Should Hillary Clinton sue Fox News for defamation?

[Cardinal]

After the intro, read the options carefully.

Fox News posted this objectively false headline, "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds." The article goes on to reiterate the claim made in the headline, in spite of the fact that the claim could not be inferred from the Durham court filing. In other words, Fox News went beyond simple reporting on a legal filing (which would insulate them from defamation), and made up a claim out of whole cloth.

While the article does not explicitly state that Clinton ordered such an infiltration but ascribes it to her campaign (which would still be false anyway), right wing readers and followers of this story naturally concluded that Clinton made this order.

Asserting that the Clinton campaign carried out such an infiltration concludes an act that is highly unethical at best and criminal at worst, which for a public figure would be damaging to her reputation and career.

Does Clinton have a defamation case, and if so, should she sue Fox News?

Options:

1) Yes. She has a case and she should pursue litigation.
2) No. Many of the elements of defamation exist but are not strong enough for a successful lawsuit.
3) No. She has a case, but suing Fox would merely lead to the Streisand Effect. (Google this if you don't already know what it is).

While the Fox News story has been debunked multiple times by multiple sources by now, here's a good breakdown on why the claim is nonsense.

Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track (Published 2022)

The latest alarmist claims about spying on Trump appeared to be flawed, but the explanation is byzantine — underlining the challenge for journalists in deciding what merits coverage.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Cardinal]

Note: Since "But Sarah Palin" is not a legal motion and Fox News would not be able to plead "But Sarah Palin" in court, that is not a reasonable response. Also, the merits of the two cases aren't even remotely alike.

 

[Mr Person]

Durham just updated his filing to clarify that the Fox angle was bullshit.



[snip]


And then along comes Durham to ruin the fun. His office was responding to Sussman’s response to his initial filing from last week. (I know that’s confusing to read.) Durham understandably took issue with Sussman’s suggestion that the special counsel had intentionally intended to stoke political anger. “[D]efense counsel has presumed the Government’s bad faith and asserts that the Special Counsel’s Office intentionally sought to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool,” Durham wrote. But, he added later, “f third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.” Setting aside the question of intent, let’s focus on the point here. Durham is stating, explicitly, that members of the media may have “overstated” and “misinterpreted” facts included in his filing. This isn’t me, Washington Post guy, saying that his filing sparked an inaccurate narrative. It’s Durham saying that this (might, perhaps, maybe) happened.

It’s important to point out what immediately preceded that “if.” Durham had mentioned that stuff about data from the White House being included in the Russia research because “a member of the defense team was working for the Executive Office of the President of the United States (‘EOP’) during relevant events that involved the EOP.” To a layperson, that seems unremarkable. But, as Charlie Savage noted when writing for the New York Times, it is Durham validating reporting that indicated there was no research conducted on data collected from the Trump White House at all. Durham’s initial filing mentioned data collected from the EOP and a February 2017 meeting in which research was discussed. This was interpreted as meaning that the data involved in the analysis included data collected during Trump’s presidency (which, of course, began in January of that year). Setting aside the limited scope of this data (there was no “listening in on”) and the authorization under which it was collected, the team at Georgia Tech that conducted the research denied that it included anything collected after 2016. And, here, Durham’s admitting that this was true.

[continues]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/18/john-durham-dumps-small-bucket-water-forest-fire-he-sparked/

It also notes:

* The 'member of the defense team' = Michael Bosworth, deputy WH counsel under Barack Obama. He wasn't serving when Trump was in office. He was there in which the relevant data collection/sharing was occurring, meaning it was only while OBAMA was president

* There is no evidence the Clinton campaign drove the research. But there is evidence suggesting it's the tech exec whose firm collected the data and retained Sussman in the first place.




These people lie. It's all they do. Just lie lie lie, then try to kill congress and install Trump as Leader in Perpetuity.

 

[Lutherf]

Oh HELL yeah she should sue!!!!! She and her campaign should start issuing all kinds of statements about what she did and didn't do as a means to explain how horribly wrong FOX was and how malicious their intent was. I'd be willing to bet that Durham would LOVE for her to do that.

 

[Cardinal]

Durham just updated his filing to clarify that the Fox angle was bullshit.



[snip]


And then along comes Durham to ruin the fun. His office was responding to Sussman’s response to his initial filing from last week. (I know that’s confusing to read.) Durham understandably took issue with Sussman’s suggestion that the special counsel had intentionally intended to stoke political anger. “[D]efense counsel has presumed the Government’s bad faith and asserts that the Special Counsel’s Office intentionally sought to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool,” Durham wrote. But, he added later, “f third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.” Setting aside the question of intent, let’s focus on the point here. Durham is stating, explicitly, that members of the media may have “overstated” and “misinterpreted” facts included in his filing. This isn’t me, Washington Post guy, saying that his filing sparked an inaccurate narrative. It’s Durham saying that this (might, perhaps, maybe) happened.

