Dominion v. Fox News

 

In the defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion against Fox News both sides have moved for summary judgment. Dominion has presented an impressive array of documentary proof and startling admissions by Fox’s senior management, demonstrating that Fox and its leading anchors knew that they were airing false claims that Dominion’s voting machines were tampering with the vote count to aid Joseph Biden.
Nevertheless, the Delaware judge hearing the case would be well advised to reserve decision or deny the motion and allow the matter to go to trial before a jury. If the judge deems the jury’s verdict to be legally erroneous, he can then grant appropriate relief to the wronged party notwithstanding the verdict. By doing so, the judge will have preserved, for appellate review, both his own judgment and that of the jury. Further, the jury should have an opportunity to assess the extent of punitive damages, if any, it may find appropriate.

The Trump Affair Should Be Resolved in a Manner That Best Serves the Nation

It is ironic, and tragic, that the one person who most effectively can heal the divide festering in the nation, is Donald Trump. Unfortunately, given Mr. Trump’s history and character, which is unmoored to any moral foundation, he is not likely to act in the best interest of his country.

To uphold the rule of law, which is the bedrock of a democratic society, it is imperative that Mr. Trump, and those who aided and abetted him, be criminally charged with inciting an insurrection and obstructing governmental proceedings. If he is brought to trial, no matter the outcome, a substantial segment of the American public will be outraged and remain convinced that Mr. Trump is the victim of political retribution. The nation’s warring notions of justice and patriotism will be further widened and reinforced. The prospect of reconciliation will be dimmed, if not extinguished, and the nightmare of a “national divorce “ will become more real.

Perhaps Mr. Trump can be persuaded to rationally assess his legal peril and act in his own best interests. The prosecution should offer to dismiss the criminal charges against him (though not against his collaborators) in exchange for a public admission by Mr. Trump that the 2020 presidential election was fairly conducted and lawfully won by Joseph Biden, that his attempt to overturn the results was legally, constitutionally and morally wrong and that the assault on the Capitol was a form of domestic terrorism that must never be repeated. He must also agree never again to seek public office.

The incentives for Mr. Trump, to make these admissions and give an assurance of political retirement, are readily apparent. He would obviate the need for a long and expensive trial and appeal, avoid the likelihood of criminal conviction and escape the prospect of imprisonment. He would spare his daughter the pain of testifying against him and spare the nation the ugly and unprecedented spectacle of trying and imprisoning a former president.

Perhaps more appealing to Mr.Trump, he might achieve some small measure of historical redemption by helping to insure, however belatedly, the survival of his country and our democracy despite the cataclysm he has unleashed.

This resolution will not appease the hardened racists and fascists who used Mr. Trump to advance their insidious goals, much as he used them. But a trial which resulted in an acquittal, or a conviction would exacerbate the widely shared belief of victim hood and retribution while a hung jury would only further the existing national division.

Hopefully, admission of wrongdoing and relinquishment of political office, in exchange for dismissal of criminal charges, would be accepted as fair and reasonable by a preponderance of those rational supporters of Mr. Trump who make up a majority of his base and allow the nation finally to bind up its wounds and begin to reconcile.