...Jankowicz was herself a font of disinformation, spreading the notorious “Alfa Bank hoax” before the 2016 election, which falsely claimed that then-candidate Donald Trump had financial ties to a Russian bank.
Jankowicz has a history of labeling claims as disinformation that were later found to have credibility and giving credence to discredited claims. She cast doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop story, touted Christopher Steele as a disinformation expert, downplayed Iranian election meddling in the 2020 election, critiqued the promotion of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis, pushed debunked claims of Trump-Russia collusion, and more.
While she sat in her high tower trying her hardest to determine what the rest of us could say, Jankowicz did her best to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story as nothing more than “Trump campaign product” despite the fact it’s been confirmed. During the second presidential debate, Jankowicz posted that President Joe Biden cited “50 former natsec officials and 5 former CIA heads that believe the laptop is a Russian influence op.”
She claimed that the Steele Dossier, which we all know is fake, was funded by Republicans.
Why would they do that? They didn't hire her for her skill, they hired her for her public persona so they could be seen to be doing something. Why would you do that on the down-low?Somehow they will sneak her into a job at DHS. She won't be labeled as being in charge but she will be.
Why would they do that? They didn't hire her for her skill, they hired her for her public persona so they could be seen to be doing something. Why would you do that on the down-low?
Fox contends, and I agree, that Jankowicz has not pleaded facts from which it could plausibly be inferred that the challenged statements regarding intended censorship by Jankowicz are not substantially true. On the contrary, as noted above, censorship is commonly understood to encompass efforts to scrutinize and examine speech in order to suppress certain communications. The Disinformation Governance Board was formed precisely to examine citizens' speech and, in coordination with the private sector, identify "misinformation," "disinformation," and "malinformation." D.I. 31-1 at 10. For the reasons discussed above, that objective is fairly characterized as a form of censorship. ...
Finally, the alleged defamatory statements that Jankowicz wanted to give verified Twitter users the power to edits others' tweets also are not plausibly pleaded as not substantially true. To the contrary, the Complaint itself quotes Jankowicz confirming in a Zoom session that she endorsed the notion of having "verified" individuals edit the content of others' tweets. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Jankowicz stated "during a Zoom meeting" that she "like[d] the idea" of"verified people" "edit[ing]" Twitter and that she "like[d] the idea of adding more context to claims and tweets and other content online, rather than removing it." D.I. 26 ,r 108.
Accordingly, regardless of whether the challenged defamatory statements are opinion, they cannot support Jankowicz's defamation claim because the Complaint does not plausibly allege that they are not substantially true.