Connect with us

Culture

Big Win – Covington Boys Lawsuit Against CNN Moves Forward

Published

on

Nicholas Sandmann’s lawsuit against CNN will proceed to discovery, a federal judge has ruled. This will be a devastating blow to CNN, which will now have all of its emails examined by lawyers for a severely wronged client.

Sandmann was one of the the high school student falsely accused of a racially-motivated attack against Nathan Phillips in Washington, D.C. Phillips was called a “Vietnam veteran” by the media, when in fact Philips was stolen valor. He never served in the Vietnam War and he was discharged from the military under circumstances suggesting a poor service record.

Sandmann sued CNN for lying about him.

Sandmann had been confronted earlier by a group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites – the group responsible for the deadly terrorist attack at a New Jersey Deli.

CNN wasn’t the only outlet to attack Sandmann. The National Review’s Rich Lowry and Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro joined the hate mob against Sandmann – although they at least sort-of apologized after realizing they had been hoaxed by the left wing media. (Why do those guys trust the media would be a good question for conservatives to ask them.)

Although the judge’s ruling was short, the court’s rationale was explained in the orders allowing Sandmann’s lawsuit to go forward against the Washington Post.

You can read my reporting on Sandmann v. Washington Post below, as the judge’s rationale and other policy considerations apply to the lawsuit against CNN….and if you enjoy this article, you can donate to our journalism here.

Donate


 

The lawsuit by Nick Sandmann against the Washington Post for its dishonest coverage falsely accusing a 16 year old boy of harassing a Vietnam veteran Nathan Philips (discovered to be “stolen valor”) will go forward, a judge had rules. This is a huge deal because it shows the trend of defamation law is moving in favor of those wrongfully accused by the media.

The gist of the story vs. the specific assertions.

In defamation law, courts usually look to the overall “gist” or “feel” of a story to determine whether it is defamatory. In lawyer terms, this is known as the substantial-truth doctrine. This is a high hurdle for most plaintiffs to jump.

Also complicating lawsuits by victims of the press is that opinions are protected speech under the First Amendment. You can only sue for false statements of fact. The fact-opinion distinction is confusing even to lawyers, and it’s also a bit disingenuous for newspapers to claim that they can’t be sued for their news articles because the reporters were only sharing opinions.

The gist of the Washington Post’s coverage was awful. The gist was that a 16Donate year old boy attacked a poor helpless Vietnam Veteran. Zero fact-checking was done. And it was later revealed that Nathan Phillips was stolen valor. He never served in the Vietnam war despite claiming he had:

Here’s the full quote, taken from a video of Phillips posted to the Native Youth Alliance Facebook page (9:45 mark): “I’m a Vietnam vet, you know,” Phillips said. “I served in the Marine Corps from ’72 to ’76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or… what my box says that I was in theater. I don’t talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say ‘I don’t recollect. I don’t recall,’ you know, those years.”

Phillips also ran up to the children to harass and taunt them. Phillips was clearly in the wrong, but the media held him out as a war hero in their effort to ruin the lives of innocent boys.

To this day, Snopes falsely claiming Phillips did not hold himself out as a Vietnam veteran, despite there being video evidence of Phillips himself claiming to have served in Vietnam.

Looking past the “gist” of the story to the assertions WaPo made about Sandmann.

In the Court’s ruling, the judge looks beyond the gist of the story, and instead examines all 33 statements made by the Washington Post:

The Court first notes that the statements alleged by plaintiff to be defamatory have not changed in the proposed First Amended Complaint. They are the same 33 statements alleged in the original Complaint and set forth in the chart attached to the Court’s July 26, 2019 Opinion and Order (Doc. 47).

The Court will adhere to its previous rulings as they pertain to these statements except Statements 10, 11, and 33, to the extent that these three statements state that plaintiff “blocked” Nathan Phillips and “would not allow him to retreat.” Suffice to say that the Court has given this matter careful review and concludes that “justice requires” that discovery be had regarding these statements and their context. The Court will then consider them anew on summary judgment.

The Covingtongate ruling is a devastating loss for the Washington Post.

It’s hard to overstate how devastating this ruling is for the Washington Post.

Their coverage was indefensible. Why was an old man (stolen valor) going up to a group of teenagers newsworthy in the first place? What was the news value in what was a petty dispute at best?

We all of course know the answer.

Nick Sandmann was wearing a Make America Great Again hat, and he had to be destroyed.

The Washington Post and other outlets are struggling with what to do with their new social justice activists.

No 40 year old who had reported from war zones would have found the Nicholas Sandmann story worthy of coverage. But as people age out of reporting roles, new reporters must be hired. Legacy newsrooms are being loaded up with 20-somethings who grew up on Gawker.

The Gawker model is destroy destroy destroy – at least if the people you’re targeting is perceived as conservative.

As legal bills mount for the Washington Post, perhaps they’ll begin training new reporters in the proper role of journalists.

Mike Cernovich stood up for the Covington boys while conservatives attacked them.

When videos of Nick Sandmann hit, Ben Shapiro and David French attacked the poor boys. They undid their Retweets after Cernovich was able to get the truth of the story out.

But it’s good to know who stands up for the persecuted when it matters. When it’s hard.

For its part, WaPo accused me of “pouncing” on them:

A viral story spread. The mainstream media rushed to keep up. The Trump Internet pounced.

That outrage came from a parallel universe online, one that has been waiting for a moment like this. The pro-Trump Internet has, for years, worked to create a media environment that is designed to destroy the traditional news media and replace it. Mike Cernovich, a popular figure in this world, helped to promote the Pizzagate conspiracy theory in 2016. Pizzagate falsely accused a D.C. pizza shop of housing a secret pedophile ring, and ultimately inspired a believer to show up at the shop with an assault rifle.

