Former CNN Host Sued For Calling Nick Sandmann's Face 'Punchable' In Now-Deleted Tweet

[ChrisL]

Not if CNN made a stipulation that if he announces the settlement amount he could lose it. I surprised you didn’t realize that it can be worded where no one but the recipient and the defendants know the settlement amount.

Sure... you tell yourself that his lawyers didn't just settle for some "Go Away" money.. Smirky McPunchface might even see a little of it.

Believe what you need to.

This is the same guy who accuses a 14-year-old child of being "grifter" for being raped by Roman Polanski. That child took advantage of that poor "liberal" man. She MADE him give her drugs and have sex with her, after all. The adult man was the victim of this conniving child, or she was too sexy for him to resist. Who knows what Joe's justifications might consist of? Or IOW,

 

[Pogo]

I have no idea what "Jimmy's World" refers to but as already noted the WaPo suit was dismissed, for lack of evidence. But if you have a link, let's see it. It's only been a frickin' YEAR.

Dude, among the fake news media industry, Jimmy's World is what made WaPo the PREMIRE fake news media outlet in the USA, if not the world! They surpassed the formidable Pravda as the fakiest news fer crissakes. It got them the Pulitzer prize. That's what put them on the map in the moonbatosphere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...s-world/605f237a-7330-4a69-8433-b6da4c519120/


Oh and BTW, all of Sandmann's cases against WaPo have not been dismissed, you stupid jackass party of slavery supporter/moron.

You are a stupid feeble-minded easily brainwashed TDS afflicted idiot.

The Mississippi Clarion Ledger reported,

"A Gulfport professor and advocate is suing the national news website HuffPost alleging defamation involving a September 2018 story on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's days at Georgetown Prep school.​

"Derrick Evans’ lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Gulfport against HuffPost and its former journalist, Ashley Feinberg.​

"The lawsuit said HuffPost and Feinberg repeatedly defamed Evans and friend Douglas Kennedy to a nationwide audience on multiple occasions in September 2018 by falsely asserting that they helped arrange the purchase and delivery of cocaine at Georgetown Prep that resulted in the April 1984 death of David Kennedy, Douglas’ brother and the son of the late U.S. attorney general and senator, Robert F. Kennedy."​

Fake News is getting expensive.

What's this got to do with the topic?

 

[Papageorgio]

Believe what you need to.

His lawyers would be trumpeting it from the rooftops if they got anything more than "Go Away and Don't Bother me" money.

If you want to believe it, that’s cool by me, no need to justifying what you need to believe.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not if CNN made a stipulation that if he announces the settlement amount he could lose it. I surprised you didn’t realize that it can be worded where no one but the recipient and the defendants know the settlement amount.

Sure... you tell yourself that his lawyers didn't just settle for some "Go Away" money.. Smirky McPunchface might even see a little of it.

Believe what you need to.

This is the same guy who accuses a 14-year-old child of being "grifter" for being raped by Roman Polanski. That child took advantage of that poor "liberal" man. She MADE him give her drugs and have sex with her, after all. The adult man was the victim of this conniving child, or she was too sexy for him to resist. Who knows what Joe's justifications might consist of? Or IOW,

Totally agree, he has some real dumb ideas. How have you been?

 

[ChrisL]

Not if CNN made a stipulation that if he announces the settlement amount he could lose it. I surprised you didn’t realize that it can be worded where no one but the recipient and the defendants know the settlement amount.

Sure... you tell yourself that his lawyers didn't just settle for some "Go Away" money.. Smirky McPunchface might even see a little of it.

Believe what you need to.

This is the same guy who accuses a 14-year-old child of being "grifter" for being raped by Roman Polanski. That child took advantage of that poor "liberal" man. She MADE him give her drugs and have sex with her, after all. The adult man was the victim of this conniving child, or she was too sexy for him to resist. Who knows what Joe's justifications might consist of? Or IOW,

Totally agree, he has some real dumb ideas. How have you been?

Very well! Thanks for asking!

 

[ChrisL]

Don't need to. I called out the mendacity, issued a challenge to prove that status, and no one can do it. Including the OP who pulled it out of his ass in the first place.

