Fake News Media Suffers Body Blow on Case Linked to Seth Rich by Larry Johnson

A big, old, giant Sequoia has been knocked down in the mainstream media forest of lies and none of the fake news media are commenting on this development. Ok. Got your attention? I am referring to a defamation case that a Texas financial advisor brought against NPR reporter, David Folkenflik. The Judge in the case described it as:

This is an action for defamation, business disparagement, and civil conspiracy filed by Plaintiff Ed Butowsky (“Plaintiff” or “Butowsky”), a Dallas investment advisor, against National Public Radio, Inc. (“NPR”),1 its senior media correspondent, David Folkenflik (“Folkenflik”), and certain former and current executive editors at NPR.2 According to Plaintiff, the defendants published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff online and via Twitter between August 2017 and March 2018 – statements Plaintiff alleges injured his business and reputation.

NPR and Folkenflik filed a motion to dismiss. The Judge said no. The case will go forward:

The Court, having carefully considered the relevant briefing and hearing arguments of counsel February 7, 2019, recommends the motion be DENIED.

Oh oh. NPR could be paying out some big dollar to Mr. Butowsky

Here's how the judge explained the critical facts:

[Ed Butowsky] resides with his family in Plano, Texas and is an “internationally recognized expert in the investment wealth management industry.” Docket Entry # 1 at 7. He has been in the financial services industry for over twenty-nine years and has made hundreds of appearances on national television and radio shows. Id. at 7-8. In early 2017, Plaintiff contacted the family of Seth Rich to help the family investigate their son’s unsolved murder.6 Id. at 39, ¶ 58. Plaintiff offered to pay for a private investigator. 

Ed Butowsky has been described as a Republican party activist. Essentially, that means he has donated money to a bunch of Republican candidates and offered advice on economic policy matters, but is not an activist. Ed also is a bit of a noble crusader. When he sees wrong he sets out to do something about it. The murder of Seth Rich in the summer of 2016 was brought to Ed's attention by someone close to Julian Assange. Turns out he was friends with a couple of people who knew Julian Assange (Ed had no knowledge or association with Assange) and had access to Assange. Through those contacts he learned that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails passed to Julian Assange and was asked to reach out to the family of Seth Rich. (This is the story Ed tells and I believe him.)

Ed is Jewish and has a son. He empathized with the depth of loss suffered by Seth's parents and reached out to them. They took him up on his offer.

The Judge continued:

On February 23, 2017, Plaintiff contacted Rod Wheeler via text message to see if Wheeler would be interested in investigating the murder. Id. at 39, ¶ 59. Plaintiff did not know Wheeler, but he had seen him on television and Wheeler appeared to be a competent investigator. Id. Plaintiff alleges the family of Seth Rich engaged Wheeler to help solve Seth’s murder. Id. at 18, n. 5.

Wheeler entered into a contract with the Rich family (specifically with Aaron Rich, Joel Rich and Mary Rich) to investigate the murder. Id. at 39, ¶ 60. Plaintiff was not a party to the contract between Wheeler and the Rich family, and his role and involvement in the investigation of Seth’s murder were limited. Id. at 39-40, ¶¶ 57, 61. According to Plaintiff, Wheeler investigated the matter and came up with the theory that Seth’s murder was not the result of a botched robbery. Id. at 18, n. 5.

On March 31, 2017, Wheeler appeared on Fox 5 DC and claimed he had been investigating Seth’s murder over the “past three weeks.” Id. at 42, ¶¶ 67-69. After the interviewer pointed out to Wheeler that people were “hinting at the fact that perhaps Seth Rich may have given some documents [to WikiLeaks],” . . . .

According to the Complaint, after Wheeler appeared on Fox 5 DC, he updated Malia Zimmerman, an “award-winning investigative reporter” employed by FoxNews.com, concerning his investigation. Id. at 43, ¶¶ 71-72. Wheeler was actively and extensively in contact with Zimmerman. Id. at 43, ¶ 73. In one of his texts to Zimmerman, Wheeler stated, “I’m ready to say that Seth’s [sic] Death was not a botched robbery and there appears to be a coverup within the D.C. Govt related to his death.” Id. at 43, ¶ 74; see also id. at 18, n. 5. Zimmerman, who knew Wheeler worked for the Rich family, asked Wheeler if the family was letting him talk. Id. at 43, ¶ 75. Zimmerman expressed interest in doing a story on the murder investigation, if Wheeler was “up to it.” Id.