WaPo itself lies about me. My reporting on pedophiles focused on Jeffrey Epstein, not a pizza parlor, and we’ve all seen my Epstein stories vindicated.

But if the WaPo wants to throw barbs about the dangers of fake news, maybe they can explain whey they lied about a 16 year old boy? What were they trying to inspire?

Comments

Culture

The Truth about Hydroxychloroquine and Coronavirus

Published

on

Trump is recommending people look into using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus. Trump is not a doctor. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not approved by the FDA for treatment of coronavirus.

Most doctors are using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine off label for coronavirus treatment, some are using it prophylactically to protect themselves.

OFF LABEL USE is what is missing from media coverage on Trump and hydroxychloroquine. Reporters either don’t know what off label use is, or they are pretending not to know because ORANGE MAN BAD.

Here is what the FDA says in its guide on the off label use of drugs:

From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.

If you read any article about chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, and the article omits OFF LABEL USE, then you are being hoaxed by the media.

P.S. The man in Arizona who died from using chloroquine did not obtain chloroquine from a doctor. He used fish tank cleaner. (Yes, really.)

The couple unfortunately equated the chloroquine phosphate in their fish treatment with the medication —known as hydroxychloroquine — that has recently been touted as a possible treatment for COVID-19, which has infected more than 42,000 people in the U.S. and killed at least 462.

Reports that the man died after “listening to Trump’s advice” are dishonest.

The Arizona man’s wife is also a Democrat donor.

Wanda donated to the PAC 314 Action Fund, which has called itself the “pro-science resistance” to the White House.

Additionally, Fox News has reviewed a Facebook page apparently belonging to Wanda, which was first identified by the Twitter user Techno Fog. “Your psycho prez is in [t]own, are you going to see him?” Wanda wrote on Facebook on Feb. 19, by way of wishing a friend a happy birthday. Trump was in town at a rally in Phoenix, Ariz., on that day.

She administered the chloroquine to her husband. This wife was the only person who hates Trump who listened to Trump, by giving her husband chloroquine-based fish tank cleaner.

Nothing suspicious about that at all.

P.P.S. If you like this post, you’ll love Hoaxed Movie. Watch it here today.

 

 

Continue Reading

Culture

Is “Kung Flu” the latest Media Hoax?

Published

on

Several White House reporters confronted Trump regarding his decision to call the coronavirus (or COVID-19) the China Virus.  One reporter asked him about a White House administration official who is alleged to have called the coronavirus Kung Flu.

When the reporter was asked the name of the official, the reporter said she didn’t know.

The original claim regarding Kung Flu comes from CBS reporter Weijia Jiang. On March 17th, she Tweeted:

This morning a White House official referred to #Coronavirus as the “Kung-Flu” to my face. Makes me wonder what they’re calling it behind my back.

Ms. Jiang has not identified the official.

One reason could be because this official does not even exist.

Under American defamation law, you can lie all you like.

You can’t lie about a person by name.

If no White House official called the coronavirus Kung Flu, or if there is some important context missing, then Jiang could be sued.

You can watch the Kung Flu exchange in this video here:

Continue Reading

Culture

The Stafford Act Text Message Announcing an Emergency Quarantine is a Hoax

Published

on

By now you or someone you know has received a hoax text announcing martial law. With some minor variations, the texts all read the same:

  • In 48 to 72 hours the president will evoke what is called the Stafford act. Just got off the phone with some of my military friends in DC who just got out of a two hour briefing. The president will order a two week mandatory quarantine for the nation. Stock up on whatever you guys need to make sure you have a two week supply of everything. Please forward.

 

The National Security Council issued a rare public statement warning the public that the Stafford act text was a hoax.

How can you tell the Stafford Act Text is a Hoax?

Even if you refuse to accept the NSC’s word on the matter, the text message has some telltale signs of a hoax.

First, the text promises secret insider knowledge. “Just got off the phone with some of my military friends in DC who just got out of a two hour briefing.” This is a vague enough proclamation that it sounds plausible.

Second, no specifics of these friends are given. Who are these friends? Why did they call this specific person?

Third, the hoaxers ask you to spread the message. Why would anyone acting in good faith want to incite a panic?

If an emergency quarantine were able to be declared, the plan would be Top Secret. No one’s friends would just get out of a briefing and start alerting people. THEY WOULD GO TO PRISON FOR LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

If such an emergency plan were in the works and higher command wanted the story to get out, they’d leak it to a credible outlet. Not share chain-letter style text messages.

There’s also tradecraft involved in sharing classified information.

None of the telltale signs (and no I won’t share how to leak classified secrets here) were present in that alert.

UPDATE: Other outlets are now reporting that the Stafford Act text is a foreign disinformation campaign:

The Trump administration is alleging that a foreign disinformation campaign is underway aimed at spreading fear in the country amid the coronavirus pandemic, three U.S. officials said Monday. On Sunday, federal officials began confronting what they said was a deliberate effort by a foreign entity to sow fears of a nationwide quarantine amid the virus outbreak.

Agencies took coordinated action Sunday evening to deny that any such plans were put in place, as they tried to calm a nation already on edge by disruptions to daily life caused by the virus.

 

——-

Read More about Mike Cernovich here.

Who is Mike Cernovich?

Continue Reading

Trending

shares
Read previous post:
Convicted Pedophile and Foreign Agent Indicted for Raising $3.5 Million for Hillary Clinton

Team Mueller witness George Nader is a convicted pedophile. In exchange for his testimony, Mueller's team let him escape child...

Close