Dominion lawsuit documents show Rupert Murdoch rejected election conspiracy theories

Dominion lawsuit documents show Rupert Murdoch rejected election conspiracy theories


New York
CNN
 — 

A trove of text messages, emails, and other material from Fox News executives and on-air personalities were made public Tuesday as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the right-wing channel.

Among the the hundreds of pages of previously unreleased documents include repeated statements from Fox Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch rejecting conspiracy theories about Dominion that his own network promoted after the 2020 election. And Internal Fox News emails and messages — also made public Tuesday — further show how Fox News’ staff privately dismissed some of the election conspiracies that were promoted on-air.

Dominion has alleged in its lawsuit that during the 2020 presidential election the right-wing talk channel “recklessly disregarded the truth” and pushed various pro-Donald Trump conspiracy theories about the election technology company because “the lies were good for Fox’s business.”

In a statement Tuesday, Fox News accused Dominion of distortions, misinformation and misattributing quotes as part of an attempt to “smear Fox News and trample on free speech and freedom of the press.”

Dominion on Tuesday said, “the emails, texts, and deposition testimony speak for themselves.”

“We welcome all scrutiny of our evidence because it all leads to the same place — Fox knowingly spread lies causing enormous damage to an American company,” Dominion said.

Months after the 2020 presidential election, and two days before the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, Tucker Carlson wrote in a text message that he hated then-President Donald Trump “passionately,” according to the newly released court documents.

“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,” Carlson wrote on Jan 4, 2021, the filings show. “I truly can’t wait.”

“I hate him passionately,” the Fox host continued. “I blew up at Peter Navarro today in frustration. I actually like Peter. But I can’t handle much more of this.”

“That’s the last four years,” Carlson added. “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump.”

The text messages reveal that Carlson was harshly critical of Trump in private despite regularly expressing support for the former president on his Fox News primetime show and suggesting the 2020 election could have been stolen from him.

“He was pushing voting fraud stuff. I have no doubt there was fraud. But at this point, Trump and Lin and Powell have so discredited their own case, and the rest of us to some extent, that it’s infuriating. Absolutely enrages me,” Carlson wrote.

Days later, on Jan. 6, 2021, Carlson wrote in a text message to his producer, Alex Pfeiffer that Trump was “a demonic force, a destroyer.”

“But he’s not going to destroy us,” Carlson wrote.

In one Nov. 11, 2020 text message exchange, Carlson said Trump’s decision to snub Biden’s inauguration was “hard to believe. So destructive.”

Carlson added that Trump’s post-election behavior was “disgusting. I’m trying to look away.”

In a January deposition, Murdoch rejected conspiracy theories about Dominion, according to a transcript of his deposition released Tuesday.

“Do you believe that Dominion was engaged in a massive and coordinated effort to steal the 2020 presidential election?” Murdoch was asked by Dominion lawyers.

“No,” Murdoch replied.

“Have you ever seen any credible evidence to suggest that Dominion was engaged in a massive and coordinated effort to steal the 2020 presidential election?” the Dominion lawyer pressed.

“No,” Murdoch replied.

“Have you ever believed that Dominion was engaged in a massive and coordinated effort to steal the 2020 presidential election?” the Dominion lawyer asked.

“No,” Murdoch replied.

“You’ve never believed that Dominion was involved in an effort to delegitimize and destroy votes for Donald Trump, correct?” the Dominion lawyer asked.

“I’m open to persuasion; but, no, I’ve never seen it,” Murdoch replied.

The hundreds of pages of new documents that came out Tuesday include previously unreleased excerpts from key depositions, including Murdoch, and are part of Dominion’s defamation lawsuit against Fox News.

Fox News denies wrongdoing and says the judge should resolve the case in favor before it even goes to trial, which is scheduled for next month in Delaware.

In messages from November 2020, then-Fox Business host Lou Dobbs asked producer John Fawcett what he thought of a recent lawsuit Sidney Powell filed attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

“It’s complete bs,” Fawcett responded, according to court filings made public Tuesday. “I can’t believe that was the kraken,” he added, referring to the phrase Powell used to describe the meritless suits she filed across the country.

