Comments

You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Trump Campaign Files Multi-Million-Dollar Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN Over Russia Collusion Claims

2020-03-07

h/t Instapundit
[PJ] - On Friday, the Trump campaign filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN over false claims regarding collusion with Russia. The suit demands "compensatory damages in the millions of dollars," along with punitive damages. This is the third such lawsuit against major media outlets regarding allegedly "false and defamatory" articles about Russia collusion. The campaign sued The New York Times last month and The Washington Post earlier this week.

"Today the President's re-election campaign has filed suit against CNN for false statements, claiming that the campaign ’assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia's help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table.’ The statements were and are 100 percent false and defamatory," Jenna Ellis, senior legal adviser to the Trump campaign, said in a statement. "The complaint alleges CNN was aware of the falsity at the time it published them, but did so for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign, while misleading its own readers in the process."

The lawsuit points to tweets from Larry Noble, former general counsel of the FEC and a CNN contributor, demonstrating animus against Trump. It also cites the Project Veritas sting videos against CNN.

"In the Project Veritas footage, Nick Neville, a Media Coordinator at CNN, admits that CNN's chief executive, Jeff Zucker, has a personal vendetta against the President," the lawsuit notes. "John Bonifield, a Supervising Producer at CNN, states in the Project Veritas footage that CNN's coverage regarding Russia's alleged interference with the 2016 election was 'mostly bulls**t' and that the President 'is probably right to say...you are witch hunting me.'"

It is important to note that President Donald Trump did not bring this lawsuit and he is not a party in it, but his campaign is.

Posted by:g(r)omgoru

#18 The lawsuit is to give U.S. voters legitimacy, which the Dims wish to take away.

Posted by: Varmint Splat1454 2020-03-07 19:31

#17 Glenmore, without going full geek here, a judge or jury could infer actual malice from a given set of facts short of a direct statement by the defendant. (Although here the suit seems to say that there were direct statements, and as Lex points out who knows what's on these folks' social media.) But it is a higher standard than most. If someone rear ends you can collect damages without having to prove that he meant to rear end you because he hated your guts.

Posted by: Matt 2020-03-07 17:33

#16 Win or not. I'm in it for the discovery.

Posted by: Woodrow 2020-03-07 17:06

#15 The expression of malice in written form is Twitter's raison d'etre.

Posted by: Lex 2020-03-07 16:41

#14 These journos' Twitter feeds are saturated with malice. Very easy to demonstrate.

Look at the Nick Sandmann case, which WaPo settled (for IIUC the relatively small sum of $25 million) rather than go to trial.

Posted by: Lex 2020-03-07 16:25

#13 Matt, it would seem quite challenging to prove actual malice; unless the defendant was so stupid as to put it into writing it would require mind-reading, wouldn't it? Even if we all could pretty much see it, it would not be proven?

Posted by: Glenmore 2020-03-07 15:58

#12 The standard for defaming a public figure is "actual malice" (you really in your head have to have been out to get the guy) or reckless disregard for the truth. The complaint as summarized in this article is aimed at meeting the actual malice standard (CNN made false statements "for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign.") CNN's problem is that if the compaint survives a motion to dismiss, then we're on to discovery, and the CNN players named in the article have to give depositions about how their editorial views are formed, what they think about the Trump campaign, etc. And, by the way, they are now under a duty not to destroy potential evidence. (That's called "spoliation" and has become a really big no-no in the era of discovery of electronic records.)

Posted by: Matt 2020-03-07 14:28

#11 Bringing back dueling will help too, and don't allow anyone to 'stand' in their place either. Besides, C-Span or whatever channel carrying all the duels in Congress would be highest rated in the nation. Oh and so called journalists and reporters are NOT EXEMPT. Make it a constitutional amendment, then nobody can can 'overrule' it. Only pres and VP are exempt WHILE in office.

Posted by: Silentbrick 2020-03-07 13:20

#10 #4 Don't you think Trump employs good enough lawyers to know when they've a chance? If I noticed something about Trump is that he's not given to Quixotic gestures.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-03-07 13:14

#9 A Los Angeles jury ruled today that The National Enquirer libeled the actress Carol Burnett in a 1976 gossip column. It ordered the Florida-based publication to pay her $1.6 million in damages.

This was nearly 50 years ago. It can be done. The ante has gone up quite a bit since then.

Posted by: JohnQC 2020-03-07 12:57

#8 Millie's key point about these deliberately distorted and dishonest media comparisons of Schumer's and Kavanaugh's use of the biblical phrase about sowing the whirlwind: Schumer promised to HIMSELF bring the whirlwind down on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. He made a direct threat against two men.

Kavanaugh warned that he was AFRAID for the NATION that lying, slandering, outrageous behavior by Congress would put our democracy in jeopardy.

It's the difference between saying, "Please stop playing with matches; I fear you will set the house on fire" and "I'm gonna burn down your house, sucker!"

Nearly the entire media lied-- yet again, knowingly, blatantly, crudely-- in presenting Schumer's mafioso threat to do harm as somehow no different from Kavanaugh's polite, well-reasoned, earnest plea NOT to do harm.

Shameless. Disgusting. This practice must stop.

Posted by: Lex 2020-03-07 11:13

#7 #5. Love me some Mollie. One day she'll wake up to know we are meant for each other and dump that happy marriage to Mark H. :-)

Posted by: Frank G 2020-03-07 11:10

#6 True Glenmore, but that's my point. We decry two systems of justice. Libel is just the same. One system for all. Force them to make it obvious or change.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-03-07 11:06

#5 Heres Mollie Hemingway's latest roundup of yet another carnival of Kavanaugh- and Schumer-related malicious media lies, omissions, slander, libel.

This practice is so pervasive, so blatant that SCOTUS has to step in. It is destroying this nation.

Posted by: Lex 2020-03-07 11:04

#4 Can't see courts finding for Trump on this one - long precedent protecting statements about public figures, if I understand it right.

Posted by: Glenmore 2020-03-07 10:33

#3 * the first step

Posted by: Lex 2020-03-07 10:27

#2 Indeed.

The Woke era has produced an orgy of defamation, of nonstop malicious lying and slander and libel of not just OrangeMan but anyone the Wokesters deem to be a Class Enemy: non-lefty judges, schoolboys on a trip to the Washington DC Mall, grocers in Ohio.

This must stop. The step is for SCOTUS to provide some guidance about the nation's defamation law. The old rulings are not strong enough and give far too much leeway to the Cancel Culture warriors.

Posted by: Lex 2020-03-07 10:27

#1 This is about getting the issue of libel before SCOTUS to overturn the unequal treatment before the law of individuals. Either we're equal before the law or not. Make up your mind or show your hypocrisy of claiming it as a rationale for many of your opinions.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-03-07 06:07

00:00