Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report

    Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report

    So that it doesn't get lost in all the other impeachment threads....

    Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has filed a $435 million defamation suit against CNN over a story that alleged Nunes met with a fired Ukrainian prosecutor in an effort to dig up dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

    The story — "Giuliani associate willing to tell Congress Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden" — was published Nov. 22. It was based on the words of Joseph Bondy, the attorney for Ukrainian-born Lev Parnas, who worked closely with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani in pursuing allegations of Ukrainian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election as well as allegations of corruption in Ukraine involving Biden's son Hunter. Parnas is currently under indictment on campaign finance charges.

    CNN reported that Bondy said Parnas was "willing to tell Congress" that in December 2018, Nunes traveled to Vienna to meet with Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor who was famously fired in 2016 under pressure from the United States, represented by Biden, who said Shokin did not do enough to prosecute corruption in Ukraine. CNN cited congressional travel records showing Nunes and a few aides traveled to Europe between Nov. 30 and Dec. 3, 2018.

    Quoting Bondy, the CNN report said, "Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December."

    Shortly after the report was published, Nunes said it was "demonstrably false" but declined to elaborate. In the lawsuit, Nunes has provided the details.

    Nunes did travel between Nov. 30 and Dec. 3. The lawsuit says that on those dates, Nunes was in Libya and Malta. Nunes traveled to Libya to "discuss security issues with General Khalifa Haftar," the suit says. In Malta, Nunes "met with U.S. and Maltese officials, including Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, and participated in a repatriation ceremony for the remains of an American World War II soldier missing in action," according to the suit.

    The lawsuit provides photos of Nunes with Haftar, with Muscat, and at the repatriation ceremony.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    And his cow for $250 MM in March.
    And McClactchy in August.
    And Hearst for $77.5 MM in October.

    And now CNN for $435.35 MM in December.
    Before publishing the story, CNN asked Nunes to comment, but he declined repeated requests, according to the article.

    Nunes told Hannity that he does not respond to any questions from CNN in protest of other “fake news” stories on him.

    Comment


    • #3
      Are you implying that if someone doesn't respond to a request for comment from a news organization, the news organization is then free to publish whatever it wants about that person?
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
        And his cow for $250 MM in March....
        I'm still ruminating on this one.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          I'm still ruminating on this one.
          That's udderly ridiculous. Best moove on when you're done milking this.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Are you implying that if someone doesn't respond to a request for comment from a news organization, the news organization is then free to publish whatever it wants about that person?
            Are you implying that CNN is legally obligated to wait for a comment from all parties mentioned in a story before it can publish it? Even if said parties refuse to give said comment?
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-05-2019, 09:26 AM.
            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Are you implying that if someone doesn't respond to a request for comment from a news organization, the news organization is then free to publish whatever it wants about that person?
              Reporting about people being ridiculously litigious is fair game, no matter what side you’re on.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                Are you implying that CNN is legally obligated to wait for a comment from all parties mentioned in a story before it can publish it? Even if said parties refuse to give said comment?
                Don't be ridiculous. They are legally, or at least ethically obligated to verify that what they are publishing is true. Saying, "Welp, Nunes didn't respond!" doesn't get them off the hook.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by whag View Post
                  Reporting about people being ridiculously litigious is fair game, no matter what side you’re on.
                  Unless what you "report" is defamatory.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Unless what you "report" is defamatory.
                    In what way was it libelous?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Are you implying that CNN is legally obligated to wait for a comment from all parties mentioned in a story before it can publish it? Even if said parties refuse to give said comment?
                      They are legally responsible to fact check a story and not publish false allegations. Nunes' travels were public record for instance. Easily checked.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        They are legally responsible to fact check a story and not publish false allegations. Nunes' travels were public record for instance. Easily checked.
                        To what extent. I guess juvenal would need to weigh in on that. There is something incredibly ridiculous - however - about suing a news organization for publishing a story for which you were contacted and for which you refused to comment. Seems like if he was contacted and then just flat out refused to even look at its content or provide a rebuttal if he knew it's content did not reflect reality, then it's his own fault if something potentially unflattering got out there. And frankly, if I were a judge I'd throw it out (the lawsuit)
                        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          To what extent. I guess juvenal would need to weigh in on that. There is something incredibly ridiculous - however - about suing a news organization for publishing a story for which you were contacted and for which you refused to comment. Seems like if he was contacted and the just flat out refused to even look at its content or provide a rebuttal if he knew it's content did not reflect reality, then it's his own fault if something potentially unflattering got out there.
                          So its his own fault that CNN printed lies about him? wow.

                          Kind of like guilty until proven innocent, eh?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            So its his own fault that CNN printed lies about him? wow.
                            Basically - yes. They contacted him and he had the opportunity to flag their source as lying about him and he refused. I basically falls back on him then. Now it would be CNN's fault if they did not do their due diligence, and you might have a point about looking at travel records. But Nunes just refusing to provide feedback - that part is his own fault.

                            Kind of like guilty until proven innocent, eh?
                            --[aside]---
                            Now that last comment would be a distortion of my words Sparko and skirts an attack on my character - if you are interested in not doing that sort of thing.
                            --[/aside]--

                            If someone tells lies about me to you and you tell someone else and don't ask me about them first, that is on you.

                            If someone tells lies about me to you and you come to me and ask me about them and I let you think they are true - that is on me.
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-05-2019, 03:55 PM.
                            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Basically - yes. They contacted him and he had the opportunity to flag their source as lying about him and he refused. I basically falls back on him then. Now it would be CNN's fault if they did not do their due diligence, and you might have a point about looking at travel records. But Nunes just refusing to provide feedback - that part is his own fault.



                              --[aside]---
                              Now that last comment would be a distortion of my words Sparko and skirts an attack on my character - if you are interested in not doing that sort of thing.
                              --[/aside]--


                              If someone tells lies about me to you and you tell someone else and don't ask me about them first, that is on you.

                              If someone tells lies about me to you and you come to me and ask me about them and I let you think they are true - that is on me.
                              I wasn't distorting your words, Jim. I was characterizing how I see the idea of having to prove your innocence to a newspaper reporter or they can print what they want. The newspaper has the responsibility to print the truth and investigate the matter, the subject has no burden of proof here. They could easily have checked his travel schedule, or contacted other people involved in the matter.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:47 AM
                              4 responses
                              20 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 04:54 PM
                              10 responses
                              63 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                              12 responses
                              68 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post MaxVel
                              by MaxVel
                               
                              Started by seer, 01-25-2021, 09:49 AM
                              17 responses
                              117 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 01-25-2021, 08:47 AM
                              62 responses
                              441 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Working...
                              X