It’s important to point out what immediately preceded that “if.” Durham had mentioned that stuff about data from the White House being included in the Russia research because “a member of the defense team was working for the Executive Office of the President of the United States (‘EOP’) during relevant events that involved the EOP.” To a layperson, that seems unremarkable. But, as Charlie Savage noted when writing for the New York Times, it is Durham validating reporting that indicated there was no research conducted on data collected from the Trump White House at all. Durham’s initial filing mentioned data collected from the EOP and a February 2017 meeting in which research was discussed. This was interpreted as meaning that the data involved in the analysis included data collected during Trump’s presidency (which, of course, began in January of that year). Setting aside the limited scope of this data (there was no “listening in on”) and the authorization under which it was collected, the team at Georgia Tech that conducted the research denied that it included anything collected after 2016. And, here, Durham’s admitting that this was true.

[continues]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/18/john-durham-dumps-small-bucket-water-forest-fire-he-sparked/

It also notes:

* The 'member of the defense team' = Michael Bosworth, deputy WH counsel under Barack Obama. He wasn't serving when Trump was in office. He was there in which the relevant data collection/sharing was occurring, meaning it was only while OBAMA was president

*

And if Fox News doesn't make a good faith effort to correct the record, that would strengthen Clinton's case, I would think.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

fox news argues its not news but entertainment, letting them lie away. Fox has so much blood on their hands, they should be sued to bankruptcy, but likelly won't happen because our courts are bought and paid for

 

[ttwtt78640]

Just plain no. Hillary Clinton is not “the Clinton campaign”. The person accused of illegal acts was being paid (to do so?) by the Clinton campaign. Fox News was over the line in stating (as fact) things that were simply speculations, but they did not accuse Hillary of a criminal act.

 

[Mr Person]

Oh HELL yeah she should sue!!!!! She and her campaign should start issuing all kinds of statements about what she did and didn't do as a means to explain how horribly wrong FOX was and how malicious their intent was. I'd be willing to bet that Durham would LOVE for her to do that.

It was all a lie. Durham's latest filing makes that clear.

But there you are, continuing to push and defend the Fox lie.

 

[Subieguy]

The hard right has a case of HDS. LOL!!!!

 

[Lutherf]

It was all a lie. Durham's latest filing makes that clear.

But there you are, continuing to push and defend the Fox lie.

So Durham is lying unless he writes something you want to hear and then everyone else is lying. Got it.

Durham's response to the Sussman filing was rather clear and he didn't walk back anything that was in his initial filing. His comments were with regard to various news outlets speculating on matters beyond what he wrote.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So Durham is lying unless he writes something you want to hear and then everyone else is lying. Got it.

Durham's response to the Sussman filing was rather clear and he didn't walk back anything that was in his initial filing. His comments were with regard to various news outlets speculating on matters beyond what he wrote.

Who Sussman was working for and with are not political opinions - they are facts, backed up by evidence, thus proof that Sussman lied to the FBI (and others). Durham has yet to make any mention of Hillary’s involvement (or lack thereof).

 

[Cardinal]

Just plain no. Hillary Clinton is not “the Clinton campaign”. The person accused of illegal acts was being paid (to do so?) by the Clinton campaign. Fox News was over the line in stating (as fact) things that were simply speculations, but they did not accuse Hillary of a criminal act.

Hillary Clinton was the mastermind behind the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and may never face justice​

Call it an opinion piece all you like, it's still a declarative statement and accusation of criminal and unethical wrongdoing.

Hillary Clinton was the mastermind behind the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and may never face justice

In a court filing last Friday, Special Counsel John Durham offered appalling new details about how President Trump was the victim of an insidious secret surveillance operation at the hands of his political opponent in 2016.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Lutherf]

Who Sussman was working for and with are not political opinions - they are facts, backed up by evidence, thus proof that Sussman lied to the FBI (and others). Durham has yet to make any mention of Hillary’s involvement (or lack thereof).

Right. Now, realistically speaking, it would be absurd to believe that Hillary was simply getting fed these lines and had no knowledge of how the "information" came about so unless one of her people throws her under the bus at some point anything tied directly to her will be speculative. It will be very rationally speculative but speculative none the less.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hillary Clinton was the mastermind behind the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and may never face justice​

Call it an opinion piece all you like, it's still a declarative statement and accusation of criminal and unethical wrongdoing.

