This article is a reprint from Emerald Robinson’s The Right Way.
The #1 conservative site on Substack — The Right Way is recommended by over 180 fellow Substack authors
The corporate media has been buzzing the last few months about a defamation lawsuit filed against Fox News by an electronic voting machine company. In fact, the left-wing corporate press is positively salivating at the monetary damages that might be inflicted on Fox News if the case is lost. Apparently, those purple-haired kids don’t understand that $1.6 billion is hardly a fine for Rupert Murdoch — he probably pays that much semi-annually for those routine divorces he’s always getting.
Why would the American corporate media cheer on a lawsuit that has broken all the rules for discovery, and threatens the First Amendment protections of journalists? And since when do vendors operating as third-party proxies for state governments in national elections get to sue the Fourth Estate for defamation?
That’s just the start of the trouble. Consider the plaintiff. How can you defame a company that Americans didn’t know existed until the 2020 election — in an industry that Democrats like Kamala Harris regularly defamed as corrupt in HBO specials like “Kill Chain” among others?
That’s a tough question — legally speaking. Of course, it’s an easy question in terms of politics. What can you tell Democrats that they won’t believe? For example: that boys are girls and girls are boys? There’s no basic fact of biology that Democrats won’t deny — if necessary. There’s no scientific law they won’t denounce in a pinch — gravity! chemistry! the third law of thermodynamics! — to remain in the good graces of their shameless mob.
After all, the memory of the average Democrat voter is about the same as a fruit fly dipped in Fentanyl.
That’s why the corporate media can publicize the private text messages of Fox journalists, and expect that dangerous precedent to be viewed as normal too.
That’s the only explanation for CNN covering the jury selection and calling it “historic.” Or Mediate celebrating the fact that the Delaware judge assigned to the case is clearly not neutral. Here’s a slice from that craptastic outlet’s coverage:
That was not the only time Judge Davis spoke out in colorful terms about Fox’s coverage in the aftermath of the election, which he has described in scathing terms throughout this case. “I could have a lot of fun with this case,” Davis said at one point, during a discussion of Dominion’s opportunity to cross examine Fox witnesses.
Nothing like the judge openly admitting that he views Fox News as guilty before the trial. Do you remember a time when judges tried to hide their liberal bias? I sure do. That’s the old America. In the new Amerika (thank you Kafka!) the communist judges advertise their lack of impartiality to the communist press. And why not? Maybe there’s a Soros retirement bonus waiting for any robed idiot who turns our judicial system into a modern Stalinist replica that’s suitable for the Banana Republic of Biden.
Though it’s hard to believe, MSNBC’s trashy commentary was even more toxic and absurd than Mediate’s garbage:
“There could be a lot of implications depending on how it plays out,” said Imraan Farukhi, an assistant professor at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. Besides the financial impact, Farukhi added, “The other question is what will they do with their talent if they lose? The majority of the stars at Fox are implicated. Any other news organization would have probably seen their hosts losing their jobs for improper reporting.”
Who’s going to tell Imraan Farukhi that if getting fired for “improper reporting” was actually a thing in American corporate media, there would no longer be American corporate media?
For that matter, who’s going to tell Imraan Farukhi that good entertainment lawyers don’t leave to become assistant professors at third-tier colleges? (I peeked at his bio.) How much does Farukhi even know about media? Or America for that matter? Did he just cross the southern border or something? I ask because he seems to be — well, you know — new here.
Of course, Assistant Professor Farukhi is not the only lunatic who’s out howling in the moonlight about the Fox lawsuit.
Everywhere you look, you find manifest absurdities on display in this lawsuit.
1st: The judge involved the case has already ruled that Fox’s claims about the electronic voting machine company are false.
In this case, it’s obvious that Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis is writing checks with his mouth that he simply can’t cash. The Constitution mandates that individual states conduct our elections. It is illegal for individual states to outsource our elections to foreign companies owned by foreigner individuals using private software that cannot be reviewed or audited.
This is basic law 101.
Why would such an absurd scenario be tolerated by our national security state (just think of all the cybersecurity spooks at the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS) for even a moment? The answer, of course, is that it would not be tolerated — unless the national security state was the ultimate power behind it all.
That’s why you see 2020 election votes being counted in Spain by a DoD “contractor” called Scytl. That’s why you have a FBI agent posing as Arizona’s Director of Elections for the 2022 midterm disaster in Maricopa County.
And that’s why you have Delaware judges pretending to be cybersecurity experts who want you to believe that flaws in our election systems (that are published by CISA on its official website no less!) are really just “conspiracy theories.”
2nd: The plaintiff was allowed to seize the data from any journalist or producer or anchor at Fox News that it wanted. When has that ever happened in America?
A private company has never been allowed to hoover up the data from a legacy media network and embark on a fishing expedition. Never. Until now.
How was that data used?
On Monday March 6th, Tucker Carlson released the first footage of the January 6th insurrection showing police ushering protestors inside the Capitol.
On Tuesday March 7th, Tucker Carlson’s private text messages were widely published by the corporate media — as part of the “coverage” of the Fox lawsuit.
Notice the perfect timing. The data from discovery was used as leverage.
That same day, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer publicly warned Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch against running more footage: “Rupert Murdoch has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight […] our democracy depends on it.”
These are not subtle threats.
3rd: Chuck Schumer’s public threat to Rupert Murdoch gave the game away — it’s the federal government behind it all.
Why did the leader of the U.S. Senate claim that the owner of a news network had “a special obligation” to stop a TV anchor from investigating January 6th? That’s just the sort of thing that violates our democratic norms isn’t it? What was he talking about? The “special obligation” is no doubt Fox’s role in trying to sell the American people on the phony results of the stolen 2020 election — and the early Arizona call for Biden/Harris in particular.
There’s a word for this sort of threat and the word is: kompromat.
America’s national security state (FBI, DHS, CIA, NSA) is none too thrilled to be unmasked as the instigator of a phony insurrection on January 6th that stopped our duly elected senators from challenging the 2020 election certification due to fraud.
After all, subverting America is a delicate business.
Our spy agencies understand that they’ve lost their legitimacy with the American people — which is why they’re trying to seize power through the TikTok bill this week after getting caught trying to infiltrate Catholic churches last week in between investigating angry parents at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists” and stealing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s cellphone in a parking lot for no good reason.
It’s hard work rigging America’s elections at taxpayer expense — especially once its citizens start to notice.