CNN faces $435,000,000 defamation lawsuit

[SimplyMe]

What do you think they paid him $275,000,000.00 for?

The settlement was not disclosed unless you’re holding back a link?

What was the settlement for?

It is an interesting question. I'd think the settlement was just as likely for $10,000 as for $275,000,000 -- you don't settle for hundreds of millions of dollars. My personal guess is that it was for something in the hundreds of thousand dollars (likely closer to $100,000); but that is speculation on my part.

My guess is that CNN wanted the lawsuit to go away -- partly because the cost of fighting it (and partly because you never know what juries in civil trials to do). Companies frequently settle what they consider "nuisance" lawsuits because defending them can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as negative news coverage they might get -- even if they did nothing wrong.

I think Nick Sandmann's lawyers would settle for that little because they could count it as a "win" -- and lead those who dislike CNN to believe the settlement was for millions, as well as use it as a tactic in negotiations for their other lawsuits. Additionally, these types of lawsuits can be dragged out indefinitely by companies like CNN, with various legal tactics to delay trials, as well as appeals. It could easily have been a decade, or longer, before CNN would pay any money -- assuming they lost -- not to mention the lawyer's fees that would be generated over a decade by both sides.

Last, to get a huge payout, such as the $275 million they asked, you typically have to show damages. While Nick is relatively young, it seems questionable that it would cost him $275 million -- particularly since that would mean he won the trial which would "vindicate" him. The only real "injury" here is to Nick's reputation -- and that can actually be argued to be enhanced (as a right wing "hero") as much as it was diminished. Now, sure, you can also claim "emotional distress" -- but again, that tends to be a difficult way to get juries to award money in states like Kentucky.

At best, I'm thinking it would be rather modest damages that could be claimed that Nick suffered. At which point, you have to suspect that most of that $275 million number was to be punitive damages (oddly the thing that Republicans tend to be against). I find it questionable that a jury would have, given that amount of punitive damages (though not impossible), and I find it almost impossible that that amount would have stood on appeal.

Again, to me, it seems logical the settlement amount was "modest."

 

[hislegacy]

Again, to me, it seems logical the settlement amount was "modest."

could be - but looking at his attorney and the judgements he has won in the past - doubtful.

Suing for 275 million and settling for 100,000 is, in my estimation highly doubtful. To put it in terms easier for me to understand it would be like you asking me for $275.00 for a debt and then settling the debt for 0.10. Don't think so....

 

[TLK Valentine]

could be - but looking at his attorney and the judgements he has won in the past - doubtful.

Suing for 275 million and settling for 100,000 is, in my estimation highly doubtful. To put it in terms easier for me to understand it would be like you asking me for $275.00 for a debt and then settling the debt for 0.10. Don't think so....

You're not as compulsively litigious as Devin Nunes. I doubt you'd engage in so many lawsuits in the first place.

 

[SimplyMe]

could be - but looking at his attorney and the judgements he has won in the past - doubtful.

Suing for 275 million and settling for 100,000 is, in my estimation highly doubtful. To put it in terms easier for me to understand it would be like you asking me for $275.00 for a debt and then settling the debt for 0.10. Don't think so....

You are looking at it wrong. Again, where were the damages to Nick Sandmann that "cost" him $275 million?

Maybe a better analogy, though still pretty weak (since there is no "debt" -- it is questionable if a court would have ruled against CNN) is that you accuse your neighbor of damaging your fence, that there was maybe (using the most expensive contractors to fix it) $1000 of damage. Except you don't claim that your neighbor owes you $1000, you claim he owes you $275,000 -- because of his "reckless disregard" and because you were emotionally attached to the fence.

In the end, rather than have to pay a lawyer, and to keep peace in the neighborhood, your neighbor agrees to fix the damage so that it all goes away -- you get your fence fixed and it is cheaper for your neighbor (who still claims he was not the one that damaged your fence) than paying a $1000 or more to hire a lawyer to defend him in court. Your neighbor finds a contractor that will fix the fence to your satisfaction, but the contractor does the job for $100. That is the better analogy.