Hillary Clinton was the mastermind behind the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and may never face justice

In a court filing last Friday, Special Counsel John Durham offered appalling new details about how President Trump was the victim of an insidious secret surveillance operation at the hands of his political opponent in 2016.

www.foxnews.com

That is an opinion piece and is clearly labeled as such.

 

[d0gbreath]

I went back and forth, but decided upon the Streisand Effect. Sometimes it's better to ignore the twerps.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right. Now, realistically speaking, it would be absurd to believe that Hillary was simply getting fed these lines and had no knowledge of how the "information" came about so unless one of her people throws her under the bus at some point anything tied directly to her will be speculative. It will be very rationally speculative but speculative none the less.

Yep, but as more underlings face indictment the odds that one (or more) of them decide to play ‘let’s make a deal’ to reduce (or eliminate) their own charges get better.

 

[jpn]

So Durham is lying unless he writes something you want to hear and then everyone else is lying. Got it.

Durham's response to the Sussman filing was rather clear and he didn't walk back anything that was in his initial filing. His comments were with regard to various news outlets speculating on matters beyond what he wrote.

Wrong liar. Fox News is lying. Sean Hannity is lying. Not Durham.

 

[jpn]

That is an opinion piece and is clearly labeled as such.

An opinion piece that begins with a bold, bald-faced lie:

"The stunning revelation that lawyers for the Hillary Clinton campaign paid a computer technology company to surveil a sitting president, Donald Trump, shows that more than half a dozen crimes may have been committed to advance the false accusation that he colluded with Russia."​

There was no revelation. There is no evidence. Pure made-up bullshit repeated ad nauseum on Fox "News" and soaked up by conservatives all over the nation.

 

[The flaming lib]

Knock yourselves out. Let the chip fall where they may. Got a case? Bring it or shut the f up

 

[Cardinal]

That is an opinion piece and is clearly labeled as such.

I already addressed that. Simply placing it under "opinion" doesn't change the fact that it's a declarative statement of a criminal and unethical act.

 

[Cardinal]

I went back and forth, but decided upon the Streisand Effect. Sometimes it's better to ignore the twerps.

Dominion's billion dollar lawsuits against Kraken and Co. changed their tune extremely quickly. Fox's slander against Clinton isn't going away by itself.

 

[d0gbreath]

Dominion's billion dollar lawsuits against Kraken and Co. changed their tune extremely quickly. Fox's slander against Clinton isn't going away by itself.

That is probably true. It's up to her of course, but it would still be on the hardcore RW sites.

 

[The Mark]

After the intro, read the options carefully.

Fox News posted this objectively false headline, "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds." The article goes on to reiterate the claim made in the headline, in spite of the fact that the claim could not be inferred from the Durham court filing. In other words, Fox News went beyond simple reporting on a legal filing (which would insulate them from defamation), and made up a claim out of whole cloth.

While the article does not explicitly state that Clinton ordered such an infiltration but ascribes it to her campaign (which would still be false anyway), right wing readers and followers of this story naturally concluded that Clinton made this order.

Asserting that the Clinton campaign carried out such an infiltration concludes an act that is highly unethical at best and criminal at worst, which for a public figure would be damaging to her reputation and career.

Does Clinton have a defamation case, and if so, should she sue Fox News?

Options:

1) Yes. She has a case and she should pursue litigation.
2) No. Many of the elements of defamation exist but are not strong enough for a successful lawsuit.
3) No. She has a case, but suing Fox would merely lead to the Streisand Effect. (Google this if you don't already know what it is).

While the Fox News story has been debunked multiple times by multiple sources by now, here's a good breakdown on why the claim is nonsense.

Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track (Published 2022)

The latest alarmist claims about spying on Trump appeared to be flawed, but the explanation is byzantine — underlining the challenge for journalists in deciding what merits coverage.

www.nytimes.com

I'm not a legal expert, but could Fox News claim they misunderstood?

 

[Cardinal]

I'm not a legal expert, but could Fox News claim they misunderstood?

Courts would dismiss the case if Fox News made a good faith attempt to correct the falsehood. One of the (numerous) reasons that Palin's suit against the New York Times failed is because almost immediately after the editorial defaming Palin, the Times corrected the record. Also of note is that unlike Fox, the Times didn't create a sustained narrative across multiple reports and talk show spots perpetuating the falsehood.

As with the election fraud accusations, Fox News is regurgitating and disseminating a false narrative.

Finally, they can't claim to misunderstand if they sustain the narrative after multiple fact checks.

 

[Cardinal]

That is probably true. It's up to her of course, but it would still be on the hardcore RW sites.

Which is actually a point in favor of a lawsuit, since the story that Fox News fabricated had a permanent and everlasting impact on her image.