On May 15, 2017, Wheeler was in contact with Zimmerman multiple times about an article Zimmerman was writing. Id. at 51, ¶94. Zimmerman provided Wheeler several “drafts” containing quotes attributed to Wheeler. Id. at 51-57. At no point in time did Wheeler ever deny making the statements quoted by Zimmerman; instead he offered further quotations. Id. at 55, ¶¶ 114-117.

On May 16, 2017, in the early morning, Fox published Zimmerman’s story entitled, “Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources.” Id. at 58, ¶ 131. The article included the statements Wheeler had made and approved. Id. On May 16, 2017, after publication of Zimmerman’s article, Wheeler appeared on Fox News and was interviewed by Sean Hannity, where Wheeler again confirmed Seth had communicated with WikiLeaks. Id. at 59, ¶¶ 133-135. On May 16, 2017, Wheeler appeared on Fox Business with Lou Dobbs to discuss the Seth Rich murder investigation. Id. at 62, ¶ 139.

On May 16 or May 17, 2017, one or more members of the Rich family, or a spokesman for the Rich family, threatened to sue Wheeler for violating the terms of his contract with the Rich family by speaking with Marraco, Zimmerman, Hannity, and Dobbs. Id. at 64, ¶ 141. According to Plaintiff, the threats from the Rich family provided Wheeler with a motive to lie, backtrack, and distance himself from the quotes and statements he had made to Marraco, Zimmerman, Hannity, and Dobbs. Id. at 65, ¶ 144. Wheeler then “flip-flopped on virtually all the essential facts.” Id. at 67, ¶ 149.

Folkenflik and his editors tried to hide under the First Amendment and claimed that they were just reporting facts and offering honest opinions. The Judge described Butowsky's claim this way:

Plaintiff’s claim implicates five reports that he alleges contain defamatory statements, four of which Folkenflik authored and NPR published, and one interview, published on Mediaite.com, in which Folkenflik discussed his reporting on the Wheeler lawsuit. As previously noted, Plaintiff argues the “gist” of the publications is that Plaintiff, a “Dallas investment manager” and “financial talking head,” concocted, spearheaded and actively participated with Fox News and the White house in a concerted scheme to promote “fake news.”23 Id.

The Judge then proceeds to give Folkenflik and NPR an ass whooping:

Evaluating the August 1 Report as a whole, the Court finds because of material additions and misleading juxtapositions, an objectively reasonable reader could conclude the report mischaracterized Plaintiff’s role in the Seth Rich investigation and “thereby cast more suspicion on [Plaintiff’s] actions than an accurate account would have warranted.”24 Turner, 38 S.W. 3d at 119 (“But by omitting key facts and falsely juxtaposing others, the broadcast’s misleading account cast more suspicion on Turner’s conduct than a substantially true account would have done. Thus, it was both false and defamatory.”). The August 1 Report as a whole is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning because it goes “beyond merely reporting materially true facts.” White, 909 F.2d at 521. . . .

Folkenflik implied Plaintiff fabricated the story about Seth Rich and WikiLeaks. The Court agrees, especially when read in context with the rest of the statements contained in the August 1 Report. . . .

The Court finds the August 1 Report, as a whole, can be reasonably understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes and is capable of defamatory meaning. . . .

The Court finds Folkenflik’s statements in the Mediaite Interview, as a whole, can be reasonably understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes and are capable of defamatory meaning.

The August 7 Report contains three alleged defamatory statements: (1) Fox News had a “role” in “concocting a baseless story” on the death of Seth Rich; (2) Fox was involved in a “journalistic scandal” over the story; and (3) Fox “concocted” the story “in order to help President Trump.” Unlike the other reports discussed above, Plaintiff is not mentioned in the August 7 Report. According to the Complaint, the August 7 Report, “[r]ead together with the [August 1 Report], the overall tenor and context of Folkenlik’s messages was that Butowsky lied, was dishonest, and aided, abetted and actively participated in a fraudulent journalistic scandal.” Docket Entry # 1 at 36, n. 12.

According to Plaintiff, the overall “gist” is that Fox News and Plaintiff worked together, each playing a “role,” to “concoct” a “baseless story” that resulted in a journalistic “scandal.” Docket Entry # 32 at 24. At this stage of the proceedings, accepting the allegations in the Complaint as true, the Court finds the August 7 Report can be reasonably understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes.

. . . .According to Plaintiff, Folkenflik’s statement, explicitly or by implication, accuses him of engaging in “activities” that caused harm to the Rich Family and that Plaintiff lacked empathy and understanding that his actions “affected” the Riches. The Court finds the August 16 Report, considered as a whole, can be reasonably understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes and is capable of defamatory meaning.

