American Thinker apologizes for publishing false statements about Dominion

[FindersKeepers]

I don't know about that. And I am not interested enough to research it.

This case won't be around much longer. Dominion just wanted the immediate publicity in is show of protecting its honor.

This is likely true. They wanted to make a stand, and they were likely pushed into it by the political factions that have the most to lose if the case actually continued. The longer they drag it out, the more likely it is to backfire on them.

[stjames1_53]

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error.

Statement - American Thinker

Then, if they have nothing to hide, let the machines be checked out...............or they are crooked as hell.
What's the liberals favorite line?
If you have nothing to hide......

[FindersKeepers]

Then, if they have nothing to hide, let the machines be checked out...............or they are crooked as hell.
What's the liberals favorite line?
If you have nothing to hide......

Spot on!

[DGUtley]

Yes, and that standard means that if publications had no expert evidence corroborating those allegations and were not certain of the stories that they were repeating, it could be considered malicious.

No. That is reckless not malicious. Two different standards, at least in Ohio.

[Dr. Who]

No. That is reckless not malicious. Two different standards, at least in Ohio.

Malice can be imputed if a statement is made with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not - New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

[Dr. Who]

Then, if they have nothing to hide, let the machines be checked out...............or they are crooked as hell.
What's the liberals favorite line?
If you have nothing to hide......

In order for Dominion to pursue the lawsuits that they are pursuing, it goes without saying that an evaluation of their equipment by experts be allowed.

[stjames1_53]

In order for Dominion to pursue the lawsuits that they are pursuing, it goes without saying that an evaluation of their equipment by experts be allowed.

then, they should release those machines immediately, instead of suing people to hide their misdeeds.

[DGUtley]

Malice can be imputed if a statement is made with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not - New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

True to an extent. There has to be awareness or serious doubt: “reckless disregard” applies when a publisher of defamatory statements acts with a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity, or when the publisher in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Jackson v. Columbus, 117 Ohio St.3d 328 (2008). Thus, there has to be more than just reckless, it has to be coupled with more.

[DGUtley]

In order for Dominion to pursue the lawsuits that they are pursuing, it goes without saying that an evaluation of their equipment by experts be allowed.

Not just their equipment, but everything - texts, emails etc.

[Dr. Who]

Not just their equipment, but everything - texts, emails etc.

Of course, but their lawyers would know that and electronic discovery is a major pain in the neck. If they continue to pursue this against their primary targets to the discovery stage, then that would indicate a degree of certainty that they have a winning case.