Try again lifelong loser. By the way you’ve had nearly a year and STILL NO PROOF of YOUR claim that’s Sandmann was at fault. Boy making you look stupid is so easy.

Anything is "easy" when you just make shit up because you don't have anything, I made no such claim, ever. Prove me wrong or suck toilets,

Those who can actually READ know I made no "claim"; I issued a challenge. One which has gone unanswered and one which was not about Sandmann, whose name I see you have finally learned to spell. You're welcome.

Go fuck yourself. YOU made MUlTIPLE claims that Sandmann was at fault, the lawsuit would be thrown out, and he would get nothing. Wrong, wrong, and really wrong. You made the claim and now are running away from it as fast as you can. Just like I proved you a liar on Kavanaugh. Your utter cowardice isn’t surprising. So here’s your parting gift loser.

Oh DID I now.

Where are they?

How come you can't quote them?

"At fault" for ---- what?

Cue crickets yet again.

No, hoop cheese, I made no such claims. I didn't even write his name, even though I did know how to spell it. What I did do was challenge anyone at all to show the board any evidence, any documentation whatsoever, of CNN... WaPo... ABC... NBC.... CBS....NYT.... NPR.... PBS.... QVC.... ESPN.... The Frickin' Jewelry Network.... any news entity at all publishing slander as claimed in the vexatious litigation. Any broadcast, any newsprint, any web page, that deliberately disseminated false facts. That went down last JANUARY and to this date I have received ZERO such documentation.

NONE of that has anything to do with "Sandmann" or with "who's at fault". It's a simple challenge to prove the assertion. To prove the material actually EXISTS. You know, like I just did with your made-up bullshit crapola claiming I posted anything about "who's at fault".

That's the facts, and there ain't jack cheese you can do about it.

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Does Pogo realize that this lawsuit is separate from the CNN lawsuit, which was already settled? He admits that he doesn't watch any TV or follow any current events, yet he jumps into every discussion as if he is an "expert" on it. Weird. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Try again lifelong loser. By the way you’ve had nearly a year and STILL NO PROOF of YOUR claim that’s Sandmann was at fault. Boy making you look stupid is so easy.

Anything is "easy" when you just make shit up because you don't have anything, I made no such claim, ever. Prove me wrong or suck toilets,

Those who can actually READ know I made no "claim"; I issued a challenge. One which has gone unanswered and one which was not about Sandmann, whose name I see you have finally learned to spell. You're welcome.

Go fuck yourself. YOU made MUlTIPLE claims that Sandmann was at fault, the lawsuit would be thrown out, and he would get nothing. Wrong, wrong, and really wrong. You made the claim and now are running away from it as fast as you can. Just like I proved you a liar on Kavanaugh. Your utter cowardice isn’t surprising. So here’s your parting gift loser.

Oh DID I now.

Where are they?

How come you can't quote them?

"At fault" for ---- what?

Cue crickets yet again.

No, hoop cheese, I made no such claims. I didn't even write his name, even though I did know how to spell it. What I did do was challenge anyone at all to show the board any evidence, any documentation whatsoever, of CNN... WaPo... ABC... NBC.... CBS....NYT.... NPR.... PBS.... QVC.... ESPN.... The Frickin' Jewelry Network.... any news entity at all publishing slander as claimed in the vexatious litigation. Any broadcast, any newsprint, any web page, that deliberately disseminated false facts. That went down last JANUARY and to this date I have received ZERO such documentation.

NONE of that has anything to do with "Sandmann" or with "who's at fault". It's a simple challenge to prove the assertion. To prove the material actually EXISTS. You know, like I just did with your made-up bullshit crapola claiming I posted anything about "who's at fault".

That's the facts, and there ain't jack cheese you can do about it.

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000. The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee. This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

 

[ChrisL]

CNN settlement with Covington student Nick Sandmann a win for the 'little guy,' expert says

CNN’s decision to settle a multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann is a big victory for the "little guy," Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson told Fox News.

“It represents a rare example of a 'little guy' being able to stand up to a media behemoth,” said Jacobson, the founder of the law blog Legal Insurrection and former senior editor of the Harvard International Law Journal.

