6 ms·

Pulitzer winning reporter faces jail for protecting funding scandal sources

94 points by anigbrowl 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nickpeterson 2y ago
I’m sure this will restore his good name.
- smnrchrds 2y ago
  These sorts of actions are usually of the "pour encourager les autres" variety.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- yellow_postit 2y ago
  As his attorney said in the article "I just want the money."
lxe 2y ago
It boggles me how there's no federal shield law to protect journalists from this.
- HumblyTossed 2y ago
  This is on purpose.
  - ncr100 2y ago
    Where?
    - egberts1 2y ago
      In the First Amendment of United States Constitution.
Dalewyn 2y ago
To be clear, this suit stems from another journalist (their CEO) stating things that weren't factual and was admitted as such: >Bryant did not sue after the articles were published in April 2022, and, in fact, the statute of limitations on defamation claims in Mississippi lapses after one year. But in February 2023, the CEO of Mississippi Today, Mary Margaret White, mischaracterized the reporting at a journalism conference in Miami. >“We’re the newsroom that broke the story about $77 million in welfare funds, intended for the poorest people in the poorest state in the nation, being embezzled by a former governor and his bureaucratic cronies and used on pet projects like a state-of-the-art volleyball stadium at Brett Favre’s alma mater,” she said in videotaped remarks. >Embezzlement is a crime, and Bryant has never been charged, let alone convicted. There has been no indication he is a target of an ongoing federal investigation into the welfare fraud scandal. >In May 2023 — a few days after the Pulitzer announcement — Quin sent Mississippi Today a notice of his intention to sue, citing the “embezzlement” remark. A week later, White issued a public apology, saying: “I misspoke at a recent media conference regarding the accusations against former Governor Phil Bryant in the $77 million welfare scandal. He has not been charged with any crime. My remark was inappropriate, and I sincerely apologize.” For what it's worth, the former governor and his lawyer weren't satisfied with the apology and went forward with their lawsuit. I see two sides to this. It's critical that journalistic sources be held in confidence, but it's also critical to guarantee presumption of innocence until proven guilty and that journalists don't abuse their position to spread slander. That their entire investigation is now getting pulled in demonstrates just how stupid that CEO journalist was.
- ciabattabread 2y ago
  If only she had said "being embezzled by a former governor['s] bureaucratic cronies".
- newprint 2y ago
  former Governor Phil Bryant signed docs to allocate those funds. Plain and simple. He claims ignorance. It wasn't a pocket change, he should have been aware of what he was signing and where those funds came from. It is plain corruption and he is trying to get back at the journalists for exposing his corruption.
aniviacat 2y ago
> Bryant did not sue after the articles were published in April 2022, and, in fact, the statute of limitations on defamation claims in Mississippi lapses after one year. But in February 2023, the CEO of Mississippi Today, Mary Margaret White, mischaracterized the reporting at a journalism conference in Miami. > In May 2023 — a few days after the Pulitzer announcement — Quin sent Mississippi Today a notice of his intention to sue, citing the “embezzlement” remark. Why are the journalists in trouble if the lawsuit is about something the CEO said?
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  The lawsuit is demanding to see the sources to prove that the former governor did not embezzle as was claimed by the CEO. The sources are held by the journalists. The journalists will face prison if they do not comply with the court order to turn over their sources.
  - echohack5 2y ago
    And the journalists know if they reveal their sources that the people behind them will subsequently have their lives destroyed by the powerful.
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    But why sue the journalists and not the CEO only? She made the remarks. Why are other journalists who didn't make the remarks afraid of going to jail: "If one of us goes to jail, we will be the first person to go to jail in the Mississippi welfare scandal"? I guess the key here is the he wants to show that it was done with malice. It seems, unlike in other countries/jurisdictions, a defamation lawsuit requires proving malice. So one way to prove it would be to show that whatever sources the journalists had definitely did not indicate the governor was embezzling, but the CEO claimed he did. Therefore, she did it with malice? It's quite complicated to follow. So what gives, does the governor feel pretty confident he is innocent and sources won't show anything? What if he sources reveal he did embezzle? Or, does he know the source materials already, and what's in them, if someone leaked them to him or his lawyers, and now he wants to open them up in a legal way to be used as evidence. Can't say, "we found outside the court house, they feel of the truck".
newprint 2y ago
I saw the interview with the former official who filed the lawsuit. He claims that he is not doing this in spite, but only because his name been dragged into it. He signed the funding !!!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
OutOfHere 2y ago
[flagged]
vlovich123 2y ago
So former Governor Phil Bryant is claiming that the claim by the CEO of the paper that he embezzled (the CEO has since apologized for the error) was due to malice. What I fail to understand though is how the identity of the sources demonstrates said malice. Moreover, there's a lot more here: > [Nancy] New said that at a 2019 Christmas party, Bryant talked about Jake Vanlandingham, founder of the Florida-based biotech company Prevacus. “Governor Bryant got excited and told me that Jake had offered him ‘half the company,’ which I understood to mean a substantial amount of stock, but the Governor said he was going to have to wait until he was out of office to accept,” New wrote. If you might recall, Brett Favre was paid $1M in speaking fees but never actually did any speeches and he advocated for government funds to be used to build a volleyball stadium at USM. I really think the simplest defense here will be to just show that Bryant was complicit in the embezzlement just because it seems more likely than not: > Bryant was governor from 2013 to 2020 and chose John Davis as director of the state Department of Human Services. Davis pleaded guilty in September 2022 to state and federal charges in a conspiracy to misspend tens of millions of dollars that were intended to help needy families in one of the poorest states in the U.S. > Favre had publicly said he supported the Prevacus effort to develop a concussion drug, and the state's civil lawsuit says Favre invested more than $250,000 in the Florida-based company. > “After the meeting, I asked John why he had committed so much funding so quickly,” New said in the court filing. “John said he had spoken with Governor Bryant and the Governor wanted Prevacus funded. John said the Governor was ‘all about this happening.’” Now to be clear I'm not saying the governor is guilty of embezzlement. I'm just saying that it seems like everyone that he surrounded himself with seems to have been caught doing shady shit stealing from welfare funds & denying 90% of applicants to these programs. Since the former Governor makes Christianity a core part of his identity, might I remind him 1st Corinthians 15:33 "Bad company ruins good morals". And if I were the prosecutors, I'd make real sure there's no case at all against the governor cause it seems like there's some smoke there that can be fanned into a fire. [1] https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2024/02/29/mississippi-former-gov-phil-bryant-expected-stake-in-company-that-got-welfare-money-nancy-new-said/72787184007/ https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2024/02/29/mississi...
- andreareina 2y ago
  Actual malice is a legal standard for what you knew when you made the statement, doesn't have anything to do with how you feel.

