Programming Note: As you may have heard at the end of Day 7 of the trial, Room 518 in the DC Superior Court has been experiencing some hot air. Literally. Apparently the temperature control in the room is out of control. So the trial beginning tomorrow has been moved to Room 132 (new link here). Mark's cross-examination of Mann continues tomorrow, so be sure to tune in!
Week 2: Trial of the Century
Let's start our recap of the week with the First Amendment. As the bipartisan Project Democracy puts its, the First Amendment was designed to equally protect not only speech, but also criticism. In other words, the right to disagree with others in a public forum. To cross into defamation – to reiterate again – the person criticizing has to be proven to have had intended malice. That burden of proof in the case of Mann v Steyn is on Mann.
As Ms. Weatherford's excellent, staccato cross-examination of Mann demonstrated this past Wednesday, the good doctor's salary has increased year after year since 2012. Mann regularly pals around with the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Leonardo DiCaprio, as well as receives extensive media coverage (noted by his never-ending CV). And as we've already extensively covered, Mann's sole example of someone who exhibited "revulsion" of Mann after the "statements at issue" is an unknown gentleman who stared at Mann in a Wegmans in State College sometime in the fall of 2012.
Now, as part of his case, Mann has claimed his grant money declined in 2012 after the "statements at issue."
So let's review what was said on Thursday regarding this subject:
Mark: "It is correct to say, is it not, that whatever grants were lost after the statements at issue, that sum of money would have gone to Penn State University, correct?"
Put as a statement, grant monies given for research are given to the institution not to the researcher or faculty member.
Mann: "That is correct, yes."
And the other possible reason for the decline in grant monies in the fall of 2012?
Mark: "Who is Graham Spanier?"
Mann: "Graham Spanier was the president of Penn State University."
Mark: "And you're aware he was indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and failure to report child abuse on November the 1st, 2012?"
Mann: "That sounds correct."
Mark: "And you're aware that at the time, he was the first university president to be so indicted?"
Mann: "I don't keep track of those sorts of statistics, so no."
Mark: "Do you think that damaged Penn State's reputation in 2012, 2013? 2014?"
Mann: "That's -- it's a difficult question because Penn State is a -- is a broad thing."
The New York Times, November 1, 2012 (not exactly what one might call a bastion of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy):
So, now the question is, why Mark and not one of the countless others on X/Twitter Mann supposedly fends off daily?
From Mann's own email, as previously reported here:
"My hope is that we can ruin this pathetic excuse [Steyn] for a human being through this lawsuit. He has been libeling and lying his whole life. We will put an end to it."
And more from Mann's email as presented in Court on Thursday:
"we are going after National Review. they are a fair more established outfit and have much more to lose. bottom feeders like CEI will get what's coming to them in due course. m"
"There is a possibility that I can ruin National Review over this. Going to talk w/ some big time libel lawyers to see if they're the potential for a major lawsuit here that will bring this filthy organization down for good, mike."
In the News
Up in Canada, Conrad Black, chimes in on the trial, writing about "Canada's Warriors for Freedom." And over in the UK, actor and journalist Laurence Fox is addicted to Phelim and Ann's Climate Change on Trial podcast (and really, who isn't at this point?). Speaking of podcasts, the Heartland Institute had Phelim on its weekly roundtable to discuss the trial. The Gateway Pundit has an overview of the trial here. At Substack, Jeffrey Falk writes, "Despite serious disagreements with Steyn, I regard him as one of the most important writers and commentators left (certainly after the incalculable losses of Christopher Hitchens and PJ O'Rourke). And over at Climate Depot, Marc Morano recaps the week in court on TNT Radio here.
The Mark Steyn Fan Club
"Mark Steyn needs our support. He is paying his own legal fees & has been for 12 years. (Sound familiar?) Please go to https://steynonline.com/14047/will-the-real-slim-shady-please-stand-up... to follow the trial and contribute if you can. He needs our support." — James D.
"We live in the DC area. If you want a home cooked meal, we'd be pleased to have you and team over. I make a mean stoofvlees (or carbonnades, if you prefer that term), with a side of witlof, if you long for some rustic Flemish countryside cooking." — Bart M. (Thank you, Bart and Julia, the team may well take your kind offer up!)
"I've been following the trial as close as I can. I've found the blog of @PhelimMcAleer, it's a great recap. Thanks for fighting for the truth." — Dawn
And our thanks to Tari, for stating what everyone is thinking: "Mann: I think everybody in this room probably can imagine what I'm describing here. I think we've all experienced something like that at one point in our lives. I imagine you have."
How can he claim emotional damages for an emotion so common that we all experience it at one point in our life?
And finally, this week on the webcast, we were joined by John Adams, Ned Kelly (shout out from the Commonwealth), and SteynGuy. Continue to watch online (now in Room 132); read the latest at SteynOnline, and support Mark with your very own Liberty Stick or become a member of the Mark Steyn Fan Club.