and lots of questions to answer, so let s get started is donald trump finally abou to face accountability for his crimes we have the latest on th possible indictment of forme president trump for allege hush money payment to an adult film star. they lied, again and again and again. more details on what was going on inside fox news as they peddle conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. my question is, how much wil those lies cost them and later, tennessee man and drag shows on public property? what one of the votes famous drag performers has to say about it, and how we can pus back against anti-trans hate all of that and more, coming up and the good saturday morning to you, i m kati phang. we begin today s show with a mixed bag when it comes to the economy, with the doubters focusing yesterday more than 300 points in the red, but a better than expected job report, surprising a lot o people 311,000 jobs added much more than the 225,000 economists were expecting. the unemp
revealed that a senior u.s. diplomat has been having conversation with north korean counter parts, another sign that the trump administration is quietly trying to calm this down. joining us now, john bolton. good evening, ambassador. seems like we ve never been closer to it nuclear brink than we are now. is that a correct statement? we re at a crisis point because of the advances that north korea has made in the last eight years, so donald trump inherits 25 years of a failed policy of negotiating north korea out of these programs and his options are few and not very good. what is interesting is the
regime and the threat of nuclear terrorism against our country. without looking backward for too long, do you see the way that some of the administrations, particularly the clinton administration, giving money to north korea, and then the parallel of the obama administration giving money to iran, do you see that the appeasement that seems to be going on is only to our detriment and
Appear in court for an ora argument battle. as dominion has argued, it i the rare case to grant summary judgment of actual malice, but it is also the rare case wer direct evidence of actua malice exists, as it does here some legal experts agree dominion doesn t just have the upper hand, it has the truth o its side if dominion is successful, all that would be left to determin is the amount of damages tha dominion is entitled t receive. that s where the numbers becom astronomical dominion is seeking 1.6 billio dollars in lost profits an reputation will harm but it s also seeking punitive damages, which are not kep under new york law, and coul also be in the billions of dollars. punitive damages are intende to punish the wrongdoer and to deter others from repeatin that egregious conduct a multibillion dollar punitive damages verdict would not only punish fox, but it would send
Anyway is how i would summariz this that s the opening statement i would make to a jury, and by the way, katie, it looks lik it s heading that way. there s a very high bar to bring a defamation case agains a quote unquote public figure, and for good reason, for freedom of speech reasons, but when there is knowledge an malice in your intent, you are not protected. so, the evidence now shows tha everyone at fox knew that th election fraud claims were bs, but they spawn them and told them and they. and what happened? well obviously, you hear dominion, they hurt thei reputation financially it hurt the country more because a mob was assembled an aimed at the capitol and we re still we are still healing from. that looks like this is goin to trial i hope there is some accountability, and maybe, it
It is verifiable and the presse left waiting in this russian conspiracy. is based on little more than rumor and newspapers. those of the words of senator dianne feinstein. you are the lawyer here. and you and kayleigh as well. we are all players here. explained to the viewers. they think to themselves, look, if they are lying and if they are publishing stories that the know are not true, than some of that, in spite of new york time at solving, that they should be liable for this kind of thing, should they be? probably not because we are talking about public figures an you have to prove malice, actua malice. malice and malicious content has to be proven over and over in terms of what they want to govern what they lie about? we all knew the february story in the times was not true and yet no one would deny it and tell coming back was under oath. the president calls it fake news and he is right to the extent that the media by virtue