only by the barest margin and only by winning the votes in the 11th hour of the most extreme members of his party. one promise he made while campaigning to be speaker according to cnn s the new york times is to make thousands of hours of security footage from the january 6th attack public. today here is how house speaker mccarthy justified his decision to release the video. because i think sunshine matters. i don t care what side of the issue you re on, that s why i think putting it out all to the american public, you can see the truth. so what could be wrong with that? well, for starter, he is not actually doing what he said. he is not putting it all out to the american people. he is giving it to fox host tucker carlson, the one who spent months downplaying the significance of the day and hosting people peddling conspiracy theories about the day, lies about the election. when asked about that today, the speaker suggested the objections were just sour grapes. did you
the plaintiff s lawyer, you don t expect to get anything remotely like this. this is sort of like a these cases are like a kaleidoscope. what you have is sometimes you turn it one way and the reporters look a little careless and they look like they re ignoring something. the other way, you can see how they might have believed this story to be true. and what s really remarkable is that this comes in the context of the most different. standard, the most standard that you could possibly apply in a libel case, which is the new york times against sullivan standard, which governs the libel claims on matters of public concern against public figures. and that requires it s a bit of a misnomer. people talk about it being the standard of actual malice. the supreme court uses that word. but malice isn t required. you heard the term reckless disregard. reckless isn t enough. it s not enough the reporter blew past some facts. what you have to show, in a case from 1968 called st. amon versus
the new york times versus sullivan standard, that case palin should lose this case, but the law may change and she may wind up winning. you think about times versus palin it s two americas. you have this mainstream institution versus kind of this anti-media figure. this is why it s going to be a doozy of a case. i m sure it will be heavily covered by fox news but there could be a backfire effect, right? outlets like fox do rely on times v. sullivan. and they are relying on times v. sullivan in very big money cases right now. dominion voting systems, mart m smartmatic, the election machine companies that were repeatedly lied about on fox news after the election, repeatedly lied about over and over and they have sued fox for billions of lawyers. foxes lawyers understandably have said new york times versus sullivan protects us, we re supposed to cover robust
i would like to see what the evidence is. tucker: yeah, i don t know what the evidence is, either, but i know a b.s. story when i see one. i thought it from day one. why the media, which is paid to be skeptical and paid to chase down facts are the ones demanding that we robin roberts on abc colluded with this guy to per pittuate his hoax. the other channel, disonnest ones, aren t covered this development. why would reporters fall for this before everyone else? that s a great question. you know, it s exactly why justice thomas was correct in raising, yesterday in the supreme court, we need to rethink in a new york times, sullivan standard, which is the actual malice standard applied in the warren court in the 1960s, insulated the media from liability in these cases.