Fox getting sued because of TUCKER CARLSON!

[Kingofalldems]

Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2019, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

[Karadeniz]

1. Go get him!

[jberryhill]

2. No, Tucker Carlson is not being sued

Oddly, the lawyer talked her into suing Fox News and not naming Carlson as a defendant, for reasons known only to him.

If you read the actual article, it’s somewhat clearer that it doesn’t state that Carlson is being sued.

“ A former Playboy model who says she had an affair with President Trump is suing Fox News, claiming talk show host Tucker Carlson intentionally defamed her to an audience of millions by incorrectly accusing her of extortion.”



This is a gem:

“ McDougal alleges that although Carlson did not mention her by name on his show, he showed a picture of her as he suggested she had extorted Trump — enough to affect viewers’ perception of her.”

Because, yeah, Tucker Carlson’s audience held her in high esteem before he said that, and now she’s just economically devastated because none of them will hire her.

It’s unfortunate that people believe “someone said something about me that I don’t like” is a sufficient basis for a defamation lawsuit. That’s why Stormy Daniels owes Trump $300,000 thanks to the legal genius who took her for a ride.

But, as reported elsewhere more clearly, Carlson is not being sued:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/playboy-model-trump-accuser-karen-mcdougal-sues-fox-news-defamation-n1096546

“McDougal said she is seeking damages from Fox for harming her reputation and said the cable channel is responsible for the comments made last year by Carlson, who is not named as a defendant in this suit.”

[Kingofalldems]

3. Fox/Tucker Carlson--same thing

Holding a picture up is pretty damning I'd say.
Looks like a win from here.

Thanks for checking in.

[jberryhill]

4. She still likes Trump

She’s upset because she is a Trump-supporting Republican, and Carlson (who is not the “same thing” as Fox) suggested otherwise.

She literally loved Trump, and apparently still does.

Anyone who thinks McDougal is a sympathetic character needs to watch this video:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/03/23/karen-mcdougal-ac360-interview-damage-trump-sot.cnn/video/playlists/karen-mcdougal-anderson-cooper-interview/

“I voted for the president. I voted for Donald. Why would I want to damage him?”

She is a Trump supporter. That’s why the Carlson comment upset her.

It’s surprising that a Trump-loving Republican (in a very literal sense) would get supporters on DU, but surprises never end, I suppose.

[Kingofalldems]

5. She is beyond a minor player.

Too bad some can't see the benefit of making Fox pay for their behavior. Sad actually.

[jberryhill]

6. Fox isn't going to pay a dime

When Daniels sued Trump for defamation, I was called a troll for pointing out that “someone said something I don’t like” doesn’t make out a defamation claim.

If Daniels was represented by someone other than a rank charlatan, she would have received competent advice to that effect. She was not, did not, and is going to be denied most of what she won in her suit against the police in Ohio as a consequence of buying into the popular, and tragically wrong, cartoon version of defamation claims.

Beyond “someone said something I don’t like”, you have to show compensable economic damage as a consequence of it.

McDougal, whose last known means of income was part owner of a “dietary supplement” company does not seem to have a discernible career or profession other than living off of the proceeds of what is presumably a substantial settlement she received in the AMI case. I will bet cash money that no one here knows the name of the lawyer who represented her in that matter (which is how things should be with competent professional counsel, in contrast to self-aggrandizing carnival barkers).

So, by how much, in measurable dollars, would you estimate she has lost income or suffered income earning potential as a consequence of Carlson’s claim (which, yes, is in fact untrue)?

There is a scenario under which one could say that the claim she was attempting to extort Trump by disclosing their longstanding sexual relationship could damage her income-earning potential, but it is not a scenario that is very favorable to her in the first place.

But the bottom line here is that to agree she has a claim here is to believe that someone who fell in love with Trump, enjoyed having sex with him, and supports him as president, would suffer “reputational damage” by the suggestion that she did not like Trump. I suppose there are people who could agree with that proposition, but they are certainly not Democrats.

So when you say “ making Fox pay for their behavior”, what behavior do you think she is seeking to make them pay for? Maligning a Trump supporting Republican voter?

Gosh, how dare Fox suggest someone doesn’t like Trump!