Dobbs was one of the most notorious on-air promoters of Powell’s conspiracy theories related to Dominion and the 2020 election before his show was canceled in February 2021.

Additionally, shortly after the 2020 election, Fox News host Tucker Carlson acknowledged that Powell wasn’t telling the truth.

According to a court filing released Tuesday, Carlson told an unknown number on November 17, 2020, that “Sidney Powell is lying” and called her an expletive.

More than a month after the 2020 election, then-Fox News DC Managing Editor Bill Sammon decried the network’s coverage of false election claims in private messages to a colleague, fearing it had become an “existential crisis” for the right-wing channel.

“More than 20 minutes into our flagship evening news broadcast and we’re still focused solely on supposed election fraud – a month after the election,” Sammon wrote to then-political editor Chris Stirewalt. “It’s remarkable how weak ratings makes good journalists do bad things.”

Stirewalt replied, “it’s a real mess.”

The messages were part of hundreds of pages of documents released Tuesday in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox News. (The network denies wrongdoing.)

“In my 22 years affiliated with Fox, this is the closest thing I’ve seen to an existential crisis – at least journalistically,” Sammon said.

“What’s most worrisome is that there doesn’t seem to be much conflict,” Stirewalt said.

“What I see us doing is losing the silent majority of viewers as we chase the nuts off a cliff,” Sammon replied.

Both men, Sammon and Stirewalt, departed the company in early 2021.

Murdoch said in a January 2021 email that two of his top TV hosts maybe “went too far,” in an apparent reference to their election denial after Donald Trump lost.

“Maybe Sean and Laura went too far,” Murdoch wrote in the email, referring to Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. “All very well for Sean to tell you he was in despair about Trump, but what did he tell his viewers?”

Murdoch sent the email to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott on January 21, 2021, the first full day of President Joe Biden’s administration. The email also mentioned the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Trump.

In the email, Murdoch asked Scott if it was “unarguable that high profile Fox voices fed the story that the election was stolen and that January 6th (was) an important chance to have the result overturned”?

Later, Scott sent the question to Irena Briganti, Fox News’ senior vice president for corporate communications, requesting a specific answer. Briganti responded with more than 15 pages of transcript excerpts from Fox hosts Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

In the final stretch of the 2020 presidential campaign, Fox Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch informally helped the Trump campaign with its TV ad strategy, according to the new filings.

Murdoch prodded Jared Kushner to improve the Trump campaign’s TV ads, the documents show. Murdoch said candidate Joe Biden’s advertisements were “a lot better” than Trump’s, pointed out that Trump’s campaign was “spending less on TV than Biden.”

Dominion Voting Systems, which is suing Fox News for defamation, previously revealed the existence of the Murdoch-Kushner exchange. But the email itself became public Tuesday, as part of a massive trove of depositions and internal Fox messages.

The email exchange yet again highlights Murdoch’s controversial dual role as a TV news mogul and an informal political adviser to senior Republicans in Washington.

On September 24, 2021, Murdoch texted Kushner: “Know you are spending less on tv than Biden. However my people tell me his advs are a lot better creatively than yours. Just passing by it on.”

Kushner replied: “Should have some new creative out this week. I did a review and like what I’m seeing. I will now be reviewing this every week until the end as the real money is starting to be spent on TV and Digital to move voters universes and turn out the base voters.”

Murdoch responded, “Your adv at 1 pm this Sunday an improvement, but Biden in same football is extremely good. Or I think so! Will send it.” It’s not clear what he was referring to by mentioning football. Dominion claimed in previous filings that Murdoch gave “confidential information” to Kushner by sending him versions of Biden’s paid TV ads that hadn’t publicly aired yet on the network.

Fox and its parent company have denied wrongdoing and say the defamation claims are meritless.

Murdoch lashed out in an email on Nov. 7, 2020, over an imminent projection by Fox News to project that Joe Biden would become the next president.

