LIVE NOW: CPDC Webinar to Examine US Frontier Security Following Gov. Palacios's Exit
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Defamation case against Fox News highlights role of its hosts in promoting 2020 election falsehoods
NEW YORK (AP) — Court papers in a voting technology company's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News point to Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro as leaders in spreading false stories about election fraud in the weeks after Democrat Joe Biden's victory over President Donald Trump in 2020. Arguments for summary judgment by Smartmatic were filed in lightly redacted form this week at the New York Supreme Court. It's like a bad rerun for Fox: Similar revelations about its conduct following the 2020 election came in a lawsuit by another company falsely accused of doctoring votes, Dominion Voting Systems. Fox agreed to pay Dominion $787 million in a 2023 settlement after the judge found it was 'CRYSTAL CLEAR' that none of the claims against the voting system company were true. In short: Fox let Trump aides spread conspiracy theories despite knowing they were false because it was what their viewers wanted to hear. Fox was trying to hold on to viewers who were angry at the network for saying Biden had won the election. Fox said it was covering a newsworthy story. It accuses the London-based company, which had only Los Angeles County as a client for the 2020 election, of exaggerating its claims of damages in the hope of receiving a financial windfall. Pirro now working in the second Trump administration The focus on Pirro is noteworthy because the former Fox personality now serves in Trump's second administration as U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. Smartmatic, relying on emails and text messages revealed as part of the case, said Pirro was using her position as a Fox host in 2020 to help Trump and persuade him to pardon her ex-husband, Albert Pirro, who was convicted of conspiracy and tax evasion. Trump pardoned him before leaving office in 2021. In a text to then-Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel in September 2020, Pirro said, 'I'm the No. 1 watched show on news cable all weekend. I work so hard for the President and the party,' Smartmatic said in court papers. One of her own producers, Jerry Andrews, called Pirro a 'reckless maniac,' Smartmatic said. He texted after one of her shows in November that it was 'rife (with) conspiracy theories and bs and is yet another example of why this woman should never be on live television." The court papers said Pirro also suggested 'evidence' of supposed fraud to Trump lawyer Sidney Powell that she could use on a television appearance — material that also was spread by Bartiromo. Bartiromo still works at Fox, and in 2020 had shows on both the news channel and Fox Business Network. The court papers uncovered messages showing her desire to help Trump: 'I am very worried. Please please please overturn this. Bring the evidence, I know you can,' she texted to Powell. Dobbs, whose business show was canceled by Fox in February 2021, texted to Powell four days after the election, saying 'I'm going to do what I can to help stop what is now a coup d'etat in (its) final days — perhaps moments," a reference to Biden's victory. Dobbs died in 2024. A central figure in Fox's 'pivot' Smartmatic portrayed Pirro as a central figure in Fox's 'pivot' to deemphasize Biden's victory because it angered Trump fans. Instead, the network found that ratings jumped whenever claims of election fraud were discussed, it said. As in the Dominion case, the discovery process helped Smartmatic find messages and statements that seem embarrassing in retrospect. For example, in early December, Fox's Jesse Watters texted colleague Greg Gutfeld that 'Think of how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL.' Fox, in a response to the newly-revealed court papers, pointed to an ongoing corruption case involving Smartmatic and its executives, including a claim by federal prosecutors that it used money from the sale of voting machines to set up a 'slush fund' for bribing foreign officials. 'The evidence shows that Smartmatic's business and reputation were badly suffering long before any claims by President Trump's lawyers on Fox News and that Smartmatic grossly inflated its damage claims to generate headlines and chill free speech,' Fox said. 'Now, in the aftermath of Smartmatic's executives getting indicted for bribery charges, we are eager and ready to continue defending our press freedoms.' ___
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Match-ups for legislative seats set for Washington's November election
Democratic state Sen. Deb Krishnadasan, left, is running to keep a seat she was appointed to in the 26th Legislative District. Challenging her is Republican state Rep. Michelle Caldier, right. (Photos courtesy of campaigns) With Washington state's primary in the books, the focus shifts to the November general election for nine Democratic state lawmakers seeking to keep seats to which they were appointed. Each of them won Aug. 5, some more easily than others, in results certified Wednesday by the secretary of state's office. In the closest primary contest, Democratic state Sen. Deb Krishnadasan beat Republican state Rep. Michelle Caldier by 1,158 votes in the 26th Legislative District that spans parts of Pierce and Kitsap counties. It is expected to be tight when they face off again this fall. Krishnadasan trailed Caldier on election night. She moved in front on the second day of ballot counting and stayed there. Republicans view this race as their best opportunity to gain a seat in the Senate, where Democrats hold a 30-19 edge. In another high-profile match-up, Democratic Sen. Victoria Hunt finished comfortably ahead of Republican Chad Magendanz, a former state lawmaker, in the 5th District in east King County. As the only two candidates, they will line up against each other again in a few weeks. In the 48th District, two Democratic candidates — Sen. Vandana Slatter and Rep. Amy Walen — are advancing. Slatter sent a strong message by garnering nearly 60% of the vote in the