EPISODE 53: TAKE A GANDER AT THIS SLANDER: SIDNEY POWELL, DEFAMATION, AND AMISH FACEBOOK
Hi, this is Collin McCallin. Thank you for listening. Please do us a favor and leave us a five star review wherever you get your podcasts and subscribe so that you don't miss any future episodes. Thank you.
Hello, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Welcome to another episode of is this legal, uh, my name's Russell Hebets. I'm here with my partner, Collin McCallin say, hi, Collin. What's up everybody. And we're greeting you from sunny, Denver, Colorado. Today. We are going to be talking about defamation. Oh yeah. I'm hitting that. There, there is a lot to cover on this and we're going to dive right in one thing in the news lately has been the dominion Sidney Powell lawsuit. So for anyone who has been living under a rock for the last few months, there was a lawyer named Sidney Powell. There is a lawyer named Sydney Powell with us. She was for a time working for Donald Trump and his a campaign or not campaign for Donald Trump. But she was a key figure in the statements that went out after the election, talking about voter fraud and election fraud.
And she made some pretty outlandish statements about a voting system called dominion voting company. What some of her statements were that she said dominion was created in Venezuela to rig the election for now deceased Hugo Chavez. She said, dominion bribed Georgia officials for a no bid contract. She also said dominion secretly switched votes from Trump to Biden. Now all of these statements she made are demonstrably false they're provable that these were false statements. So dominion whose business was significantly harmed by these statements because she was everywhere. She was on every cable news network. She, she filed multiple lawsuits alleging these,
The only person who dominion has sued, but we're talking about her for a particular reason today because she filed an answer to these claims in court this week. Didn't she Russ that's exactly right. So
I only get to see what her defense is to this defamation lawsuit. Her defense essentially is even assuming these statements could be proven true or false. No reasonable person would conclude that they were truly statements of fact. She said that they were just statements that were going to be played out in the court of law to determine whether they were true or false.
If I may. And another way of putting that is she's saying that there's no way that the statements that I was making to everybody, there's no way people, a reasonable person could have construed them as being true.
Exactly. Exactly. Yes. No one could construe that. Construe them as fact. And she actually pointed to Dominion's actual lawsuit, which called them wild accusations and outlandish claims. She said, look, even the other side, they're saying they're wild and outlandish. No one would believe this. I
So we are going to, we're starting with just that. We're not going to do an assessment. We're not going to do an analysis right now. We're going to go ahead and tell you guys what defamation is, how you prove it, what the standard our standards are, and then come back at the end and do an analysis. So leading to that, Collin, Mr. McCallin, what is defamation?
Well, it it's, it just so happens that I brought my law dictionary here because we're going to cover a few terms.
Thank you, Mr. Black thump. There it is right here.
Is this tome, uh, let's, let's talk about a few words. First of all, three words, libel, slander, defamation,
These sound, these sound like emotional words and they all sound
Kind of similar, right? You've all heard that
Before. Let's quickly talk about what they are. First of all, defamation is kind of the all-encompassing legal theory that we're talking about here, you know? Right. We're we're talking, the defamation means any statement. It covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation, uh, or their, their character. And so, um, no libel and slander are under the umbrella of defamation. So, um, libel is where the statement is written. Slander is where the statement in question is spoken. Okay. But they're
Both, they're both definite defamation.
Exactly. So if a newspaper defames a person, uh, that's going to be liable because it's printed word. If a TV, anchor, man, um, the fame, somebody it's going to be sued under slander. I feel like
Land, or just, just feels like rougher. Like it feels more,
I picked a change, a couple of words, you got slaughter. I mean, now we're getting violent.
Well, yeah, let's, let's not go there. That's where I went. When I hear slander, I picture like a Southern gentlemen with a glove, slapping someone. You sir have Slandered me.
I challenge you to do it
Because that's exactly how people in the South talk.
Exactly. I mean, that's how Erin Berg.
