Roger Ailes About To Be Indicted?
Last week, I noted that Judith Regan had stated in a Federal Court affidavit that Fox News head Roger Ailes had told her to lie to Federal investigators regarding Bernard Kerik.
Today, financial blogger and frequent cable news guest Barry Ritholtz has this:
Here’s what I learned recently: Someone I spoke with claimed that Ailes was scheduled to speak at their event in March, but canceled. It appears that Roger’s people, ostensibly using a clause in his contract, said he “cannot appear for legal reasons.”
I asked “What, precisely, does that mean?”
The response: “Roger Ailes will be indicted — probably this week, maybe even Monday.”
someone he spoke with ??? … who works for a group that Ailes cancelled a speaking engagement with … I sure that is who would know if Ailes is going to be indicted …
Really Doug ? You are an attorney right ? This is what you call evidence I guess ???
You jumped the shark Sir …
How about some alien body or Elvis sighting stories …
What utter nonsense. OTB is now reporting rumors? Good job Doug!
I would be careful in reporting this because of the mess Jason Leopold got in for his ‘Karl Rove indictment’ claim.
“What utter nonsense. OTB is now reporting rumors? Good job Doug!”
What do you expect from a blogger that has moved increasingly left of late. His colleagues claim he was moderate to right at one time; maybe, maybe not. I do know that these days he is as far left as some of the main Lib blogs with his constant trashing of Repubs, and in particular, Repub women. Just look at the fringe leftist commenters that responds to his blog posts. No right of center or moderate blogger would attract far left commenters like that. Given this guy’s left wing track record, no one should be surpirsed he would post something that zings a well know Repub without evidence.
I wouldn’t worry about the Jason Leopold precedent. If anything, that shows that defaming conservatives will, at worst, put a temporary damper on one’s career; it can often be a career enhancement.
Here’s the comment I left at the original article, which may not be published there because it’s “awaiting confirmation”:
My guess – only a guess – is that Barry Ritholtz is judgment-proof, i.e., poor, so he doesn’t care about authoring recklessly false statements leading to a defamation suit. But that might not apply to any legal entity associated with this blog [The Big Picture], which published the likely defamatory statements. But maybe the reasoning here is that even if the statements are defamatory, thus theoretically forming the basis for liability on the part of Barry Ritholtz and this blog, Alies will not sue, because he has bigger fish to fry and no one really cares what Ritholtz says. Which is likely correct.
But it would be fun if Alies sued anyway, just to remind those on the innertubes that you cannot always just say anything you feel like saying.
Yes, it would be fun if Ailes sued. How dare one of the little people say something mean about a rich, powerful right winger.
I don’t think you would be OK with me robbing your house, just because I’m poorer than you. The law considers reputation to be an economic asset, thus the poor or “less powerful” can be held liable for defaming the rich. (However, in the case of a public figure such as Alies, that liability is almost theoretical, given the near-impossibility that such a plaintiff can prove “actual malice.”)
Book ’em Danno…
Except, in the case of s