• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mark Meadows being sued by his publisher for lying in his book

Meadows is extremely highly skilled at dancing on a knife edge. I, for one, do not equate the grant of immunity he received as being an indication that he was going to be a cooperative witness with the prosecution. I think he's going to shade his testimony as much as possible and never volunteer anything.

OTOH I suspect this action by his publisher is a suit brought to protect HIs Donaldship by putting financial pressure on Meadows to shut his mouth. Nearly all political books like this have a big initial sale and quickly drop off to nearly nothing. Even assuming Meadows blatantly lied in the book I just don't see any financial loss to the publisher at all-they have already sold every copy they could have expected to a year ago. In fact an argument can be made that the recent events will cause a resurgence of sales of the book to those who would have never bought a MAGA book but are now interested in what Meadows had to say back then. Maybe another dozen sales or so to Meadows' co-defendants' counsel.
 
OK but the publisher knew they were publishing a book claiming the election was stolen from Trump, and they published it anyway. When they published that book, all the courts, including the judges appointed by Trump, had ruled against that claim. Did they not know this when they published it?

What happened is that someone decided that they made a foolish move to publish that book and regretted it. Maybe a change of management. Now they're trying to salvage their reputation.

Next time don't publish things you knew were lies in the first place, ok?
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
OK but the publisher knew they were publishing a book claiming the election was stolen from Trump, and they published it anyway. When they published that book, all the courts, including the judges appointed by Trump, had ruled against that claim. Did they not know this when they published it?

What happened is that someone decided that they made a foolish move to publish that book and regretted it. Maybe a change of management. Now they're trying to salvage their reputation.

Next time don't publish things you knew were lies in the first place, ok?
Click to expand...

this. I think a few owners of this "book" should start a class-action against the publisher and see if they can siphon all profits away from the publisher.
 
woolfe9998 said:
OK but the publisher knew they were publishing a book claiming the election was stolen from Trump, and they published it anyway. When they published that book, all the courts, including the judges appointed by Trump, had ruled against that claim. Did they not know this when they published it?
Click to expand...

This was my first thought too. Though maybe the whole thing is an act designed to drum up more sales, for example?
 
The only way this turns out "rightfully" is if, somehow, both sides lose...I just can't figure out a way that would happen. Maybe the judge can slap both parties with a "you're so stupid it makes my brain hurt" fine on top of tossing the case out of court and making them both pay for the court's time.
 
mikeymikec said:
I don't understand the relevance of this point.
Click to expand...
That’s the lie - it’s all that matters?

The contract says that what he wrote was true to the best of his knowledge. If he actually thought Trump won, regardless of the fact that Trump lost, then he complied with his contract. If he didn’t actually think it be violated his contract.
 
fskimospy said:
That’s the lie - it’s all that matters?

The contract says that what he wrote was true to the best of his knowledge. If he actually thought Trump won, regardless of the fact that Trump lost, then he complied with his contract. If he didn’t actually think it be violated his contract.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the publisher would have reviewed the book before publishing it, and anyone who hasn't gone completely qanon/barmy would have questioned the veracity of his claims at that point. If the publisher hadn't sued him then I would have thought that if either party came under legal fire from a third party then they could probably adopt the standard Fox News defence.

As much as I wish a plague on anyone's house who peddles such claims, if I was the judge in this situation I'd tell the publisher to get fucked. What's their encore going to be, to publish the claims of some UFO fanatic and then do the pikachu shocked face when it turns out that the fanatic wasn't entirely truthful?

The publisher is asking for $1m for reputational damage. In my view it's entirely self-inflicted. How could anyone believe otherwise?

"All Seasons Press said it decided to publish the book “after conducting the appropriate due diligence and based upon repeated assurances from Meadows that facts in the Book were true.”"

LOL. I suspect their definition of "due diligence" in this case involves rimming Donald Trump and then asking him if the claims were true during pillow talk. "Of course babes!"
 
mikeymikec said:
Yes, but the publisher would have reviewed the book before publishing it, and anyone who hasn't gone completely qanon/barmy would have questioned the veracity of his claims at that point. If the publisher hadn't sued him then I would have thought that if either party came under legal fire from a third party then they could probably adopt the standard Fox News defence.

As much as I wish a plague on anyone's house who peddles such claims, if I was the judge in this situation I'd tell the publisher to get fucked. What's their encore going to be, to publish the claims of some UFO fanatic and then do the pikachu shocked face when it turns out that the fanatic wasn't entirely truthful?

The publisher is asking for $1m for reputational damage. In my view it's entirely self-inflicted. How could anyone believe otherwise?

"All Seasons Press said it decided to publish the book “after conducting the appropriate due diligence and based upon repeated assurances from Meadows that facts in the Book were true.”"

LOL. I suspect their definition of "due diligence" in this case involves rimming Donald Trump and then asking him if the claims were true during pillow talk. "Of course babes!"
Click to expand...
The publisher relies entirely on the author for fact checking. Their due diligence is asking him if it accurately represents his views.
 
fskimospy said:
The publisher relies entirely on the author for fact checking. Their due diligence is asking him if it accurately represents his views.
Click to expand...

If this is some peculiar definition of "due diligence" that is restricted to the political book publishing world then so be it I guess?
 
mikeymikec said:
If this is some peculiar definition of "due diligence" that is restricted to the political book publishing world then so be it I guess?
Click to expand...
No - but again I guess I’m not seeing what the issue is here. Meadows signed a contract where he said everything in his book was true to the best of his knowledge and then testified to the contrary under oath. Seems open and shut to me.
 
fskimospy said:
That’s the lie - it’s all that matters?

The contract says that what he wrote was true to the best of his knowledge. If he actually thought Trump won, regardless of the fact that Trump lost, then he complied with his contract. If he didn’t actually think it be violated his contract.
Click to expand...

I can't recall, but has Meadows now publicly said he doesn't think the election was stolen?
 
woolfe9998 said:
I can't recall, but has Meadows now publicly said he doesn't think the election was stolen?
Click to expand...
It’s based on reporting that he testified under oath that claims it was stolen were baseless.

abcnews.go.com

Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources

Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has spoken with Jack Smith's team several times this year, and Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, sources say.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top