So, um, those are just a quick few things. Uh, th th th those are some basic definitions about what we're talking about here, but yeah, libel and slander are types of defamation. Now let's talk about the elements of a defamation lawsuit. So if a plaintiff is bringing a defamation lawsuit, this is, this is what they have to establish.
And this is a plaintiff is someone who's who had their reputation. right. They're
The victim of the libel or slander. So, uh, that victim, that plaintiff in order to win their lawsuit. And by the way, this is a civil case. We're talking about a civil standard here. This is not a criminal standard. So I'm in the context of a lawsuit. The plaintiff would have to prove that, first of all, someone made a statement, uh, the statement was published. And by the way, published doesn't mean what you think it means. Publish it published can mean the person says something out loud to another person
That was put out there. It does public sphere.
Doesn't have to be in a newspaper or encyclopedia or something. It's just out. The statement is out there. I don't know if there's
Slander statements and encyclopedias.
No, you never know those guys who wrote Britannica here were pretty loosey goosey with the facts.
I'm just saying, um, you know, and it was going to contradict them world book, right? Look, I mean that before the internet, those guys had free reign to do anything
For anyone who's listening. Who's under probably 30.
Do you know what an encyclopedia is, is what the internet used to be. There are these things that we call the box. They are, they have covers on them. Some of them even have dust jackets. You can turn pages. It's a page rather than dust jacket,
Where w uh, we're still covering the elements of a defamation. So someone made a statement. Number one, that statement was published. Number two, here's a big one. That statement caused you injury. Yes. A number four, the statement was false. Another big one, and a number five, the statement didn't fall into some sort of privileged category. That's kind of a minor thing. Um, but really those are kind of the things that a plaintiff would have to establish in order to successfully bring a defamation lawsuit against somebody. So, so here's how,
If someone, like, if Colin sues me for Def defamation, if I have made some statement that he thinks is defamatory, how do I defend myself? You know, the, the best defense for that is
The truth. That's right. Um, I mean, if let's, let's just say in this hypothetical, if I'm suing Russ for defaming me, let's say, you know, he wrote that I'm a money grabbing shyster or something like that. And I took issue with that and I sued him for defamation claiming that that statement is false. Well, Russ, his best line of attack is just to prove what everybody else out there knows that I'm a money grabbing shyster
Colin is, clearly a money grabbing shyster.
If he can prove it, then, then he wins. There's no defamation, it's not defamation. Cause it's true. Exactly. All right. So, um, you know, and, and Ben, by the way, uh, defamation also requires that the communication be to like a third party. Okay. So if, if Russ comes up to me and says, Hey, Colin, I don't like you. You're a money-grabbing shyster. Um, that's what we call an insult. Um, that, that is not, he, he didn't defame me because he said it to my face. Um, now it might be a little different if he went to a newspaper and published something about me or published that statement, or maybe was more specific in terms of why I was a money grabbing shyster, you know, if he expounded on that and I could prove that that was false, you know, I might have the ability to Sue him.
Yeah. So in this example, like it's tough to prove or disprove this. So like another defense I would have is that, Hey, that wasn't a statement of fact, that was my opinion. That's right. I have an opinion that he's a money grabbing shyster, but it's not something that is demonstrably provable as true or false.
I think you can pretty much defame anybody you like, as long as whatever statement you make is proceeded by three simple words, in my opinion. Exactly. You know? So, um, those are kind of the backbones of a defamation lawsuit,
But defamation is not equal to all people, is it?
No. So, uh, how about, I think this is a great time to talk some Supreme court. What do you think?
I love Supreme court cases. I know our listeners love Supreme court cases. So here you go. People, we have a case called New York times versus Sullivan, and Collin's going to break it down for you.