. . . . Plaintiff asserts the word “player” carries a very heavy negative connotation and “highlights Folkenflik’s malicious agenda and extreme bias.” Docket Entry # 32 at 26. The Court finds the September 15 Report, as a whole, can be reasonably understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes and is capable of defamatory meaning.

In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff has alleged the gist of the reports can be reasonably understood as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes. Because the reports are “reasonably capable” of communicating the meaning Plaintiff proposes, the next question is whether that meaning is “reasonably capable” of defaming Plaintiff. Tatum, 554 S.W.3d at 637. The Court concludes it is, as discussed further below on actual malice.28

Boys and girls, this is a Shaquille O'Neal equivalent of a slam dunk. I am sure that the NPR lawyers will continue to try to escape this judgment. Odds are they will fail. When that happens, they will be ready to sit down and negotiate a settlement to make this case go away. 

Folkenflick is a hack. A partisan hack. Karma is a bitch and Folkenflik is likely to get bitch slapped in a big way. Instead of reporting the story straight up, he opted for a propaganda hit job. He is unworthy of the title, journalist.

Comments

[akaPatience]

To me the most convincing aspect of the theory that Seth Rich provided the DNC emails to Wkileaks is that Assange offered such a generous reward for info regarding his murder. I can think of no plausible explanation for Assange's offer other than the probability that he and Rich had a relationship. If anyone's aware of similar rewards Assange has offered in other murder cases, I'd like to know.

[rjj]

DH, by way of longer comments: have any been recovered from the Disqus transcript? Checked your Typepad page; glad to see it is active.

[turcopolier]

rjj Still up in Milo? Don't like the way I run this place?

[Larry Johnson]

You're right. Apart from the offer of a reward, I know the person who was speaking to Assange and who then spoke to Ed Butowsky. This person is credible and had access. I personally have no doubt that Seth Rich was the source for the DNC emails. Whether that fact played a role in his subsequent death is something I do not know. But I do think it merits being investigated rather than dismissed outright as a crazy conspiracy.

[Keith Harbaugh]

Re the Barr/Mueller spat that is dominating today's news, the following is worthwhile:
"Andrew McCarthy: Mueller's letter to Barr – A neat trick by the Washington Post before hearings begin", by Andrew McCarthy at Fox News, 2019-05-01

[Norumbega]

I think that's the right attitude to take. Mainstream commentary instantly cries "conspiracy theory" the moment Seth Rich's name is even mentioned - a label that does seem appropriate with regard to the class of social media comment which starts with the premise that his murder was a hit job probably ordered by Hillary or Podesta (who's email about making an example of a leaker was dated well over a year earlier).

However, in general the conspiracy theory charge is a misleading deflection, since it is not a theory but a fact that a number of persons with plausible claims to knowledge have stated or implied that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak. And it is also striking that the Mueller team seems to have lacked the interest to interview any of them.

[Rick Merlotti]

Excellent article

[Norumbega]

Thanks for your extended reflections.

Some points. The issue of Seth Rich's possible concern about DNC skulduggery in marginalizing Sanders has been raised, and some others have responded to the claims that Rich asked for and received money in exchange for the DNC materials as contradicting this motive. In the spirit of your other comments, which call for avoiding either-or, black-and-white thinking, I would just like to point out that the two motivations are compatible, and people's motivations are generally complex.

About the NSA's response to Clevenger's FOIA request, I think you are right to stress that the most significant part is their stated first ground for refusal that "The documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave or serious damage to the national security."

I assume the wording comes from the language of the Act, as does the language of the second (and for our purposes, less interesting) ground that disclosure would compromise certain information that the NSA is authorized to protect regarding its activities. Nevertheless the appeal to the former ground would seem significant in itself.

However, to be clear, we don't know whether the relevant pages they admit to possessing are relevant specifically to the existence of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange or WikiLeaks, since they could instead pertain to communications between Seth Rich and his brother Aaron Rich, or Seth Rich and the Awans, or Seth Rich and any person outside the US, or any phone calls to or from Rich on the final day of his life, among other possibilities given by the wording.

One my point to an extensive body of claims or insinuations by individuals with plausible claims to knowledge that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak, and the absence of any public claims specifying, say, a connection between Rich and the Awans, as supporting the inference that the documents in the NSA's possession the release of which could "cause exceptionally grave or serious damage to the national security" could well have pertained to a Seth Rich-WikiLeaks connection. But we cannot know that.