“CNN declares and FOX coming in minutes,” Murdoch wrote to former New York Post editor-in-chief Col Allan. “I hate our Decision Desk people! And pollsters! Some of the same people I think. Just for the hell of it still praying for Az to prove them wrong!,” he said in reference to Biden’s victory over Donald Trump.

In a separate email that same day, Murdoch emailed his son, Lachlan, lamenting: “We should and could have gone first (calling the election for Biden) but at least being second saves us a Trump explosion!”

Lachlan, the Fox Corporation CEO, responded, “I think good to be careful. Especially as we are still somewhat exposed on Arizona.”

Two days later, Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott texted Lachlan Murdoch that Fox viewers were “going through the 5 stages of grief” over Trump’s election loss.

“It’s two days after Biden was declared President elect. Viewers going through the 5 stages of grief,” Scott wrote to Lachlan Murdoch, according to court documents. “It’s a question of trust – the AZ was damaging but we will highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them.”

“Yes. But needs constant rebuilding without any misteps [sic],” Lachlan Murdoch responded, before adding criticism of anchor Neil Cavuto and correspondent Chad Pergram, who are some of the less-partisan personalities at the right-wing network.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson claimed shortly after the 2020 election that the network’s national correspondent called him to apologize for saying there wasn’t voter fraud.

Carlson was referring to Fox News national correspondent Bryan Llenas. Among other things, Llenas had tweeted one day after the election that “There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania.” That was off-message with what Donald Trump and many Fox News personalities were claiming about massive election-rigging.

In a text chat with fellow Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, Carlson said on Nov. 13, 2020, that Llenas offered him a personal apology.

“He called me last night to apologize for that,” Carlson said.

Carlson went on to reassure his fellow hosts that “he won’t do that again.”

The Dominion lawsuit is one of two separate cases brought by voting technology companies against Fox News that collectively seek $4.3 billion in damages, posing a serious threat to the highly profitable arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. Fox News has not only vigorously denied the claims, it has insisted it is “proud” of its 2020 election coverage.

The recent court filings in the Dominion case have offered the most vivid picture to date of the chaos that transpired behind the scenes at Fox News after Trump lost the election.

In one particularly damaging admission revealed in the case last month, Murdoch acknowledged that several Fox News hosts endorsed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

“They endorsed,” Murdoch said, referring to Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Maria Bartiromo, and former host Lou Dobbs.

“Some of our commentators were endorsing it,” he said, when asked about the talk hosts’ on-air positions about the election. “I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it, in hindsight,” he added.

In his deposition, Murdoch also acknowledged that it was “wrong” for Carlson to have hosted election conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell on his program following the presidential contest.

Fox has defended the actions of its executives and hosts in its own legal filings countering Dominion’s lawsuit, alleging that its hosts’ on-air assertions about election fraud were taken out of context.

“Dominion’s summary judgment motion is flawed from top to bottom and should be rejected in its entirety,” lawyers for Fox News wrote in a filing last month.

And Fox Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, alleged Dominion “has produced zero evidentiary support for its dubious theory that high-level executives at Fox Corporation ‘chose to publish and broadcast’ or played a ‘direct role in the creation and publication’ of false election lies.”

While the First Amendment sets a high bar for defamation cases brought against media outlets, a protection that was reinforced in the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, legal experts have told CNN that Dominion’s case appeared unusually strong.

“It’s a major blow,” renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Dominion’s evidence presented last month, adding that the “recent revelations certainly put Fox in a more precarious situation” in defending against the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law at Harvard Law School, described Dominion’s evidence as a “very strong” case that “clearly lays out the difference between what Fox was saying publicly and what top people at Fox were privately admitting.”

Tushnet said that in her years of practicing and teaching law, she had never seen such damning evidence collected in the pre-trial phase of a defamation suit.

Fox News hosts deposed in voting tech company’s $1.6 billion lawsuit against network

Fox News hosts deposed in voting tech company’s $1.6 billion lawsuit against network

Legal professionals for Dominion Voting Units notified Fox News very last week that it would be deposing host Tucker Carlson Wednesday, courtroom filings display. They also sought Sean Hannity’s deposition past 7 days, and Fox Organization Community host Maria Bartiromo is scheduled to appear for a deposition upcoming 7 days, in accordance to court filings.

Each of the hosts are specially mentioned in Dominion’s grievance in opposition to the community.

The depositions come as Dominion operates to gather proof that supports its circumstance that the network defamed the organization by spreading lies about fraud in the 2020 election that damage Dominion’s business enterprise. It can be unclear what the Fox News personalities who have sat with Dominion attorneys claimed or ended up questioned about during their depositions.

Dominion has alleged the community “recklessly disregarded the fact” and participated in a disinformation marketing campaign from it because “the lies were very good for Fox’s small business.”

Fox News has contested these types of promises and said it was “very pleased” of its 2020 election coverage.

“We are self-assured we will prevail as independence of the press is foundational to our democracy and will have to be safeguarded,” a Fox News spokesperson claimed in a assertion about the depositions.

The network extra, “In addition to the damages statements staying outrageous, unsupported and not rooted in seem money investigation, serving as practically nothing more than a flagrant attempt to discourage our journalists from executing their careers.”

A spokesperson for Dominion did not straight away have a comment.

Very last December, a Delaware judge denied Fox News’ motion to dismiss Dominion’s lawsuit.

In the quick aftermath of the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump falsely asserted that the election experienced been rigged from him. His allies promoted outlandish conspiracy theories about Dominion to guidance Trump’s false promises.

“Fox took a tiny flame” of disinformation and “turned it into a forest hearth,” Dominion claimed in its lawsuit.

“The truth of the matter issues. Lies have implications,” Dominion’s lawsuit extra. “Fox marketed a wrong story of election fraud in get to serve its possess industrial needs, severely injuring Dominion in the process. If this circumstance does not increase to the amount of defamation by a broadcaster, then absolutely nothing does.”

Dominion is 1 of two election technologies businesses to have sued Fox News. Smartmatic, an additional voting technological know-how organization, has submitted a $2.7 billion lawsuit towards the network.

Elon Musk-Twitter dispute: Judge orders October trial for lawsuit over acqusition agreement

Elon Musk-Twitter dispute: Judge orders October trial for lawsuit over acqusition agreement
The choice came at the finish of the to start with listening to in the scenario in excess of whether or not to expedite the proceedings. When it filed the accommodate previous 7 days, days immediately after Musk moved to terminate the deal, Twitter (TWTR) filed a movement to expedite the proceedings and asked for a 4-working day demo in September. Musk’s legal group opposed the motion.

Tuesday’s hearing featured sharply worded arguments from both equally sides — like Twitter’s law firm at just one stage referring to Musk as a “committed enemy” — environment the phase for what is just about certain to be a contentious authorized battle.

Twitter’s lead counsel William Savitt came out swinging against Musk at the begin of the listening to as he argued in favor of a fast trial. Savitt said the continued uncertainty hanging around the enterprise from the excellent deal and litigation “inflicts hurt on Twitter day to day, just about every hour and every single working day.” He also pointed to what he explained as Musk’s ongoing disparagement of Twitter, together with on its very own platform.

“Musk has been and stays contractually obligated to use his greatest attempts to close this deal,” Savitt claimed. “What he’s performing is the precise opposite it’s sabotage.”

Musk attorney Andrew Rossman pushed back stating that Musk “isn’t going to have an incentive to preserve this hanging for a prolonged time,” noting that the billionaire stays one particular of Twitter’s biggest shareholders. He also noted that Twitter did not sue Musk about his alleged breaches of the offer until soon after he moved to terminate the offer, suggesting that the firm’s hold out invalidated its drive for expedition. (The choose in her reviews explained Twitter’s timing was not “unreasonable.”)

Musk’s staff proposed that the dispute really should go to trial early next 12 months. “We are not opposing expedition complete quit, we are not asking for several years listed here,” Rossman explained. “What we are supplying as a substitute, Your Honor, is an incredibly swift and practical agenda.”

Subsequent each individual side’s argument, the decide overseeing the case, Delaware Courtroom of Chancery chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick, said Musk’s aspect “underestimate the potential of this court … to promptly procedure complex litigation.”

“The reality is that hold off threatens irreparable damage [to Twitter] … the lengthier the hold off, the higher the danger,” McCormick stated in announcing the scheduling prepare. She added that when couple cases warrant a demo for a longer period than five days, she would entertain a request from both facet to lengthen the trial if needed.

Even with this early scheduling dispute, the stakes had been higher for Twitter. The firm was already struggling to increase its person foundation and marketing organization in advance of Musk’s involvement, and now it and several other tech firms are pulling back again on expenses amid rampant inflation and fears of a recession. Twitter requires a swift resolution to the fight with Musk in order to restrict the uncertainty for its shareholders, employees and customers, and any fallout for its business enterprise that could be exacerbated by high priced, prolonged litigation.

Though Tuesday’s hearing was mostly a procedural a person, it provided a seem at how every aspect may perhaps method what is very likely to be a messy litigation approach. It may possibly also offer a glimpse as to how the judge overseeing the situation is approaching the dispute.

“There may be hints from what she asks and what she states, and what they say, all through the hearing that may well tell us something,” stated Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond College of Law.

The scenario has currently hit a compact snag: Although the listening to was initially scheduled to take area in-man or woman, McCormick despatched a letter to the two functions on Monday alerting them that she analyzed beneficial for Covid-19 and would be transferring the hearing to Zoom.

Less than three months after the blockbuster acquisition offer was inked, Musk moved to terminate the arrangement. He accused Twitter of breaching the deal by making misleading statements about the quantity of bot and spam accounts on the platform, and by allegedly withholding facts Musk states he needs to assess the scale of the challenge.
The SEC has asked Elon Musk more questions about his Twitter deal
Twitter strike again final 7 days in a 60-moreover-webpage lawsuit alleging that it is Musk who has violated the agreement. In the match, Twitter instructed Musk is using bots as a pretext to test to exit a offer more than which he now has buyer’s regret, pursuing the market downturn that has tanked Twitter shares, as very well as people of Tesla (TSLA), which the billionaire is relying on in portion to finance the offer.

Rossman on Tuesday named the plan that Musk’s considerations about bots are a pretext to exit the offer “nonsense.”

“We have purpose to imagine, centered on what we have found so significantly, that the serious quantities [of bots and fake accounts on Twitter] are significantly higher [than Twitter has publicly reported], with monumental implications for the extended-time period value of the firm,” Rossman explained. He extra that Twitter’s promises that Musk is in breach of the offer are “made in get to consider to strip Mr. Musk of his legal rights declare that he can terminate the agreement.”

Twitter has requested the courtroom to compel Musk to full the offer to buy the corporation. Whilst several legal experts say Twitter probable has the more powerful argument in the dispute, some also anticipate the organization may well conclusion up settling with the billionaire if the circumstance starts off to drag on, in an effort to cut down the disruption to its small business.

As with the dispute usually, Twitter and Musk had been much aside on regardless of whether to have a speedy trial. In its motion, Twitter stated the expedition is vital to ensure the offer can be done prior to the “fall dead” date of October 24 that the two sides beforehand agreed to shut the deal by, and to “protect Twitter and its stockholders from the continuing marketplace possibility and operational damage resulting from Musk’s endeavor to bully his way out of an airtight merger settlement.”

In a Friday courtroom filing, Musk’s attorneys called Twitter’s request an “excessive expedition” and claimed that the dispute is “extremely point and expert intensive, necessitating substantial time for discovery.” They also claimed that the first arrangement stipulated that fall-lifeless date would no for a longer time utilize if just one bash filed litigation more than the offer, calling Twitter’s request “moot,” and questioned that a 10-working day trial be scheduled for on or soon after February 13, 2023.

Twitter’s lawyer on Tuesday pushed again on Musk’s team’s assert that the discovery course of action would get months mainly because it would call for digging into the specifics associated to the range of bot and pretend accounts on the system. The bot query is “emphatically and plainly not ahead of the court in this situation,” Savitt mentioned.

“Very little in the merger arrangement turns on that query, there is no representation or warranty in the merger that is relevant to how a lot of false accounts there may possibly be on Twitter,” Savitt explained. He additional that “Musk could have carried out diligence about this problem” prior to signing the offer but did not.

Meanwhile, Twitter carries on to just take the measures essential to commence with the acquisition. The business on Friday sent a letter to shareholders inviting them to vote on the deal to provide Twitter to Musk for $54.20 for every exceptional share at a specific assembly on an undisclosed day and time later this calendar year, in accordance to a regulatory submitting. Twitter’s board earlier unanimously advised that shareholders vote in favor of the offer, a placement it reiterated in the letter.

Irrespective of Musk’s move to terminate the offer, “we are committed to closing the merger on the cost and phrases agreed on with Mr. Musk,” the Friday letter states. “Your vote at the particular meeting is critical to our means to finish the merger.”

Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against New York Attorney General James

Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against New York Attorney General James

Former U.S. President Donald Trump seems to be on through a press convention saying a course action lawsuit in opposition to major tech corporations at the Trump Countrywide Golfing Club Bedminster on July 07, 2021 in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Photos

A decide on Friday dismissed a federal lawsuit by former President Donald Trump that sought to bar a civil investigation of his small business by New York Attorney Common Letitia James.

The ruling by U.S. District Choose Brenda Sannes came a working day after a point out appeals courtroom in New York upheld subpoenas issued by James persuasive Trump and two of his grownup youngsters to look for questioning beneath oath as section of her probe.

James, in a Twitter write-up Friday, referred to as the most recent ruling in her favor “a huge victory.”

“Frivolous lawsuits would not prevent us from finishing our lawful, respectable investigation,” James tweeted.

Trump and his organization, the Trump Firm in December sued James in federal court docket in the Northern District of New York.

The suit claimed the legal professional typical violated their legal rights with her investigation into promises the enterprise illegally manipulated the stated valuations of various authentic estate assets for economical gains.

CNBC Politics

Study a lot more of CNBC’s politics protection:

Trump and his company claimed that James’ “derogatory” reviews about him when she ran for office environment and following her election showed she was retaliating against Trump with her probe, which was commenced “in bad religion and devoid of a lawfully enough foundation.”

Sannes, in her 43-page ruling Friday, dismissed those people arguments, crafting “Plaintiffs have not founded that Defendant commenced the New York proceeding to usually harass them.”

Sannes mentioned that James has claimed that her investigation was opened as a end result of the testimony in advance of Congress by Trump’s former own lawyer Michael Cohen in 2019.

“Mr. Cohen testified that Mr. Trump’s monetary statements from the a long time 2011–2013 variously inflated or deflated the benefit of his assets to match his passions,” Sannes wrote.

The choose also famous that under federal case law embodied in a 1971 ruling in a situation known as More youthful v. Harris suggests that “federal courts need to commonly refrain from enjoining or or else interfering in ongoing state proceedings.”

Sannes stated Trump had unsuccessful to give facts that would warrant an exception to that circumstance law becoming utilized in his lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs could have elevated the claims and requested the aid they seek out in the federal action” in condition court docket in Manhattan, Sannes wrote.

The functions presently have litigated several concerns similar to James’ investigation in Manhattan Supreme Court docket.

James, in a prepared assertion, explained, “Time and time yet again, the courts have produced obvious that Donald J. Trump’s baseless authorized worries are unable to prevent our lawful investigation into his and the Trump Organization’s financial dealings.”

“”No one particular in this country can decide on and pick out how the regulation applies to them, and Donald Trump is no exception. As we have claimed all along, we will go on this investigation undeterred,” James claimed.

Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, in an emailed statement stated, “There is no query that we will be interesting this decision.”

“If Ms. James’s egregious carry out and harassing investigation does not meet up with the poor faith exception to the Young abstention doctrine, then I are not able to visualize a situation that would,” Habba wrote, referring to the ingredient of Sannes’ choice relevant to the situation regulation from Young v. Harris.