This is, uh, this is the seminal case. Uh, it was decided in 1964 that really, uh, you know, created, uh, the current framework that we have for defamation lawsuits. And the big thing that, that Supreme court, uh, opinion created it basically created a defamation standard for public figures. Okay. And in that case, they use the term public officials. Um, so, so basically, um, in that case, there was a New York times piece, uh, that ran during the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King. And, uh, this, this, uh, this ad published a lot of statistics from, uh, several police departments that turned out to have, uh, factually inaccurate information. Well Sullivan who was at that time was the head of the police agency in question, decided to Sue the New York times, basically saying they just defamed us by providing all of these, um, you know, this data that's inaccurate, we've been defamed.
The case went all the way to the United States Supreme court. And the Supreme court created an exception for public figures. It basically said, it's not enough. Uh, if you, if you are, um, if you are a public figure, a public official, and you are claiming that you have been defamed, you still have to prove all of those elements of a defamation case. You have to prove that a false statement was published, that it caused injury. You have to demonstrate all those things, but you also have to demonstrate actual malice on the part of the defamer. So it's not enough that it was just false. It's
Not enough in this case that the statistics they used were incorrect, which they admitted to. Yeah.
What, what the Supreme court, the United States said in order to successfully Sue for defamation, you have to prove that the New York times knew wholly that what they were publishing was wrong was false. So, um, this is, you can imagine was a huge win for the media, for newspapers, for TV stations, because essentially, um, if, if they put something out there that is wrong about a public official, as long as they come back and say, Oh, you know what? We, we were re relied on inaccurate data. We apologize. Um, we, if they run a retraction, they can basically save themselves from a defamation lawsuit. As long as the plaintiff can't prove that they knew it was false and they ran it anyway. Cause if it's, uh, that's what that actual malice standard means, that's the I'm using air quotes. That's what, uh, the legal term is that we're talking about. That's required for a public figure.
Cause if it's, if it's a private person, you just have to show negligence. That's right. You have to show that the person should have known it was false, right? So you have to show is false and they should known, right. But this, this, now this New York times for solvent creates a higher standard where it has to be, they knew it was false or they recklessly disregarded the truth or falseness of it. Exactly.
Okay. But this has been, I mean, this is, this is a case that is cited by the media. Anytime they're sued by anybody for defamation, they rely on this case. Now the authority of the case, remember this case a New York times, he sold and only dealt with public officials. Um, the definition was basically expanded to anybody famous, a public figure in the case of hustler magazine versus Falwell, that was also a, a United States Supreme court case that was decided in 1988, if you've ever seen, uh, the movie that people versus Larry Flint you've ever seen, it never saw it. It's a great movie. Um, and that case is heavily featured, including the oral arguments to the Supreme court. It's, it's, it's worth a watch. Um, but, um, that, um, hustler won that case by the way. And, uh, the, basically that standard, that actual man malice standard was extended to public figures. So if you're a famous person, so there it is.
If you're a famous person, there's a higher standard, it is tough to defame a famous person. It really is. And, and there's, there's some rationale for that. And the rationale for that is first, like for the public official, you want,
I want the government to have
Eyes on them, right? You want journalists to act as a watchdog, right? And you can't have a journalist. Who's going to get sued every other day for these tiny inaccuracies. When they're reporting on a public official, you know, it's in the interest of
Our Republic to have government answerable to their actions will. And in both of these opinions, especially the hustler magazine Supreme court case, there's a huge discussion Russ on first amendment rights. I mean, we're talking about free speech a lot of the time. I mean, um, when you are a public figure, when you are out there, when you are famous, people are going to talk to talk about you. And like you just said, if people get the facts about you wrong, or they misrepresented event, you know, the Supreme court's like, look too bad. So sad. You're in the public eye, you deserve a height level. You can't just Sue everybody. And anybody who writes about you or talks about you in a way that you don't like,
Right. And another rationale for this higher standard for this, what is a double standard, but it's a, it's a rightful, double standard is that these people, if you're famous, if you're in the public eye, you automatically, by virtue of being famous, have more access to the media. So you have more of an ability to rebut these false claims. Yeah.