It's hard to make any determination here using the "law firm's record." Remember, the Washington Post had already gotten the case thrown out (though one count has now been allowed to continue, the others remain dismissed). If the lawyers realized their case was on shaky ground -- based on the Washington Post decision -- they may have settled for less than they normally would. Again, companies rarely settle for hundreds of millions, or even tens of millions -- particularly in a case where the plaintiffs are going to have a difficult time showing real damages.

 

[variant]

It is another example of the Democratic leadership weaponizing the media to go after political opponents.

CNN got their false information from Democratic leadership.

You're assuming that their case is going anywhere or has any basis in fact.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Devin Nunes sues CNN for $435M over ‘false and defamatory’ Ukraine story

A federal judge the District of Maryland on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit that Rep. Devin Nunes‘s senior aide Derek Harvey filed against CNN, former Rudy Giuliani business associate Lev Parnas, and Parnas’s lawyer Joseph Bondy.

Judge Richard Bennett, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the defamation action failed to state a claim against CNN. As to Parnas and Bondy, the judge said the court lacked personal jurisdiction given Maryland state law.

In a footnote, the judge noted that one of the lawyers representing Harvey in this action has represented Nunes in several lawsuits. The judge was referring to attorney Steven Biss, though he didn’t mention him by name.

The judge said Harvey’s case “closely parrots” allegations in federal lawsuits that Biss filed on Nunes’ behalf. Notice that the judge also pointed out two Nunes cases were ordered dismissed and two others have pending motions to dismiss:

 

[Desk trauma]

Womp womp.

 

[rambot]

 

[Skewpoint]

Smells like justice. Delicious.

 

[hislegacy]

Who even remembers a post from May of 2020, let alone look up the results of the law suit?

perhaps you need a hobby?

 

[Pommer]

Who even remembers a post from May of 2020, let alone look up the results of the law suit?

perhaps you need a hobby?

News junkie-ing is the hobby.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Who even remembers a post from May of 2020, let alone look up the results of the law suit?

perhaps you need a hobby?

I love these sort of follow ups.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who even remembers a post from May of 2020, let alone look up the results of the law suit?

perhaps you need a hobby?

The results of the lawsuit were determined yesterday. This is how history works. You have to follow a thread all the way from A to Z.

You can't just say "Boffo Bombshell Lawsuit" on Day 1 and declare victory and go home. You have to see how things turn out.

How will the Dominion lawsuits turn out against Sidney Powell and MyPillow? You aren't curious? Or should we just say Dominion has already prevailed, especially since some people here were saying, "If there was anything to it, they would have sued."

They have sued, so I guess there's must be something to it. Dominion was defamed and Trump's defenders were full of hooey.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You can't just say "Boffo Bombshell Lawsuit" on Day 1 and declare victory and go home.

At least a third of the regulars here would disagree.

 

[Skewpoint]

Who even remembers a post from May of 2020, let alone look up the results of the law suit?

perhaps you need a hobby?

This reads like you took an update to your own thread as a personal insult.

 

[Nithavela]

Who even remembers a post from May of 2020, let alone look up the results of the law suit?

perhaps you need a hobby?

 

[whatbogsends]

This reads like you took an update to your own thread as a personal insult.

Often the case when one posts inflammatory headlines and doesn't worry about factual content of one's threads.

 

[durangodawood]

Often the case when one posts inflammatory headlines and doesn't worry about factual content of one's threads.

The only problem with the headline was Devin "Midnite Run" Nunes was missing.

 

[hislegacy]

This reads like you took an update to your own thread as a personal insult.

No, not at all. I just personally am amazed that someone has remembered a post from 9 months ago. How does someone do that? It is just an observation.

 

[hislegacy]

Often the case when one posts inflammatory headlines and doesn't worry about factual content of one's threads.

Mentioning a lawsuit is inflamatory?

New to me.