Suggested Discussion Outline

[johnkarls]

.

Suggested Discussion Outline - The Non-Partisan Public-Policy Issues of Whether, For Example, Michael Lewis’ “The Premonition: A Pandemic Story” Is A Classic Political “Hit Piece” and Whether, As Such, It Should Be (vs. Is) Protected From Defamation By Freedom Of Speech


Our Aug 11 meeting will address the public-policy issue of WHAT AN ATROCITY the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in “New York Times vs. Sullivan” was because it has produced IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE virtually nothing but lies to the public while pols do NOT dare lie to campaign contributors.


************************************************************
Our Status as a NON-PARTISAN Public-Policy Study/Action Organization

It is impossible to analyze the “public policy” of the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964)) and its progeny limiting defamation of public officials or candidates for public office to cases involving ACTUAL MALICE or RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH (the progeny extended this limitation to defamation of “public figures”) without a real-life example involving a public official or candidate for public office. Since U.S. democracy essentially runs on a two-party system, any example of a public official or candidate for public office will, virtually of necessity, involve either a Republican or a Democrat.

[BTW, John Karls, who has been the facilitator of our organization for its 16 years of existence, does NOT have a vote at our monthly meetings for the focus book for the following month.]


************************************************************
Notes –

• Section A (the damming thesis of “The Premonition” and the confession of Michael Lewis on CBS’ “60 Minutes”) should NOT require any discussion time if each participant has the courtesy to read the section before the meeting.

• Section B which affords an opportunity to raise mitigating evidence vis-à-vis the charges in Section A, might require considerable discussion time, or not.

• Section C (legal considerations) should not require much time because they are fairly “cut and dried.”

• Section D (discussion questions from the Short Quiz) should absorb whatever time remains.

The following outline is respectfully suggested –


*******************************
Section A: Proof That “The Premonition” Was Intended To Be, And Is, a BIG LIE “Hit Piece”


*****
FIRST – The Thesis of “The Premonition”

Before festooning his book with nothing but stories of obscure or relatively-obscure individuals, Michael Lewis posits his thesis in an introduction in which he CLAIMS (page xv) –

“Before the pandemic, a panel of public-health experts had judged the United States to be more prepared for a pandemic than other G7 nations.”

And based on this CLAIM, he calculates that by February 2021, 450 thousand Americans had died of COVID and if the death rate in the U.S. had simply tracked the average of the other six G7 nations, 180 thousand of those Americans would still be alive.

HOWEVER, his “panel of public-health experts” is EITHER an anonymous source or a made-up source.

THE TRUTH is that the U.S. healthcare system (including its ability to respond to a pandemic) HAS ALWAYS BEEN RATED BY THE U.N.’S WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION as worse than ALL OF THE OTHER 35 MEMBERS OF THE OECD AND EVEN SOME THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES.


*****
SECOND – The Author’s Confession on CBS’ “60 Minutes” on August 1

At 40 minutes into CBS’ “60 Minutes,” John Dickerson begins to interview Michael Lewis about “The Premonition.”

Six minutes later (46 minutes into “60 Minutes”), John Dickerson with obvious mirth signaling sarcasm, asks Michael Lewis why in early 2020 a self-appointed group of private doctors calling themselves “Wolverines” were spear-heading according to “The Premonition” the U.S. response to COVID.

And with equally-obvious mirth signaling sarcasm, Michael Lewis responds --

“In the first place, the Trump Administration abdicated responsibility for running, for the federal government, he just walked away from that, right, he just said: ‘Governors, you’re on your own.’”

AND JOHN DICKERSON DOES NOT CHALLENGE THIS BALD-FACED LIE!!!

EVEN THOUGH JOHN DICKERSON MUST HAVE KNOWN THIS WAS A BALD-FACED LIE!!!

AFTER ALL, JOHN DICKERSON IS A MEMBER OF CBS’ NEWS DIVISION.

MOREOVER, JOHN DICKERSON WAS PRESUMABLY SELECTED BY CBS’ “60 MINUTES” TO INTERVIEW MICHAEL LEWIS BECAUSE HE (DICKERSON) HAD DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PANDEMIC AND ITS HANDLING.

So why was this claim by Michael Lewis an obvious bald-faced lie???

On January 29, 2020, two days before the president’s supposedly-Xenophobic China travel ban WHICH WAS THE FIRST IN THE WORLD VIS-À-VIS CHINA, the president established his “White House Coronavirus Task Force” (aka “The President’s Coronavirus Task Force”).

Its initial membership on January 29 was –

Alex Azar – U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services – AND TASK FORCE CHAIR
Stephen Biegun – U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
Robert Blair – Senior Advisor to the White House Chief of Staff
Ken Cuccinelli – Acting U.S. Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security
Anthony Fauci – Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Joe Grogan – Director of the Domestic Policy Council
Derek Kan – Executive Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Chris Liddell – White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Coordination
Robert C. O’Brien – National Security Adviser
Matthew Pottinger – Deputy National Security Adviser
Robert R. Redfield – Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (aka “CDC”)
Joel Szabat – Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy

On February 26, Vice President Michael Pence took over as TASK FORCE CHAIR from Alex Azar who remained as a member of the Task Force.

