Drip, Drip, Drip…

A pattern has started emerging in the Carlson lawsuit story: FNC selectively leaking out various tidbits to various outlets which are not…how shall I put it?…helpful to Carlson’s case.

Yesterday it was Pirro revealing Carlson’s HR record (how DID she get ahold of that?) and, seperate from that, the notes Carlson wrote to Ailes. Side note: Why did FNC hang on to those note for all these years? If I’m an FNC talent this kind of apparent dossier compilation revelation where my entire life history at the network is apparently retained might make me feel a little nervous.

Today, LawsNewz’s Rachel Stockman appears to have been fed an internal email

She then claims that following the meeting, in retaliation for her opposition to his advances, he denied her opportunities including “severely curtailing her appearances as a guest commentator on prime time shows” and “blocking her from appearing as a substitute host on prime time or daytime panel shows.” However, a memo, provided to us by Fox News, paints a different picture. Just days after the September 16, 2015 meeting, Ailes apparently told Bill Shine, the head of programming, to give it “another chance.” Ailes even suggested that he would be open to putting Carlson back on her time slot with primetime host Bill O’Reilly.

One thing that this selective leaking also hammers home…

It’s selective.

While this email doesn’t help Carlson’s case at all…in fact it does hurt it, it’s just one email. If this gets to the discovery stage, potentially everything will be open and who knows what’s still out there that FNC doesn’t want revealed. That’s why this selective leaking that FNC has started in the press is for an optical battle in the arena of public opinion moreso than a legal one in court. Just like Carlson’s legal team talking about all these anonymous women who have come forward but we still don’t have a single name to go on.

14 Responses to “Drip, Drip, Drip…”

  1. Thanks for keeping up on this issue, and for sharing other news in this corner of the world. I’ve been following your site for a few months now and it is fascinating stuff.

  2. “Just like Carlson’s legal team talking about all these anonymous women who have come forward but we still don’t have a single name to go on.”

    I would be curious to know if NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) are preventing all of these women (whether it’s 10 or only 3) from going public.

    Secondly, do the rules of discovery preclude a subpoenaed witness from testifying about activity involving Roger Ailes if there is an NDA?

    Or are they free to speak their mind if they so choose? Same for the trial if there is one?

  3. Just to be clear, I was referring to any deposition that might take place in the following paragraph.

    “Secondly, do the rules of discovery preclude a subpoenaed witness from testifying about activity involving Roger Ailes if there is an NDA?”

  4. “Secondly, do the rules of discovery preclude a subpoenaed witness from testifying about activity involving Roger Ailes if there is an NDA?”

    Don’t know NY law….but in IL…sure you can speak your mind in criminal or a civil case…..but then you have to pay out the penalty in the NDA. You can also be sued for doing so.

    Example….in the late 80 or early 90 in Bloomington IL there was a child molestation case at a private school……..It was before mandatory reporting and a teacher who knew about it quit and signed a NDA which covered pretty much everything under the sun……….criminal charges were later brought…..she testified…..and the school which closed due to the bad PR sued the poor woman and won.

    If you don’t mind paying the money…..you’re free to say whatever you want.

    On why did Fox keep the notes………..I expect Alies keep ALL notes from his employees forever……….you never know when you might need them. Most big companies do that. You write a note to your Boss……especially a huge Boss…..you should expect it to end up in a file somewhere even if digitally saved.

  5. RE: Is a Confidentiality Agreement enforceable during a deposition under subpoena?

    Looks like it could go either way based on what a couple of lawyers said.

