"It’s surreal. I’ve been dreaming about this moment for all this time, but often thinking I might not make it, financially, emotionally or physically."

Said David Sabatini, after the verdict, quoted in "M.I.T. Scientist Wins $6 Million in Sexual Harassment Defamation Suit/David Sabatini, once a prominent scientist at M.I.T., sued a former colleague who accused him of inappropriate behavior. A jury found in his favor" (NYT).

[Santini] ran a research lab at the Whitehead Institute, in Cambridge, for 24 years. His lab studied cellular biology to better understand neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, diabetes, and aging. He was forced out of his lab in 2021 after an internal Whitehead investigation concluded he had a past sexual relationship with a younger and less experienced colleague, Kristin Knouse, over whom he had a career-influencing role. The investigation also found that his lab had maintained a sexualized atmosphere. Dr. Knouse said that the relationship was coerced. But Dr. Sabatini denied his lab had an improper atmosphere. He maintained that his relationship with Dr. Knouse had been consensual and that Dr. Knouse had schemed to get him fired and disgraced after he became interested in another woman....

"I do love revenge, I will say that,' adds Meeropol, 57, taking a sip from an iced Americano... 'I’d always loved revenge movies."

That's from "The woman behind E Jean Carroll: I do love revenge, I will say that/Ivy Meeropol has made a film starring one of Trump’s biggest foes. And she has her own beef with the president — dating back to her grandparents’ execution" (London Times).

Meeropol = Ivy Meeropol, the documentarian who made a movie about the man, Roy Cohn, who "helped to send her grandparents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, to the electric chair, leaving her father orphaned at the age of ten." Now, Meeropol has a movie about E. Jean Carroll.

A few days ago, Carroll finally received the $5.6 million she won in her lawsuit against Trump, and Meeropol said: "This historic moment shows that our legal system — established almost 250 years ago to serve as a check against absolute power — still works. E Jean used to sign off from her television show in the mid-Nineties saying, 'Fate loves the fearless,' and it couldn’t be more appropriate today...."

Much has been made of the fact that Carroll is not a perfect MeToo victim.

"In the lawsuit... Rana claimed he was drugged and made a sex slave by Hajdini, who also allegedly made racist claims about him and his wife."

"The most infamous line from the suit was Rana’s claim that Hajdini stripped off her top and said, 'I bet your little Asian, fish head wife doesn’t have these cannons.' JPMorgan and Hajdini have said from that jump that Rana’s allegations are entirely made up. Both defendants argue that Rana should be forced to either stay in state court — or that the suit be dismissed for good, and that he pay legal fees. Hajdini, who has filed a counterclaim alleging Rana defamed her, said her defamation allegation should be argued out before Rana is allowed to file in any new court."

From "The surprising reason JPMorgan lawyers don’t want Chirayu Rana to drop his bombshell ‘sex slave’ lawsuit" (NY Post).

How does that quote even exist? No one would say that, but no one making up a quote should make up something that no one would say. "Fishwife" is a standard expression, but "fish head wife" isn't. And I'll just stop there. It's so ludicrous that it's incomprehensible as a made up quote.

ADDED: "Fishwife" is a standard expression... it has a Wikipedia article:  "A fishwife, fish-fag or fishlass is a woman who sells fish. She is typically the wife of a fisherman, selling her husband's catch.... Some wives and daughters of fishermen were notoriously loud and foul-mouthed, as noted in the expression to swear like a fishwife, as they sold fish in the marketplace. Among the reasons for their outspokenness were that their wares were highly perishable and lost value if not sold quickly, and the similarity of their product to that of others selling the same thing, with volume of voice or colourful language drawing customer attention. Also, managing alone while their menfolk were away fishing for extended periods made them strong and self-sufficient...."

BUT: A reader emails: "In the Clint Eastwood Movie Gran Torino, there is a scene where he is invited to party by the girl he has befriended. The party is next door and everyone (except Eastwood) is Hmong. Eastwood makes a reference to them as 'Fish Heads.'"

Ah! Gran Torino! The most important movie in the history of this blog.

The quote is: "What?! What the hell are all you fish heads looking at?!" Here's the scene:

"You don’t need people to believe you, you just need to get it out of your poor body before it gives you cancer."

Said the actress Ruby Rose, quoted in "Katy Perry accused of sexual assault by Ruby Rose/Rose claimed Perry assaulted her at a nightclub almost 20 years ago. Perry denied the accusations, calling them ‘dangerous, reckless lies’" (London Times).

Rose isn't suing, but she says, "[Perry] is more than welcome to sue me (she won’t, because it happened, I have photos and it was literally in public and witnessed by multiple people)."