“If not for the aggressive, and presumably contingent fee, representation by famed attorney Linn Wood, the result may have been different," he added.

CNN SETTLES NICK SANDMANN DEFAMATION LAWSUIT

Jacobson said the $250 million defamation suit was probably settled for at least seven figures but doesn’t expect the exact figure to ever be made public.

 

[Pogo]

Anything is "easy" when you just make shit up because you don't have anything, I made no such claim, ever. Prove me wrong or suck toilets,

Those who can actually READ know I made no "claim"; I issued a challenge. One which has gone unanswered and one which was not about Sandmann, whose name I see you have finally learned to spell. You're welcome.

Go fuck yourself. YOU made MUlTIPLE claims that Sandmann was at fault, the lawsuit would be thrown out, and he would get nothing. Wrong, wrong, and really wrong. You made the claim and now are running away from it as fast as you can. Just like I proved you a liar on Kavanaugh. Your utter cowardice isn’t surprising. So here’s your parting gift loser.

Oh DID I now.

Where are they?

How come you can't quote them?

"At fault" for ---- what?

Cue crickets yet again.

No, hoop cheese, I made no such claims. I didn't even write his name, even though I did know how to spell it. What I did do was challenge anyone at all to show the board any evidence, any documentation whatsoever, of CNN... WaPo... ABC... NBC.... CBS....NYT.... NPR.... PBS.... QVC.... ESPN.... The Frickin' Jewelry Network.... any news entity at all publishing slander as claimed in the vexatious litigation. Any broadcast, any newsprint, any web page, that deliberately disseminated false facts. That went down last JANUARY and to this date I have received ZERO such documentation.

NONE of that has anything to do with "Sandmann" or with "who's at fault". It's a simple challenge to prove the assertion. To prove the material actually EXISTS. You know, like I just did with your made-up bullshit crapola claiming I posted anything about "who's at fault".

That's the facts, and there ain't jack cheese you can do about it.

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

 

[ChrisL]

Go fuck yourself. YOU made MUlTIPLE claims that Sandmann was at fault, the lawsuit would be thrown out, and he would get nothing. Wrong, wrong, and really wrong. You made the claim and now are running away from it as fast as you can. Just like I proved you a liar on Kavanaugh. Your utter cowardice isn’t surprising. So here’s your parting gift loser.

Oh DID I now.

Where are they?

How come you can't quote them?

"At fault" for ---- what?

Cue crickets yet again.

No, hoop cheese, I made no such claims. I didn't even write his name, even though I did know how to spell it. What I did do was challenge anyone at all to show the board any evidence, any documentation whatsoever, of CNN... WaPo... ABC... NBC.... CBS....NYT.... NPR.... PBS.... QVC.... ESPN.... The Frickin' Jewelry Network.... any news entity at all publishing slander as claimed in the vexatious litigation. Any broadcast, any newsprint, any web page, that deliberately disseminated false facts. That went down last JANUARY and to this date I have received ZERO such documentation.

NONE of that has anything to do with "Sandmann" or with "who's at fault". It's a simple challenge to prove the assertion. To prove the material actually EXISTS. You know, like I just did with your made-up bullshit crapola claiming I posted anything about "who's at fault".

That's the facts, and there ain't jack cheese you can do about it.

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

Look, it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about. How would you, considering you yourself claim that you are uninformed about current events. You don't watch TV, you don't follow along with stories on the net, you are basically a hermit, so . . . how can you claim to know what you are talking about?

The facts of the matter are that there are multiple lawsuits to come. Just because they haven't been heard yet, doesn't mean they don't exist and have not been filed. Everything I claimed in the post is true and backed up by links.

Why does the idea of these people/networks being sued by this kid bother you so much? You are really weird. Lol. Maybe get a hobby other than arguing with everyone all day long? How much time do you waste arguing every day, all day about things that you are wrong about? Life is passing you by, my man!

 

[ChrisL]

Go fuck yourself. YOU made MUlTIPLE claims that Sandmann was at fault, the lawsuit would be thrown out, and he would get nothing. Wrong, wrong, and really wrong. You made the claim and now are running away from it as fast as you can. Just like I proved you a liar on Kavanaugh. Your utter cowardice isn’t surprising. So here’s your parting gift loser.