On February 26, the Task Force acquired the following ADDITIONAL members –

Michael Pence – U.S. Vice President AND NEW TASK FORCE CHAIR
Deborah Birx – U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator
Vice Admiral Jerome Adams – Surgeon General of the U.S.
Larry Kudlow – Director of the National Economic Council
Steven Mnuchin – U.S. Secretary of the Treasury

The original 12 members, plus the additional 5 on February 26, were joined by another 11 for a final total of 28 --

March 1 – Ben Carson – U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
March 1 – Kelvin Droegemeier – Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
March 1 – Stephen Hahn – Commissioner of Food and Drugs
March 2 – Seema Verma – Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
March 2 – Robert Wilkie – U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
March 13 – Admiral Brett Giroir – Assistant Secretary of Health
May 15 – Francis Collins – Director of the National Institute of Health
May 15 – Thomas J. Engels – Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration
May 15 – Peter Marks – Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
May 15 – Sonny Purdue – U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
May 15 – Eugene Scalia – U.S. Secretary of Labor


**********
ANALYSIS OF THE NEW “60 MINUTES” BALD-FACED LIE

“In the first place, the Trump Administration abdicated responsibility for running, for the federal government, he just walked away from that, right, he just said: ‘Governors, you’re on your own.’”

No, the president did NOT say “Governors, you’re on your own.”

From its creation in January 2020, The White House Coronavirus Task Force (aka The President’s Coronavirus Task Force) WORKED WITH THE GOVERNORS AND WAS IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THEM to, inter alia –

(1) invoke The Defense Production Act to ensure that such items as ventilators were never in short supply; and

(2) initiate in early April “Operation Warp Speed” to develop vaccines for delivery to Governors that started 7 months later in November – when all of the experts claimed vaccines could NOT be developed faster than 3-5 years, if ever. [“Operation Warp Speed” NOT ONLY streamlined “red tape” at the FDA, etc., in order to cut approval time from 3-5 years down to 7 months, BUT ALSO contracted with drug companies for the production of hundreds of millions of doses of promising vaccines before FDA approval in order to hurdle the natural corporate timidity about investing money in manufacturing something that might not be approved, AND ALSO included detailed plans for the military (which knows a few things about logistics and has the personnel & equipment to execute same) to deliver the hundreds of millions of doses to whatever locations the governors specified as soon as FDA approval was obtained –- if Michael Lewis wanted to author a worthwhile book about COVID deaths that need not have happened, he should have looked at why the FDA dragged out its approval for an extra few weeks so that it did not happen before the election day on 11/3/2020 and how many people the FDA bureaucrats killed by needlessly delaying their approval those few weeks for political reasons (NB: Yours Truly was 78 years old at the time and paid very close attention to what was happening).]

If you look at the news clips during the Spring of 2020, The White House Coronavirus Task Force received nothing but kudos from the Governors – until NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo decided in early summer to begin compiling a self-congratulatory book (it was not published until 10/13/2020) in a failed attempt to promote himself as a Presidential Candidate.


*******************************
Section B: Opportunity To Raise Mitigating Evidence Vis-à-vis The Charges in Sec. A

Section A should not require much time if everyone has read it beforehand.

This section of the meeting will afford participants, if any, who wish to raise mitigating evidence vis-à-vis the charges in Section A, an opportunity to do so.


*******************************
Section C: Legal Considerations

(1) As a THEORETICAL MATTER, the facts adduced in Section A should be sufficient to prove “actual malice” on the part of Michael Lewis.

(2) In addition, as a THEORETICAL MATTER, it should be a “SLAM DUNK” to prove “actual malice” on the part of Michael Lewis, his editor and his publisher (WW Norton & Co.) as they are forced to turn over to the plaintiff(s) all of their files including correspondence and then have their depositions taken “under penalties of perjury” – please see the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which are available for download at viewtopic.php?f=651&t=2085&sid=b8a521da ... 70fc0fb6b0
(the Discovery Rules are pages 37-63 of the Federal Rules, or pp. 57-83 of the Adobe.pdf file which you have just down-loaded).

[Federal Court jurisdiction should probably obtain because the issue of whether the “actual malice” test of “New York Times vs. Sullivan” and its progeny is satisfied should probably be a “federal question” but, in any event, the plaintiff(s) can be careful to be sure that no defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff for “diversity jurisdiction.”]

(3) HOWEVER, Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (pp. 63-64 of the federal rules which you downloaded IAW paragraph (2) above, or pp. 83-84 of that Adobe.pdf file) gives Michael Lewis, his editor and/or WW Norton & Co the right to a jury trial.