Which U.S. First Ladies have received the cruelest treatment in the press (and in public conversation)? Especially which ones were disrespected as, essentially, whores?

I asked Grok. Answer after the jump. The easiest guess as to who came in first is the correct answer, so see if you know who came in second:

Afroman tells his own story: "My proof's on the internet."

For a quick read, go here: "Afroman found not liable in bizarre defamation case brought by Ohio cops who raided his home" (NY Post): "The hip hop star wrote the satirical song 'Lemon Pound Cake' and made a music video with real footage of the raid taken from his home surveillance cameras to raise money for property damage caused during the search, he has said. Seven cops with the sheriff’s office then sued him in March 2023, alleging the music video defamed them, invaded their constitutional privacy, and was an intentional infliction of emotional distress...."

Here's penguinz0 with clips from the trial and mockery of the plaintiffs for their Streisand effect problem:

Here's Afroman's impressive testimony.

Here's "Lemon Pound Cake," one of the songs that led to the lawsuit, with the security camera footage of the cop's cake double-take:

Why hasn't AI gone through all the Epstein files and organized the info into something enlightening?

I'm wondering.

I see that The Economist used AI to analyze the Epstein files, and we got "Inside Epstein's Network/What 1.4m emails reveal about America’s most notorious sex offender":

[A] group of software engineers has turned the PDFs into a format that is easier to analyse. Using Reducto, an AI tool, they have identified which files contained emails; extracted the listed senders, recipients, dates, subjects and message bodies; and posted them on a website called Jmail.world. In total, the group processed 1.4m emails, finishing its work on February 11th. The Economist has collaborated with it to assign each message to unique individuals regardless of spellings or email addresses, and researched the backgrounds of the 500 people who appear most often. We then used a large language model (LLM) to score each email chain on how disturbing its content would be to a typical reader, creating an “alarm index.”... 

Why is Gallup suddenly giving up on presidential-approval polling?

I'm reading "Gallup to stop tracking presidential approval ratings after 88 years/Public opinion polling agency says decision 'solely based on Gallup’s research goals and priorities'" (The Guardian).

The company said on Wednesday that it would stop measuring the favorability rating of individual political figures, which “reflects an evolution in how Gallup focuses its public research and thought leadership,” after 88 years. “Our commitment is to long-term, methodologically sound research on issues and conditions that shape people’s lives”....

Do we believe that? I should take a poll, but my polls are not methodologically sound research. Are Gallup's? I can't help suspecting that Gallup has been trying to undermine Trump and it's worried about being called to account.

As The Guardian notes, Trump is litigious. Just last month he wrote: "The Times Siena Poll, which is always tremendously negative to me, especially just before the Election of 2024, where I won in a Landslide, will be added to my lawsuit against The Failing New York Times."

The threat of litigation alone may have cowed Gallup, but the threat is particularly scary if you really have been rigging the polls. To quit your long practice — 88 years! — of polling on presidential popularity makes you look as though you don't believe in the soundness of your own methods. Another possibility is that you're finding sound methods impossible, perhaps because people who like Trump don't talk to pollsters too much anymore.

"In a little while, you’ll be seeing I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth. Literally, they put words in my mouth."

"They had me saying things that I never said coming out. I guess they used AI or something. So we’ll be bringing that lawsuit. A lot of people were asking, ‘When are you bringing that lawsuit?’ Even the media can’t believe that one. They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with January 6 that I didn’t say and the beautiful words that I said … talking about patriotism and all of the good things that I said, they didn’t say that but they put terrible words. They actually have me speaking with words that I never said and they got caught because I believe somebody at BBC said, 'This is so bad, it has to be reported.' That’s called fake news."

Said Trump, yesterday, quoted in "Trump sues BBC for $10bn over ‘fake news’/The broadcaster has apologised for a misleading edit of the president’s speech before the Capitol riot, which Trump said put ‘terrible words in my mouth'" (London Times).

From the complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida:

"Brigitte Macron to submit photographs to court proving she is a woman."

The London Times reports.

“It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself, to put this type of proof forward,” the lawyer said. “It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way. But she’s willing to do it. She is firmly resolved to do what it takes to set the record straight,” he told the BBC. The court in Delaware would hear expert testimony that will be “scientific in nature.” Photographs would show Mrs Macron pregnant and with her three children, he added.

So... these are not nude pictures, just photographs in maternity clothing. Macron brought the lawsuit and is seeking damages, so she's responsible for her own predicament. I'm unsympathetic because she's a public figure. Object to the lies (and the truths) told against you and move on. 

