Article

2020-03-07 Home Front: Politix

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

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-03-07 02:32|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 06:07|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 10:27|| Front Page Top

#3 * the first step

Posted by Lex 2020-03-07 10:27|| 2020-03-07 10:27|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 10:33|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 11:04|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 11:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 11:10|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 11:13|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 12:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 13:14|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 13:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 14:28|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 15:58|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 16:25|| Front Page Top

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

Posted by Lex 2020-03-07 16:41|| 2020-03-07 16:41|| Front Page Top

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

Posted by Woodrow 2020-03-07 17:06|| 2020-03-07 17:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 17:33|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2020-03-07 19:31|| Front Page Top

23:59 Muggsy Flotch1015
23:09 gorb
23:08 gorb
23:00 DooDahMan
22:23 European Conservative
22:21 Lex
22:17 Goober Tingle7365
22:16 Lex
22:14 Lex
21:49 Lex
21:46 trailing wife
21:36 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:15 European Conservative
20:38 Old Patriot
20:14 Muggsy Flotch1015
20:11 Varmint Splat1454
20:07 Varmint Splat1454
20:04 Procopius2k
20:02 Procopius2k
19:56 Procopius2k
19:40 trailing wife
19:38 trailing wife
19:31 trailing wife
19:31 Varmint Splat1454