(4) UNFORTUNATELY, as a PRACTICAL MATTER satisfying the Olympic High Hurdle of “proving” in court that there has been “actual malice” is probably impossible because any jury would be likely to have at least one “Trump hater” who has lied her/his way onto the jury.


*******************************
Section D: The Discussion Question in The Short Quiz (which was entitled “The Remedy For LIES is MORE LIES??? Except TO Donors!!!”) That Were Answered “What Do You Think??? Let’s Discuss!!!”

[The Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz are available at viewtopic.php?f=650&t=2082&sid=09582a72 ... f1d03f5376.]

Question 18

With this background, do you believe that our focus book -- Michael Lewis’ “The Premonition: A Pandemic Story” -- is a good example of a classic political “hit piece” aimed at misinforming the demographic comprising readers of Michael Lewis books, none of which have dealt with serious public-policy issues in the past???

Question 19

Are false political “hit pieces” protected “Free Speech”???

Question 20

Should false political “hit pieces” be protected “Free Speech”???

Question 21

In other words, don’t false political “hit pieces” comprise the kind of “serious evil” decried by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis???

Question 22

Who should the “fact checkers” be??? Aren’t the so-called “fact checkers” themselves often nothing more than purveyors of lies???

Question 23

Would false political “hit pieces” predominate in “the public square” in the wake of “campaign finance reform”???


**********
[NB: Campaign finance reform was addressed in Q&A-10 through Q&A-17 of the Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz – the answers as well as the following questions are available at viewtopic.php?f=650&t=2082&sid=a8fe0d38 ... 0a3d6dcdf0.]

10. After studying for our 2/14/2008 meeting 13.5 years ago “Homo Politicus” by the Washington Post’s long-time liberal OpEd Columnist, Dana Milbank, who is syndicated nationally, and “The Squandering of America” by Robert Kuttner, Brandeis U Prof and former long-time liberal columnist for Business Week who continues to write columns for The Huffington Post and The New York Times – have we made a habit of derisively calling the U.S. Government “THE BEST GOVERNMENT THAT MONEY CAN BUY”???

11. Was the thesis of both Dana Milbank and Robert Kuttner that, at least for many years prior to their 2008 publication dates, there exists “the establishment” which comprises the billionaires who “own” both political parties, who “own” many, if not most, of the Mainstream Media and who “own” many members of academia?

12. Did our 3/31/2020 letters to each of the four Co-Hosts and three Producers of ABC’s “The View” summarize “the basic problem” as (quoting from the letters) --

A. Politicians routinely engage in fraud vis-à-vis voters and “sell their souls” to campaign contributors.

B. Why can politicians “sell their souls” with de facto impunity???

C. Because public prosecutors NEVER prosecute politicians for criminal fraud (which should typically be a “slam dunk”) but instead confine themselves to prosecuting politicians for criminal corruption.

D. And the U.S. Supreme Court has long since ruled that criminal corruption requires an explicit “quid pro quo” (or “bargained for consideration” in contract-law legalese).

E. So it is “child’s play” for serious campaign contributors who want to bribe a politician to inquire who the “bundler” (aka “bag man”) is for a particular issue so that a sufficient amount of “contributions” (aka bribes) can be bundled to “bribe” the politician without violating campaign-contribution limits.

F. And it is “child’s play” for the politicians and the “bundlers” (aka “bag men”) representing the contributors to avoid a legally-enforceable contract (which is what “quid pro quo” or “bargained for consideration” means) so that there is no criminal corruption per the U.S. Supreme Court.

G. HOWEVER, the politician knows that s/he can NOT double cross those campaign contributors because doing so means s/he will NEVER AGAIN be able to raise a penny from serious campaign contributors.

13. Did our 3/31/2020 letters to each of the four Co-Hosts and three Producers of ABC’s “The View” begin with –

“Re: Worth The Fighting For – The Honorable U.S. Senator John S. McCain III”

and as the Re’s second-line sub-heading –

“His Dream of Campaign Finance Reform And What You Can Do To Help”???

14. Did the text of our 3/31/2020 letters then begin with --

“As you are probably aware, one of John McCain’s fondest dreams was campaign-finance reform – with The McCain-Feingold Act (aka The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) the result of six years of hearings. [NB: The U.S. Supreme Court in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold in all important respects.]

“The following is a plea to you and your colleagues on “The View” to pick up the fallen banner of Campaign-Finance Reform and champion it for as long as it takes.”

15. Had we thought that with Sen. McCain’s daughter Meghan as a Co-Host of ABC’s “The View,” her colleagues and producers might be inspired to do something positive for the welfare of the nation???

16. Were we bitterly mistaken???

17. So in the aftermath of the FAILURE OF ABC’S “THE VIEW” to make any attempt to cure the problem, are we continuing to witness “what the U.S. Supreme Court hath wrought” -- virtually nothing but lies by politicians vis-à-vis the public while they “sell their souls” to their so-called campaign contributors???