district encompassing Redmond, Bellevue and Kirkland. Democratic Rep. Edwin Obras and fellow Democrat Kevin Schilling, the mayor of Burien, advanced in the 33rd District in south King County. Obras won with 47% followed by Schilling with 31%. Republican Darryl Jones finished with nearly 22%. Walen and Schilling are each considered the more moderate candidates in those two contests. In the 41st District, Democratic Rep. Janice Zahn and Republican John Whitney will square off in November. Zahn is heavily favored after capturing 64% of the vote to Whitney's 28%. This district includes Mercer Island and Newcastle, along with parts of Bellevue, Renton, Issaquah, and Sammamish. In the 48th District, Democratic Rep. Osman Salahuddin garnered 63% to finish ahead of Republican Dennis Ellis, who had nearly 29%. Democrat Ranga Bondada was a distant third. Three appointed legislators — state Sens. Tina Orwall of Des Moines and Emily Alvarado of Seattle, and Rep. Brianna Thomas of West Seattle — were unopposed but will still appear on ballots in November. Orwall serves in the 33rd District. Alvarado and Thomas represent the 34th District in Seattle. Ballots for the Nov. 4 general election will be mailed to voters by Oct. 17.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court allows Trump's cuts to health research grants over DEI policies
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Trump administration broad cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the federal government's campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion policies. But in a mixed decision the court left in place a different part of the lower court judge's ruling that threw out the administration's guidance document that introduced the policy, raising questions about whether it can be applied moving forward. The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted in part an emergency request filed by the administration seeking to put a Massachusetts-based federal judge's ruling on hold. The court did not fully explain its reasoning, but the majority indicated that groups seeking to challenge the funding cuts have to file separate lawsuits in a different federal venue — the Court of Federal Claims. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the deciding vote in crafting the decision. Four justices, all conservatives, said they would have granted the Trump administration's application in full, while four others — conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberals — would have denied it in full. "As today's order states, the District Court likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to the grant terminations, which belong in the Court of Federal Claims," Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion. But, she added, "the Government is not entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance documents." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a collection of agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that receives billions of dollars from Congress to fund medical research at universities, hospitals and other institutions. When President Donald Trump took office in January, he vowed to end so-called diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies, saying that rather than fostering equality as intended, they are a form of discrimination, primarily against white people. He has also taken aim at policies recognizing transgender rights, including access to gender transition care. The NIH then conducted a review of grants and determined that more than 1,700 of them were not consistent with Trump's directives and terminated them, including studies into HIV prevention and gender identity among teens. The moves were challenged by 16 states led by Massachusetts and the American Public Health Association, among others. After a trial, U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts ruled that the government had failed to follow correct legal processes in implementing the policy, in violation of a law called the Administrative Procedure Act. In rushing to implement Trump's agenda, NIH "simply moved too fast and broke things, including the law," Young wrote. He also said that DEI was "an undefined enemy," noting that government lawyers had not been able to explain exactly what it meant. Young found that there was "pervasive racial discrimination" and "extensive discrimination" against gay, lesbian and transgender people in how grants were selected for termination. He also found "an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues." Young declined to put his ruling on hold, as did the Boston-based 1st U.S Circuit Court of Appeals, which also kept the grants intact. In asking the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the case is similar to another that arose in Massachusetts in which a judge blocked Trump administration plans to terminate teacher training grants on anti-DEI grounds. The Supreme Court in April blocked that ruling on a 5-4 vote. "This application presents a particularly clear case for this court to intervene and stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard this court's rulings," Sauer wrote. Lawyers for the states pushed back on Sauer's narrative, saying it "bears little resemblance to reality, with Young's ruling a "run-of-the mill" example of a court intervening when the government violates the law. The justices Thursday disagreed over whether the April decision governed the outcome in the latest case. In a brief opinion, Roberts, who dissented in the earlier case, said it was different, with Young's findings "well within the scope of the district court's jurisdiction." But conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his own separate opinion, criticized Young for failing to abide by the April decision. "Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court's decisions, but they are never free to defy them," he wrote. The Trump administration has regularly turned to the Supreme Court when its broad use of executive power is challenged in court and has prevailed in the majority of cases. Trump and his allies have also harshly criticized judges who have ruled against him.