I look it up. I mean, look at a politician. I mean, a politician can call it, press conference today to discuss anything that they want. People will listen. They are entrusted with the publics that they have the public's trust. Uh, they're going to be held accountable by the public. They have the ability to speak to the public and communicate to the public.
As you have a everyday guy, you have Joe, the plumber who doesn't have that kind of platform. If he is defamed and he's losing his plumbing business because of that defamation, you know, you don't have much recourse like someone would, if they were in the public eye.
I remember that guy, Joe, the plumber, he was here,
What he's up to? It's a blast from the past. I mean, he's probably still plumbing.
Yeah. You might've been able to cash in a little bit there for a while, but he was like on a debate or something like that. And asked a question and everybody was talking about Joe, the plumber.
He became the darling of one political party for four periods.
Yeah. Well, I mean, I mean, the fact that we still know him probably means it would be really, really tough for him to, uh, bring a defamation lawsuit. It sounds like a public figure to me, dude. He,
He should be doing his shopping around for like a, a, a reality TV show.
Well, might be a little late for that. Now.
We both know him still. I mean, I bet most of our viewers still know Joe, the plumber. Would you watch that show? Well, it depends on how good the promo is
Juicy. Isn't going to be alright. Well, Russ, I mean, look, we we've, we've just been spewing out a bunch of legal gobbledygook here. I mean, we're talking about Supreme court opinions and throwing out words like actual mouse. I think our listeners want to get nitty gritty with this. I think they, I think they want to play with this stuff really organically. I think we need some examples. Uh, some hypothetical's maybe from people that we know. Uh, what do you think?
I agree. I mean, I feel like first I think that we've just created several hundred experts in libel law. Right. And so anyone out there listening, you're one, these experts and you get to test your metal. And I think you're right. Let's see who, who does everyone know? I mean, I Jebidiah, I, that name rings a bell that, you know what let's, let's go with Jebidiah and Amilia why not just pick those at random. Right, right. And let's, let's get, uh, let's get a woman in there cause we're, we're equal Monica, Megan
Perfect. Okay. Uh, so we have our actors. All right. Um, let's set up some hypotheticals here to discuss lately. Let's let's talk. Is this legal? Is this libel, is this slander? Uh, you guys have to answer all these questions. Here we go. Ross.
So number one. So Jebidiah, he is a, um, owner of a covered wagon shop. Jeff Daya, true to his Amish waves. Exactly. Well, I don't know if he's Amish, but he is at least a pioneer at a minimum. Um, so make them an Amish pioneer, I suppose. So why, why, why the heck
Not? So, so
He's building the wagons. He's, he's putting them together. He's selling them to people. Maybe they're going to Oregon. Maybe they're going to grandma's house. I don't know.
But in any case she has it,
It covered wagon, business and Cornelius, who is not a fan of Jebidiah. Our loyal listeners will know that they are often at odds. He says, he goes out and tells the whole town. He says, you know what, Jebidiah cheated Myrtle out of $200 in his covered wagon business. Okay. Right there listeners. Did he commit slander?
Uh, what do we think?
I mean, I guess let's walk through the elements that we write about let's first of all, did he publish a statement? He published a statement because he said it out loud and it was heard by another person. Okay. Third party. He made a statement of fact, I think he didn't say, I didn't hear in my opinion there, I mean, he says categorically that Jebidiah, uh, built a Myrtle out of $200 related to a covered wagon.
And that is a fact that as that is demonstrably able to be proven true or false. It's not that he said he generally cheats customers. He said, in this case he cheated a customer out of $200 and that customer is Myrtle over there. Who's who's moaning because she so upset about the
200 bucks she lost.
So that is a, that's a statement of fact, because it's either true or false and can be proven true or false. So, so, so far this is sounding like defamation. What
About injury? I think we
Have an injury here because he, uh, the statement was regarding, um, Jebidiah his business. And so if, uh, clearly that would be injurious to his reputation. It would be easily foreseeable that if this is a small village, his business might suffer, maybe go under,
Clearly could lose business from, from this statement that, that basically said he, he's not, uh, truthful.