I did spend one afternoon not so long ago, going through a long timeline provided by a serious but blindered Russiagater, who held that contradictions in Murray's account (he met the source? or an intermediary?; hand-off? or no hand-off?) as grounds for dismissing him or even Murray's having been in on a disinformation effort with Assange and Ray McGovern. In terms of what we know that Murray has claimed - specifically, his blog post "The CIA's Absence of Conviction", the Scott Horton interview, or a street interview near the Ecuadorian embassy the date of which I don't know but which was played in the course of Jason Goodman's recent interview with Bill Binney - the first mentions no hand-off, the second says the materials were already safely with WikiLeaks, and the third says there was no thumb drive involved in the clandestine meeting he had in Washington. In other words, he gives no conflicting account. One could speculate on other possibilities, but it's easy to see how Murray's telling of a clandestine meeting in Washington with one of the sources, about which Murray would have been reticent about precise details, could have given rise to a misunderstanding on the reporter's part.

Your basic point is well taken. We are all fallible in how we express what we want to convey, and in other ways.

[Norumbega]

I'm just curious. Is this the same person who told you and Malia Zimmerman about the FBI's knowledge of Seth Rich's contact with WikiLeaks?

[Larry Johnson]

No. Different person.

[Norumbega]

Thanks!

[rjj]

dysaniosis

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dusaniw%3Dn&la=greek&can=dusaniw%3Dn0&prior=dusa/nios#lexicon

[rjj]

seemed preferable to fulminatio praecox.

[blue peacock]

Larry & David

I'm sure you've both read the FBI media leak on them sending an FBI agent to spy and/or entrap George Papadopolous in the UK.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html

Why do you think the FBI insiders leaked this? They clearly had detailed knowledge of the Horowitz investigation. Is this beginning to unravel or their excuse we had to have a counter-intelligence investigation into the Russian Manchurian candidate will enable them to skate?

[English Outsider]

"What does seem clear is that an accumulating mass of evidence suggests FBI complicity in a cover-up of what happened to Rich, in tandem with a thoroughly discreditable role of the leadership of that organisation in ‘Russiagate.’"

Your meticulous examination of the facts and probabilities above reinforces the conclusion reached in Mr Johnson's recent article -

"The preponderance of evidence makes this very simple--there was a broad, coordinated effort by the Obama Administration, with the help of foreign governments, to target Donald Trump and paint him as a stooge of Russia."

One of those foreign governments being ours. Unless parts of the UK Intelligence services are unsupervised.

And Brad Parscale weighing in on twitter -

"This scam and web of lies was a clear political attack that should be fully investigated."

With a supporter showing where this is going - "Full steam ahead for 2020."

2020. In Trumpspeak 2020's going to be a "beauty". The Colonel predicted some time ago that if they couldn't get him on Russia they'd get him on property dealing. They'll be throwing everything at him and Trump will be throwing everything back at them.

How much will he throw back? Presumably one of the difficulties in contesting Russiagate is that releasing details of what was said between the UK and US intelligence services will imperil the intelligence relationship. Even "redacted" all over the documents would leave a lot to be deduced.

So is it likely that in the no holds barred fight of a Presidential election material like that is going to come out?

I ask because the recent UK Huawei decision indicates the start of a rift. Or rather, makes that rift more apparent. The US defence relationship with Europe, all assure us, is still solid. Those assurances are the more vehement as the rift becomes more visible. My own tentative view is that we are starting to see a European attempt to constitute a block independent of and sometimes opposed to the US. With the UK sitting on as many fences as it can find. The Williamson contretemps is starting to look like the old Westland helicopter dispute.

Assuming, as I most certainly do, that your take on the Steele affair is the true one might I ask, how do you see that affecting these issues?

[English Outsider]

I append the link to the Brad Parscale quote. The quote from the supporter is lower down in the thread.

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1118930547223482373

[David Habakkuk]

EO,

Very good questions. I have had the nose to the grindstone trying to absorb the vast masses of information emerging about the conspiracy, but will try to say something about the broader implications for British foreign policy when I can, as it were, come up for air.

[English Outsider]

Thank you. By an odd chance I came across more on this just now that you will be familiar with but that I had not before seen summed up so concisely and in one place -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PK1vByfK_I&feature=youtu.be

It details a fundamental and accelerating shift in UK defence policy away from the US alliance that would have been apparent, if not publicly, at least from 2016.

The speaker, Professor Prins, does not seem to have been aware that at the same time US and UK agencies were working together on, among other things, the Steele dossier.

[Tim]

It’s likely Murray received USB thumb drive AFTER Seth Rich’s death. Seth Rich’s Death likely triggered the handover of the thumb drive to Murray. Also strange, in one of the interviews Ed Butowsky claims that Seth Rich got paid $48,415 on June 23rd (2015) via PayPal/eBay. This is way too early. Maybe Ed Butowsky meant to say 2016. But according to KimDotcom, Seth Rich contacted him in late 2014.