[Kingofalldems]

7. So the 28 recs are from people who are not Democrats?

[jberryhill]

8. Sure the headline say "Fox gets sued" and folks rec the post

At least you corrected the subject line. Congrats.

“The lurkers support me in email...”

https://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Lurkers_Support_Me_in_Email

All the recs in the world didn’t save Daniels from winding up owing Trump money. I don’t expect most to drill down into these things. The popular misconceptions about defamation lawsuits are popular. Not really a surprise.

Would you like to discuss the legal merits of the claim?

[Kingofalldems]

10. Not with you.

[Kingofalldems]

11. Now 39 recs.

[Tipperary]

15. There were an amazing amount of recs for an op about

stealing from and/or harassing a person with different political views the other day. I found that unbelievable, not to mention just horrendous. Many others in that thread found it sickening. Recs do not mean a thing is right. In the case of that thread, they sure were revealing though.

[Kingofalldems]

16. This is not that thread.

So you should post there maybe.

[Tipperary]

17. You seem to think recs indicate validity.

I disagree.

[Kingofalldems]

19. Fox is getting sued.

That's what the thread is about. And I like it, as do the 50+ recs.

[Nature Man]

26. It could have a brazillion "recs"

but "recs" don't actually mean anything in the real world.

[radius777]

12. You're missing the larger political point.

You possibly make accurate legal points, but the larger sociopolitical picture that emerges is that Trump/Fox/Carlson are misogynistic towards high profile women who challenge them - regardless of the reason. Megyn Kelly, Stormy, McDougal - there's a pattern - and this isn't good for the GOP (Fox is a GOP propaganda arm).

[Kingofalldems]

13. And there's a movie out soon.

[radius777]

14. Yep, "Bombshell", I saw the commerical for it, big stars.

https://w.wiki/DMa
Bombshell is an upcoming American drama film directed by Jay Roach and written by Charles Randolph. It stars Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, and Margot Robbie, and is based upon several women at Fox News who set out to expose CEO Roger Ailes for sexual harassment. John Lithgow, Kate McKinnon, Connie Britton, Malcolm McDowell, and Allison Janney appear in supporting roles.

[jberryhill]

18. She didn't challenge them

She supports Trump.

The “political point” here is that a Trump supporter is upset because Carlson suggested she is not a Trump supporter. She believes that being accused of not being a Trump supporter is damaging to her reputation.

Comparing her to Megyn Kelly is demeaning to Kelly, and that’s really saying something.

[radius777]

21. Tucker/Fox/RW media demeaned and dismissed McDougal,

which fits a larger pattern of misogyny against high profile women who are politically disadvantageous to them - even when those women ostensibly are themselves Trumpers, like McDougal, or like the women who accused Roy Moore - who voted for Trump, but who in coming out against Moore posed a problem for the GOP/Trump, and thus received vitriol from conservative media.

It fits the pattern of how Trump and his media allies (Pecker/National Enquirer), Fox/Tucker, RW radio, etc - have treated these women, basically slut shaming them, characterizing them as low-lifes/garbage:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/12/05/former-playboy-model-is-suing-fox-news-after-tucker-carlson-accused-her-extorting-trump/?tid=sm_tw
Karen McDougal, whose story was infamously purchased and suppressed by the National Enquirer in an effort that apparently involved Trump, said Carlson showed “reckless disregard for the truth” during a December 2018 segment about her. In it, the television host asserted that McDougal had committed extortion after she “approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money.”

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York state court, says: “This statement is completely untrue and was made knowing it was untrue and with reckless disregard for the truth.

“McDougal never approached Trump and threatened to ruin his career or humiliate his family if he did not give her money.”

McDougal claims her reputation has suffered because of Carlson’s comments, which she said could have been verified as false if he or Fox News “had conducted even a cursory investigation into the matter.” Her lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from Fox, saying the network is responsible for the conduct of its host.

[Kingofalldems]

23. Didn't work at all.

[B Stieg]

9. Wow. And Pecker just gave her a cover article

once his quid pro quo with her was exposed...

[AlexSFCA]

20. Discovery! That'a why faux will settle.

[ck4829]

25. Yep

[LiberalFighter]

22. Deport everyone from Fox to England

I'm sure England will figure out what to do with them.

[ck4829]

24. Kick

[Gothmog]

27. This will be fun to watch