At the bottom of the page:

"Le Slapgate" — I hadn't seen that expression before. Didn't know the "-gate" suffix — the all-purpose designation of scandal — had reached Europe, and it's funny to see it with "Le" — the all-purpose designation that we've got something French... French and masculine. 

"The sculptures were meant to be provocative: 'Miss Mao' shows Mao as a topless woman with distorted, babyish features..."

"... while 'the execution of Christ' depicted a firing squad of life-size Mao statues aiming rifles at Jesus. But Gao denies they were defamatory.... Gao is accused of breaking a law that wasn’t even enacted until nearly a decade after these artworks were first exhibited. In 2018, China criminalized acts that 'distort, smear, desecrate' or otherwise 'damage the reputation and honor of heroes and martyrs.'... Gao, who is a Christian, maintains that his artwork was not intended to defame Mao but rather to explore, through cartoonish depictions of a symbolic figure, the concepts of original sin and repentance.... For [his wife] Zhao, who was not married to Gao when he made the statues, it makes no sense for authorities to claim her leaving with her child would 'endanger state security,' as officials claimed...."

From "Seven-year-old New Yorker stuck in China over father’s political art/Gao Jia, the American-born son of a well-known Chinese dissident artist, has missed first grade because his parents have been stopped from leaving China" (WaPo).

"Jury Rules Against Palin in Libel Case Against The New York Times."

The NYT reports.

Ms. Palin sued The Times in 2017 after the newspaper published — and then swiftly corrected and apologized for — an editorial that wrongly suggested that she had incited a deadly shooting in Arizona years earlier.

The case became a bellwether for battles over press freedoms and media bias in the Trump era, with Ms. Palin’s lawyers saying they hoped to use it to attack a decades-old Supreme Court precedent that makes it harder for public figures to sue news outlets for defamation....

During the trial, Ms. Palin told the jury that the editorial “kicked the oomph” right out of her, damaging her reputation. She said it had ignited another round of criticism of her years after the map was first distributed.

"The Nazi salute sh*t was insane. Honey, we're going to call a fig a fig, and we're going to call a Nazi salute what it was."

"I mean, I'll see things about him in the news and think, That's f**king cringe, I should probably post about this and denounce it, which I have done a few times.... But other than that, I don't give a f**k about him. I really don't. It's annoying that people associate me with him. I just don't have any room to care anymore. When I initially did the whole thing, when he came for me, the Jordan Peterson interview, that was the most cathartic moment of my entire life by far. I had all this pent-up energy, I had wanted to speak out for so long after being [essentially] defamed in a book, after being doxxed. Everything that had gone on — especially in my childhood — when that finally happened, it was the most cathartic experience I have ever had. And then I was like, Okay, whatever...."

Said Vivian Jenna Wilson, quoted in "Vivian Jenna Wilson on Being Elon Musk’s Estranged Daughter, Protecting Trans Youth and Taking on the Right Online/In Teen Vogue’s special issue cover story, the estranged 20-year-old daughter of Elon Musk talks about the 'cartoonishly evil' Trump administration and being a young trans woman today" (Teen Vogue).

The "[essentially]" is Teen Vogue's. I guess they're afraid the accusation of defamation is itself defamation and want to avoid seeming to be adopting that defamation. The "book" in question is, I believe, Walter Isaacson's biography of Elon Musk. What specific statement of fact has she called defamatory?

Joe Rogan says the book — "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House" — lied about how and why Kamala Harris missed appearing on his podcast.

Here's the video, cued to the right place, and I've got transcript underneath it, but if you want to read an article about it, with lots of quotes from the podcast, here's this, from the Hollywood Reporter: "Joe Rogan Says Harris Campaign Lied About Being Misled by Show: 'We Have the Receipts'/The podcaster details what he says really happened between his podcast team and the Harris campaign during their much-disputed booking effort: 'It's someone trying to cover their ass.'"

I recommend the original source, the video:

Transcript (from Podscribe, with my editing based on listening to the audio):

Truth is the most valuable thing. If you're speaking openly about something. If you're talking about something publicly, truth is the most important thing. As soon as you are willing to violate truth, to preserve something else... now I can't listen to you anymore... And obviously politics is the best example of that. I mean especially today. I guess it's probably a good time to talk about this. There was a thing that came out recently. There was a book, some book about the Kamala Harris campaign where they talked about her getting on this show, and they said a bunch of things that weren't true. They... supposedly talked to like 150 different people about... what happened with her coming on this show.... They didn't talk to us. Which is kind of crazy....

"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a written opinion upholding the $5 million award that the Manhattan jury granted to E. Jean Carroll for defamation and sexual abuse...."