94 points by anigbrowl 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nickpeterson 2y ago

I’m sure this will restore his good name.

smnrchrds 2y ago
These sorts of actions are usually of the "pour encourager les autres" variety.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
yellow_postit 2y ago
As his attorney said in the article "I just want the money."

lxe 2y ago

It boggles me how there's no federal shield law to protect journalists from this.

HumblyTossed 2y ago
This is on purpose.
- ncr100 2y ago
  Where?
  - egberts1 2y ago
    In the First Amendment of United States Constitution.

Dalewyn 2y ago

To be clear, this suit stems from another journalist (their CEO) stating things that weren't factual and was admitted as such: >Bryant did not sue after the articles were published in April 2022, and, in fact, the statute of limitations on defamation claims in Mississippi lapses after one year. But in February 2023, the CEO of Mississippi Today, Mary Margaret White, mischaracterized the reporting at a journalism conference in Miami. >“We’re the newsroom that broke the story about $77 million in welfare funds, intended for the poorest people in the poorest state in the nation, being embezzled by a former governor and his bureaucratic cronies and used on pet projects like a state-of-the-art volleyball stadium at Brett Favre’s alma mater,” she said in videotaped remarks. >Embezzlement is a crime, and Bryant has never been charged, let alone convicted. There has been no indication he is a target of an ongoing federal investigation into the welfare fraud scandal. >In May 2023 — a few days after the Pulitzer announcement — Quin sent Mississippi Today a notice of his intention to sue, citing the “embezzlement” remark. A week later, White issued a public apology, saying: “I misspoke at a recent media conference regarding the accusations against former Governor Phil Bryant in the $77 million welfare scandal. He has not been charged with any crime. My remark was inappropriate, and I sincerely apologize.” For what it's worth, the former governor and his lawyer weren't satisfied with the apology and went forward with their lawsuit. I see two sides to this. It's critical that journalistic sources be held in confidence, but it's also critical to guarantee presumption of innocence until proven guilty and that journalists don't abuse their position to spread slander. That their entire investigation is now getting pulled in demonstrates just how stupid that CEO journalist was.

