead of standing trial, fox decided to settle for close to $800 million. what we know from that discovery process is dominion established from the top of that company to the bottom, from ruper murd
to treat donald trump like any other candidate, then it was a ghastly misjudgment and terribly naive. as we said over and over and over again, this is not a normal candidate. we re talking about an indicted, twice-impeached, coup-plotting sexual abuser who is known for his verbal incontinence and his ability to use forums like this and turn them into fire hoses of disinformation and they did it anyway. so it was either cynical or it was incredibly naive. andrew weissmann, the fox-dominion trial taught us so many important things about defamation law. one, that it is very hard to prevail. as a former republican, i thought it was just as interesting that the discovery process showed us what the culture was like inside. and my read on the final determination of what led fox to settle and to part ways with tucker carlson was the