I'm assuming for this hypothetical cor uh, Cornelius is not a public figure. He's just a guy in town. Right. Right. So I think that we have a successful defamation.
It would have been Jebidiah Jebidiah is a guy in town he's said,
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. He was the one who talked about exactly. I don't want to confuse them.
All right. Now, now really quick, just super quick. If, if Cornelius has had just gone up to Jebidiah and said, Jebidiah you cheated my girl Myrtle out of $200. That's not slander.
That is not, um, S defamation slander, liable it. Remember it has to be published to a third party. Um, if it's communicated directly to the impugned individual, we call that an insult, right. And that's not injurious to the person. Um, you're not able to recover in a defamation lawsuit.
You're talking about reputation, right? Jeopardize not going to stop buying wagons from his own company.
One other one other thing that's important to mention too. Cause I actually didn't know this until I started researching this Russ, the purpose of a defamation lawsuit, the goal of a defamation lawsuit. Do you think that it's the goal is to punish the defamer or do you think it's to make the victim of the defamation whole again,
I did not know this until I started. I know the answer because, because we're doing this podcast and I actually did a little work ahead of time. I didn't know this either. The purpose though is to make the victim of the defamation hole, right. Is not to punish the defamer. Right. So, which is very interesting, but that, that makes sense, because you're going to have far less lawsuits because you're going to have far less injury. If it was to punish the defamer punish the person who's thrown out these false facts, everyone could be sued all the time for defamation. Right. And you know, that's, that's not the point
Of this law. I mean, it certainly has that effect. I mean, certainly by getting sued and possibly successfully you are punishing the defamer, but you're right. The stated goal is really to make the victim whole again.
All right. So let's go back to this Cornelius Jebidiah thing because I I'm intrigued. So let's say Miami one time,
Jeff, just to make sure I got it. Jebidiah is the maker of the wagons and Cornelius, is this okay.
First? And who's throwing out the wild accusations stir in the pot. Right? Exactly. So let's say instead of going and telling people in town, he doesn't tell a single soul. All he does is hops on his computer. Cause I mean, everyone knows that Facebook existed back in this time.
Oh, you like the 17 hundreds we'll of course they know that. And of course they know that the Amish people love using electronic devices, such as computers and social media.
I mean, as long as you don't get caught, who's who what's wrong.
Right. Right. So, so of course everybody understands all that risk. Go ahead with this, uh, relatable hypothetical. Right.
So Cornelius hops on his computer, hops on Facebook and just sends a blast out saying Jebidiah cheated Myrtle out of $200 in a wagon transaction.
No, of course. We're assuming that that statement can be true. Proven false. I mean, yeah. Okay. Right. And so, you know, if, if, uh, if you're, you know, if you're suing for this action, you have to say, this is false, obviously. So here, this is a little bit different now. Um, we have, uh, Cornelius making the statements, but then we also have Facebook allowing this to
Happen and, and promoting it. They're a platform
That is, I mean, it seems like they're fairly complicit here.
They're, they're disseminating it to 2 million,
Like literally without Facebook, uh, this statement would never have been heard. Right. So it sure seems like we might have an action against Facebook or do we,
You would think so, but because of section 30 of give me a second of the communications decency act,
Everybody has that one down passenger.
Well, I tell you it was passed by Congress in the nineties. I believe don't quote me on that. But I believe in the nineties and section 30 basically says that any interactive computer service is by definition, not a publisher of whatever information is published on their platform. Okay.
So, so they're not responsible for the content on their platform, Twitter,
Facebook, none of those are responsible for the content on their platform. Now, if anyone's been following the news lately, like this is up for debate, like people, especially with Facebook, exercising, more discretion, Twitter, exercising discretion. I mean, Twitter just ban Donald Trump.
They are, that are regulating content.