"Trump skipped the trial after repeatedly denying the attack ever happened. But he briefly testified at a follow-up defamation trial earlier this year that resulted in an $83.3 million award. The second trial resulted from comments then-President Trump made in 2019 after Carroll first made the accusations publicly in a memoir. In its ruling, a three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected claims by Trump’s lawyers that trial Judge Lewis A. Kaplan had made multiple decisions that spoiled the trial, including his decision to allow two other women who had accused Trump of sexually abusing them to testify. The judge also had allowed the jury to view the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape in which Trump boasted in 2005 about grabbing women’s genitals because when someone is a star, 'you can do anything.'"

AP reports.

"As someone who practiced press law for more than twenty years, and served as a senior executive of news organizations for just as long, I was shocked by the decision of ABC News last week..."

"... to pay $16 million to settle Donald Trump’s libel case over George Stephanopoulos’s This Week broadcast in March. The shock came, and still lingers, because I—and every experienced press lawyer not involved in the case with whom I have discussed it—considered the case one in which ABC was likely to eventually prevail. The decision to settle has been greeted by a lot of commentary, but almost no reporting of new facts. Understandably, that’s generated a good deal of hand-wringing about corporations 'bending a knee' or gloating about the humbling of legacy media or an arrogant press getting its comeuppance. But such speculation does little to explain what happened...."

Writes Richard J. Tofel, in "Questions ABC News Should Answer Following the $16 Million Trump Settlement/The decision to cave and apologize has unnerved American journalists. The network owes them an explanation" (Columbia Journalism Review).

"According to court documents, Ms. Harvey met Mr. Gadd in 2014 at the pub where he worked in London, and went on to stalk and harass him..."

"... including sending countless emails and social media messages, shoving him in the back of his neck and touching him without his consent. The behavior continued until 2017, when Mr. Gadd was granted a harassment warning notice against Ms. Harvey. But in the Netflix show, the character of Martha is said to have stalked a police officer, sexually assaulted Donny, violently attacked Donny and gouged his eyes, and been convicted of stalking and served five years in prison. None of those details were true of Ms. Harvey, the judge said...."

From "Based on a True Story, or a True Story? In ‘Baby Reindeer’ Lawsuit, Words Matter. A defamation suit against Netflix boils down to how the company presented its story about Martha Scott, a fictionalization of what the show’s creator has described as a real-life stalking incident" (NYT).

Notably, the words at the beginning of "Baby Reindeer" are "This is a true story," not "Based on a true story."

"The new Trump movie has his campaign in an uproar...."

 

Apparently, the Cannes audience gasped at the brutality of the rape scene. The victim: Ivana.

Here's the Guardian article, "'This garbage is pure fiction': when subjects hit back at their biopics Trump has spoken out against The Apprentice, but he’s not the first celebrity to attack an unflattering big-screen portrait":

The woman who says she's the Martha from "Baby Reindeer" — which Netflix bills as a "true story" — gets cornered by Piers Morgan.

I'm jumping to a point 34 minutes in where Morgan questions Fiona Harvey about the tens of thousands of emails the writer Richard Gadd says she sent to him. Harvey, a lawyer, is threatening to sue, and she knows that if the emails were sent they will be produced in that lawsuit. "These are easily provable things," Morgan says. "He's either got them or he hasn't." Watch the dramatics and tell me if you think she's credible. Either she or Gadd is lying.

Yes, Gadd is an artist, and he should be able to use his own life as source material and to process it into an interesting show, but he has stated that the story is true and the show, which is very successful, is promoted as a true story. Gadd has asserted that he has changed things to protect the privacy of real people, most notably "Martha," a vivid and fascinating stalker, but Martha was easily identified as Fiona Harvey. Direct quotes used in the show appeared in Harvey's social media.

The obvious complexity is that Harvey is saying both that she is and she isn't Martha. You have to first identify her as the character before you can accuse Gadd of lying about her. If you watch the clip, you'll see how difficult her position is. But maybe she's a liar and a stalker. If not, what is she? Should she be on TV explaining herself, cornered and (to my eye) terrified? If she is Martha — and if Gadd's presentation is true — she has serious mental problems.

"I wouldn’t trust her farther than I can spit. She’ll say whatever..."

"... she’ll say something to you, and something else to you, in the same day — if she thinks it’s going to help her, whether it be money, whether it be fame or power."

Said Ellen Doughty, about Stormy Daniels, quoted in "The horse wars of Stormy Daniels/As she tangles with a former president, the adult-film actress also plays a starring role in a drama that has rocked the world of competitive English riding" (WaPo)(long article, free access link).

Before Stormy Daniels came forward to attack Donald Trump, she attacked Ellen Doughty. Doughty is suing Daniels for defamation after Daniels accused Doughty, a horse trainer, of mistreating horses.