    Case 1 – New York Attorney Bruce Robins
    In every confidentiality contract I prepare, the non-disclosure obligation does not apply under various circumstances, including when disclosure is compelled under a valid subpoena. Even without such a provision, a valid subpoena trumps your contract with your former employer
    http://contracts.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/is-a-confidentiality-agreement-enforceable-during-a-deposition-under-subpoena-817395.html

    Case 2 – California Attorney Kenneth Chyten
    If you simply refused to answer, and a motion to compel were to be made, the judge would have to decide whether to compel you to answer, in which he/she would weigh the importance of the information against the harm in disclosing it. would weigh the importance of the information against the harm in disclosing it.
    https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/do-i-have-to-answer-questions-in-deposition-that-a-105746.html

  6. Gabriel Sherman has new statements from six more alleged victims of Ailes out today in New York Magazine. They seem to be very old allegations from the 60’s through to the 90’s; many from when he worked for Mike Douglas, before his FNC days.

    This looks like the early days in the Bill Crosby scandal. I expect if this is allowed to go to court there will be a flood of women, many very credible, emerging from the shadows to accuse Ailes of propositioning them or worse.

    I assume Brian Stelter will cover the story in some depth today. Sadly, I expect Howie Kurtz will be forced yet again to defend Ailes and attack his many accusers.

  7. imnotblue Says:

    Yes… Sherman got a bunch of woman to talk to him…

    But, it’s Sherman. Who has been called out on ICN previously for being less than ethical with some of his FNC “reports.”

    Anything that guy reports should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

  8. danoregon Says:

    It is interesting to note that while staffers are free to defend Ailes and say “He never harassed me.” Anyone currently under contract would apparently be in violation if they confirmed that he did harass them.

  9. “Yes… Sherman got a bunch of woman to talk to him…”

    ^^Actually it was 12 women who contacted Carlson’s lawyer. Six of those, two using their real names, talked to Sherman.

    “But, it’s Sherman. Who has been called out on ICN previously for being less than ethical with some of his FNC “reports.””

    ^^I’m not sure that’s what Spud said but I’ll let him answer for himself.

    “Anything that guy reports should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.”

    ^^He’s been off the mark on occasion but something tells me this is not one of them.

    Stelter did a couple of segments on the case today and there was even a reference to the Cosby comparison which I also made in an earlier post here.

    Howie towed the company line and stayed with the FNC comment and the Ailes memo. This story could get really uncomfortable for Kurtz as he’s supposedly a ‘straight’ reporter. At some time he’s going to have to get off the fence and take a side.

  10. motownman Says:

    Among the Fox anchors who have come out in support of Ailes: Maria Bartiromo, Ainsley Earhardt, Harris Faulkner, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Martha MacCallum, Sandra Smith and Greta Van Susteren.

  11. “Among the Fox anchors who have come out in support of Ailes: Maria Bartiromo, Ainsley Earhardt, Harris Faulkner, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Martha MacCallum, Sandra Smith and Greta Van Susteren.”

    ^^What’s your point? It will be a real problem for Ailes if every current female anchor or non on air employee doesn’t support him wholeheartedly.

  12. motownman Says:

    The easiest things for them to do is remain silent. I give them credit for speaking out. Not every anchor has, most notably Megan Kelly.

  13. imnotblue Says:

    The anchors bit is a Catch 22 by those who want to see Ailes punished. If the anchors said nothing, they’d argue that they hate Ailes. If the anchors say something, they’ll argue (as we’ve seen) that they had to and are only doing what they’re told. In other words, they can do no right.

  14. “The anchors bit is a Catch 22 by those who want to see Ailes punished.”

    ^^That’s pretty weak tea blue. Anchors that come to Ailes defense could easily be telling the truth, in their cases, and still be doing what is expected of them by FNC. Those saying nothing could be just wanting to stay away from a controversy and have no “hate” of Ailes. It takes a lot of courage to get involved in a sex scandal even if it’s only commenting as to your non-involvement.

    Kelly’s silence is not surprising as she’s in negotiations at the moment and coming down on either side of the Ailes scandal is just not smart in her case.

    Most of Roger Ailes alleged victims are coming from years before he joined FNC and I think any more accusers from Fox News are likely to be from it’s start up years and not current employees. After all he’s getting on in years.

    The people that are most relevant now are the Murdock son’s. Do they want to use this scandal as an excuse to dump Ailes?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: