Welcome to the Wednesday edition of The Dirt Show. Today we're going to talk about the

Sarah Pellanberg, some new developments in that case. We'll also keep you up to date

on the Durham investigation looking now at the Democratic Party as to whether they acted

improperly in use dirty politics to try to falsely accuse Donald Trump of being in bed with

the Russians. So we'll talk about both of those issues and then if we have time, I know a lot of

you like the questions and answers. So we'll try to get some some time for some comments and questions,

some of them pretty strongly worded. But let's start with a little bit of a seminar on the first

amendment and defamation law. First let me give you the headline. So as I speculated the other day,

the jurors did know about the judge's decision to throw out the Sarah Pellan case regardless

of what their verdict might have been. The judge today candidly acknowledged that a number of jurors

had these kind of push notices you get on your email or on your computer or whatever and although

the jurors said they scrupulously tried to comply with the judge's instruction. It's not to read

the newspapers, not to watch television. They're on their computers sending emails to the kids and

suddenly there's a headline. Judge throws out in a Pellan case. Of course the jurors not going to

turn it off or turn away. The jurors also told the judge and here I'll read it for you.

Quote, these notifications had not affected them in any way or played any role whatever in their

deliberations. In other words, the jurors have told the judge they would have decided against

Sarah Pellan anyway without regard to knowing that the judge was going to throw out their verdict.

Is that true? Is there an unconscious influence? I mean if the jurors came in and had a hearing and

every one of them said we'd decided at the beginning of deliberations. Well before we heard from

the judge that we were going to rule against Sarah Pellan by the way they seemed to have ruled on

both grounds one that she wasn't defamed and two that the New York Times did not engage in malice

...