Yes. And so this is definitely something that I would guess is going to change soon because they're acting more and more like publishers. And when they do that, they're going to start finding themselves liable for the content that is published on their platform. But as of right now, section two 30 of the communications, decency act protects anything like that from being sued.
So going back to the hypothetical, then he can't, uh, Jebidiah can not Sue Facebook. Nope. For disseminating the post. But can he Sue Cornelius for sending the post in the first place? Absolutely.
Cornelius is still now it's libel instead of slander it's instead of you slammed me. Good, sir.
You a good mate. Cause again, that's how Amish people talk. Good, good mate. I don't know what they say in jolly England. I was trying to heard something from like the Knights of the round table and I couldn't, I I'm drawing a blank. I was thinking
Pennsylvania Amish, not the English Amish, but why not?
Yeah. You know what? It's all the same. Like it's not. So let's do one more, one more derivative of this hypothetical listeners. Are you still, are you still there with us, with us? Hopefully assuming that we have, we haven't turned anybody off yet and you haven't shut down the podcast yet. Let's do one more.
All right. So you have the same hypothetical, except now Jebidiah in addition to being the owner and purveyor of Jebidiah as wagons. He is also the mayor of this small, small pioneer village. Okay. So now
It sounds like a public official might be another
Way of saying sounds a lot like a public official. So what changes here?
Colin? So, um, what changes here is that now our friend Jebidiah, he not only has to prove that a statement of fact that was wrong was published. Um, he has to prove that jet that pardon me, that Cornelius knew that the statement was false and he said it anyway. Right. So he has to be able to prove that Cornelius just wasn't simply mistaken. Uh, and frankly, I think Cornelius would be able to say, Hey, I'm just passing on what I heard. I, you know, I don't know if this is true or not, but this is what I was told. And you know, I wanted people to know about it. I think that defamation lawsuit is going to fail because I think that our friend Jebidiah is going to be very hard pressed to show that actual malice standard to show that, uh, Cornelius absolutely knew that that statement was false and said it anyway, at least that's his defense. Yeah.
Yeah, yeah. If Jebidiah were just the purveyor of wagons and not the mayor, then Cornelius saying, Hey, I'm just passing it along, not a defense. Right. So should we, uh, uh, go back to our friends,
Uh, talk, uh, put a bow on that. Sorry,
Real quick. I want to just, it's interesting that there are many States that actually have criminal libel, lat, uh, statutes. So
Everything we've been talking about so far has been civil, right? One person suing another person for damages for money, right? No, one's going to jail here. Right?
Right. But there are some States that actually do have criminal libel statutes where you could go to jail for liable, for defamation, for slander. Now, for any of those, it's that higher standard. It's the public official standard, even though you don't have to be public official, prove that the statement was false, knowingly, false, or was made with that actual malice. You either recklessly disregarded its truth, or you knew it was false, but there are some States where, Hey, you start spreading lies about Jebidiah knowing they're lies. You're going to the,
I mean, I can, in a way I can understand that. Yeah. I mean, you know, you're, you're, it's, it's, you know, if you think of it in the context of fraud, for example, which we know of course is criminal. You know, you can't commit fraud if you don't somebody for money under false representations. Right. Um, you're guilty of fraud in a way it's similar here. I mean, if, if you are knowingly making a statement that, that, that really is designed to impugn someone for the purpose of impugning them, knowing that your statement's false that's
Yeah, no, you're going to end up in the, uh, the stocks right there, your head and your arms are going to be through the wood and you're going to be in the public square. Right.
This is Amish justice. This is still talking about right. I mean, yeah. The shame you, they throw the tomatoes at you and they don't invite you to church that Sunday,
This is where Cornelius is going to be. Maybe he'll have a Scarlet letter pinned on him. Oh no, wait, I'm going to, I'm mixing my own metaphor.
They probably make him walk around without a suspenders anymore. How embarrassed? Yeah. I mean, geez,
But, but let's go back to dominion, dominion versus Sidney.