ciabattabread 2y ago
If only she had said "being embezzled by a former governor['s] bureaucratic cronies".
newprint 2y ago
former Governor Phil Bryant signed docs to allocate those funds. Plain and simple. He claims ignorance. It wasn't a pocket change, he should have been aware of what he was signing and where those funds came from. It is plain corruption and he is trying to get back at the journalists for exposing his corruption.

aniviacat 2y ago

> Bryant did not sue after the articles were published in April 2022, and, in fact, the statute of limitations on defamation claims in Mississippi lapses after one year. But in February 2023, the CEO of Mississippi Today, Mary Margaret White, mischaracterized the reporting at a journalism conference in Miami. > In May 2023 — a few days after the Pulitzer announcement — Quin sent Mississippi Today a notice of his intention to sue, citing the “embezzlement” remark. Why are the journalists in trouble if the lawsuit is about something the CEO said?

Dalewyn 2y ago
The lawsuit is demanding to see the sources to prove that the former governor did not embezzle as was claimed by the CEO. The sources are held by the journalists. The journalists will face prison if they do not comply with the court order to turn over their sources.
- echohack5 2y ago
  And the journalists know if they reveal their sources that the people behind them will subsequently have their lives destroyed by the powerful.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  But why sue the journalists and not the CEO only? She made the remarks. Why are other journalists who didn't make the remarks afraid of going to jail: "If one of us goes to jail, we will be the first person to go to jail in the Mississippi welfare scandal"? I guess the key here is the he wants to show that it was done with malice. It seems, unlike in other countries/jurisdictions, a defamation lawsuit requires proving malice. So one way to prove it would be to show that whatever sources the journalists had definitely did not indicate the governor was embezzling, but the CEO claimed he did. Therefore, she did it with malice? It's quite complicated to follow. So what gives, does the governor feel pretty confident he is innocent and sources won't show anything? What if he sources reveal he did embezzle? Or, does he know the source materials already, and what's in them, if someone leaked them to him or his lawyers, and now he wants to open them up in a legal way to be used as evidence. Can't say, "we found outside the court house, they feel of the truck".

newprint 2y ago

I saw the interview with the former official who filed the lawsuit. He claims that he is not doing this in spite, but only because his name been dragged into it. He signed the funding !!!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

OutOfHere 2y ago

[flagged]

vlovich123 2y ago

So former Governor Phil Bryant is claiming that the claim by the CEO of the paper that he embezzled (the CEO has since apologized for the error) was due to malice. What I fail to understand though is how the identity of the sources demonstrates said malice. Moreover, there's a lot more here: > [Nancy] New said that at a 2019 Christmas party, Bryant talked about Jake Vanlandingham, founder of the Florida-based biotech company Prevacus. “Governor Bryant got excited and told me that Jake had offered him ‘half the company,’ which I understood to mean a substantial amount of stock, but the Governor said he was going to have to wait until he was out of office to accept,” New wrote. If you might recall, Brett Favre was paid $1M in speaking fees but never actually did any speeches and he advocated for government funds to be used to build a volleyball stadium at USM. I really think the simplest defense here will be to just show that Bryant was complicit in the embezzlement just because it seems more likely than not: > Bryant was governor from 2013 to 2020 and chose John Davis as director of the state Department of Human Services. Davis pleaded guilty in September 2022 to state and federal charges in a conspiracy to misspend tens of millions of dollars that were intended to help needy families in one of the poorest states in the U.S. > Favre had publicly said he supported the Prevacus effort to develop a concussion drug, and the state's civil lawsuit says Favre invested more than $250,000 in the Florida-based company. > “After the meeting, I asked John why he had committed so much funding so quickly,” New said in the court filing. “John said he had spoken with Governor Bryant and the Governor wanted Prevacus funded. John said the Governor was ‘all about this happening.’” Now to be clear I'm not saying the governor is guilty of embezzlement. I'm just saying that it seems like everyone that he surrounded himself with seems to have been caught doing shady shit stealing from welfare funds & denying 90% of applicants to these programs. Since the former Governor makes Christianity a core part of his identity, might I remind him 1st Corinthians 15:33 "Bad company ruins good morals". And if I were the prosecutors, I'd make real sure there's no case at all against the governor cause it seems like there's some smoke there that can be fanned into a fire. [1] https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2024/02/29/mississippi-former-gov-phil-bryant-expected-stake-in-company-that-got-welfare-money-nancy-new-said/72787184007/ https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2024/02/29/mississi...

andreareina 2y ago
Actual malice is a legal standard for what you knew when you made the statement, doesn't have anything to do with how you feel.