We know what we know Russ. Right? Let's let's look at this a little bit more carefully, right? Let's go back to those original defamatory statements that you and Russ, I, uh, one thing we, maybe you mentioned this, I don't remember if you did or not, but under what context did she make these statements where these statements in a press conference or these written statements, uh, can you elaborate on how she made those statements?
Yes. And yes, she basically made the statements every chance she got, she made them in press conferences. She made them at Republican gatherings. She made them in court filings court filings, which, which is interesting. Yeah, because remember her defense is no reasonable person would conclude that these statements were statements of fact.
Well, I wonder if a judge then is a non reasonable person, because if she's making these assertions in a court pleading yeah. Uh, let's face it. Lawyers are under a ethical duty to not misrepresent the truth in a legal
Pleading and to not bring frivolous lawsuits.
And by the way, if you're going to make an assertion as bold as the one she's claiming you must support evidence for that in the legal pleading that you're filing. Yeah. I mean, these are things that this is just ethical law that we have to abide by. So I think that's a problem.
Her that's a problem for her. And as a quick aside, she is, um, under investigation for disbarment in Michigan for, for these, these representations that she made. But she's essentially saying her defense to this is it essentially is that these statements were opinions. They were not statements of fact, they were statements that were going to resolved in the court of law. Okay. That's her defense. So she's saying these were not statements of facts.
Yeah. I mean, interestingly enough, she is not asserting truth is a defense she's not here, which is, that's the most common defense to defamation. She's not saying, um, I stand by these statements. They're absolutely true. And we can prove it. That's not a defense here. Um, you know, her and, and, and, and really, you know, she, she never actually specifically said, in my opinion, she's not necessarily saying this. My opinion she's really is. She's kind of trying to get there.
Right. She's asserting that. Now she's trying to retroactively say, these were my opinions. And I was just putting them out there to be resolved in the court of law. But that is not how she framed them. Right. And you have massive injury, right? Dominion had contracts canceled all over the world. Dominion is probably going bankrupt, right. Unless they're successful here. And they can actually collect.
I was thinking about that. I mean, even if you're a, like, if you're, if you're a democratic politician, you probably don't want a dominion voting system in your state, just because you're concerned about the appearance of impropriety for the election, if you were publican and you actually believe this stuff about dominion you're of course thinking that this was responsible for fraudulent elections. Right? So, I mean, the chilling effect to dominion is very clear,
Clear, and palpable. It's massive. There is, there's a very demonstrable injury here. And the injury is in the hundreds of millions. If not in the billions, I think they came up with a 1.3 by an accounting of, this is what our business has lost
By the way, dominion, not a public figure either. Uh, so they, they, they, you know, they don't, you don't, we don't have that actual malice standard here. This is a private company. Um, you know, they don't,
No one knew they weren't, they weren't famous before this, or no one knew
What the was until people like Sidney Powell started opening up.
Right. So interestingly, I feel like, you know, as far as defenses go, this may be her best defense, but she really is
Laughable because I mean, of course the media is reporting. Uh, I mean, she's the media, the spin on this is her defense is no one in their right mind would believe anything that I say, even though I'm saying it right, uh,
And drop them directly at, I mean, that is the media spin on it. But you know, directly at odds with that is, well, she filed lawsuits that have to be legitimate, right. Making these same allegations. But, but her, you know, her argument that, Hey, this was my opinion. Had she said, I believe that dominion may have bribed Georgia officials that would have been perfect. Right. Or if she said the dominion voting machines need investigation to see if they transfer votes from Biden to Trump, if she had just worded it like that, then she'd be in really, I think on very strong footing.
Yeah. I mean, one thing that's painfully obvious to me, and we were talking about an attorney here and obviously defamation libel slander, or not on her mind when she made these statements. Um, so anyway, we will, uh, we'll update you as that civil case proceeds. But, uh, I think we have some more important things that we need to move on to. Right.
I think we do. I think it's time for [inaudible]
Baby. We are back you, but you probably thought we forgot about don't terminal the week. Now we didn't give us some credit. We wouldn't do the dirty like that. No one would not. Uh, so,
Uh, we're gonna talk today, uh, and award some knuckleheads to the terrorist who claimed his own reward. Russ, this is absurd. This is, this is pretty funny. Um, so, uh, this happened back in 2012, uh, there was a mid-level Taliban, uh, commander, uh, who was wanted by federal authorities in the United States, not wanted very badly, but he had her, he had a, he had a reward of $100 to his name. We're not exactly talking about 10 months.
We might even say low-level Taliban commander writes. He commanded two goats and four sheep and a couple chickens.
And I don't think he was wanted for terrorism. I think he was wanting for shoplifting. I can't be bothered. Um, but, uh, anyway, um, he, uh, this, this, this gentleman by the name of Mohammed, uh, Sean, uh, saw his mugshot and saw that there was a reward that was being offered for his capture. So being the young entrepreneur
That he was, he decided,
Well, I want to get me some of that cold, hard cash. I want some of that flow. He went right to the police station, turn himself and say, see that poster on the wall. There that's me.
I'd like my Benjamin,
Uh, officials at the desk were baffled and yet, uh, properly
Arrested him. And they're not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
And, uh, unfortunately by the way, that, that, uh, that, that commander, Mr. Rashaan never got that $100,
Um, false advertising. I mean,
I, I it's seems, seems like you might have a cause of action at a hundred dollars. I mean, he's offer acceptance consideration.
I mean, really what he should have done is just had his, his wife turned him in so that she could get the money.
I mean, he obviously didn't think this through. So, um, the authorities were lost to explain his actions, although one a us official reportedly told journalists, clearly this man is an imbecile. I agree Russ. So now we, we need to decide how Marriott meritorious these actions are of our, uh, coveted knucklehead awards. Okay. Um, you go first
Uncle, I'll go first. I have a very clear opinion on this one. Um, you know, th this guy, clearly I agree. He is clearly in imbecile and normally I would give him five knuckleheads
For this move. However, I think he should have got that reward. Okay. Because
He turned, he, he abided by the, there was, like you said, there was an offer. He fulfilled that offer. He turned himself, where's his hunting criminal captured. He, yeah. He should have gotten that hundred dollars
A reward. That guy would be out in custody again. Right.
Exactly. Exactly. So I'm giving him four, I'm knocking off one knucklehead
For that. Um, Russ for the first time, uh, in D C T O w history. I am given the full five on this guy, this guy, this guy checked all the boxes for me. Uh, what, what really pushes me to the five and knucklehead rating is the fact that the, uh, the finder's fee was only a hundred dollars. Um, like if it was like a thousand dollars, it was a hundred thousand a million, you know, I, I could see, Hey, let's at least go for it. Like, they're probably gonna catch me anyway. Let's see if I can put out a little nest egg for the fam, but it was a hundred bucks, man. I mean, all right. But
Put that into perspective. A hundred us
Dollars in Afghanistan is probably worth a whole heck of a lot
More than a hundred dollars here like that. Here, he's got a hundred dollars you had going back to Afghanistan. Well, he's in custody and taken here, but I mean, if he had pulled this off correctly, like maybe his wife and kids would have had a brand new Villa. Oh man. Well now a new cave. I don't know.
Yeah. I liked it. Five knuckleheads for me. Uh, man, what a moron. That's a good one. That's a good one. Well, as always
Everyone, um, go ahead and hit us up on Twitter. Is this legal pot on Facebook Hebets? McCallin find us anywhere. You listen to your podcasts.
Alexa play is this legal, and yet she's got no choice. She's going to do it. I've
Always wanted to say that. And now we can say it and
It works. Yep. That's right. All right, guys, we'll see, uh, in a couple of weeks for our next fresh episode until then we're signing off from Denver, Colorado. Bye-bye