Oh DID I now.

Where are they?

How come you can't quote them?

"At fault" for ---- what?

Cue crickets yet again.

No, hoop cheese, I made no such claims. I didn't even write his name, even though I did know how to spell it. What I did do was challenge anyone at all to show the board any evidence, any documentation whatsoever, of CNN... WaPo... ABC... NBC.... CBS....NYT.... NPR.... PBS.... QVC.... ESPN.... The Frickin' Jewelry Network.... any news entity at all publishing slander as claimed in the vexatious litigation. Any broadcast, any newsprint, any web page, that deliberately disseminated false facts. That went down last JANUARY and to this date I have received ZERO such documentation.

NONE of that has anything to do with "Sandmann" or with "who's at fault". It's a simple challenge to prove the assertion. To prove the material actually EXISTS. You know, like I just did with your made-up bullshit crapola claiming I posted anything about "who's at fault".

That's the facts, and there ain't jack cheese you can do about it.

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

I posted you a link showing you that he was a former CNN employee, as the title says. Would you like me to post it again? Are you going to read it, or should I post some excerpts from it?

 

[ChrisL]

Go fuck yourself. YOU made MUlTIPLE claims that Sandmann was at fault, the lawsuit would be thrown out, and he would get nothing. Wrong, wrong, and really wrong. You made the claim and now are running away from it as fast as you can. Just like I proved you a liar on Kavanaugh. Your utter cowardice isn’t surprising. So here’s your parting gift loser.

Oh DID I now.

Where are they?

How come you can't quote them?

"At fault" for ---- what?

Cue crickets yet again.

No, hoop cheese, I made no such claims. I didn't even write his name, even though I did know how to spell it. What I did do was challenge anyone at all to show the board any evidence, any documentation whatsoever, of CNN... WaPo... ABC... NBC.... CBS....NYT.... NPR.... PBS.... QVC.... ESPN.... The Frickin' Jewelry Network.... any news entity at all publishing slander as claimed in the vexatious litigation. Any broadcast, any newsprint, any web page, that deliberately disseminated false facts. That went down last JANUARY and to this date I have received ZERO such documentation.

NONE of that has anything to do with "Sandmann" or with "who's at fault". It's a simple challenge to prove the assertion. To prove the material actually EXISTS. You know, like I just did with your made-up bullshit crapola claiming I posted anything about "who's at fault".

That's the facts, and there ain't jack cheese you can do about it.

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

THere are two separate cases that people are discussing here on the thread. There is a case that was settled against CNN, which I have posted about multiple times on this thread, but for some reason you refuse to read or understand that. The lawsuit that this thread is actually referring to is still pending.

The person who the lawsuit is against is a former CNN employee. Does that hurt you or something? I don't know . . . weird.

 

[Pogo]

Oh DID I now.

Where are they?

How come you can't quote them?

"At fault" for ---- what?

Cue crickets yet again.

No, hoop cheese, I made no such claims. I didn't even write his name, even though I did know how to spell it. What I did do was challenge anyone at all to show the board any evidence, any documentation whatsoever, of CNN... WaPo... ABC... NBC.... CBS....NYT.... NPR.... PBS.... QVC.... ESPN.... The Frickin' Jewelry Network.... any news entity at all publishing slander as claimed in the vexatious litigation. Any broadcast, any newsprint, any web page, that deliberately disseminated false facts. That went down last JANUARY and to this date I have received ZERO such documentation.

NONE of that has anything to do with "Sandmann" or with "who's at fault". It's a simple challenge to prove the assertion. To prove the material actually EXISTS. You know, like I just did with your made-up bullshit crapola claiming I posted anything about "who's at fault".

That's the facts, and there ain't jack cheese you can do about it.

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

Look, it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about. How would you, considering you yourself claim that you are uninformed about current events. You don't watch TV, you don't follow along with stories on the net, you are basically a hermit, so . . . how can you claim to know what you are talking about?

The facts of the matter are that there are multiple lawsuits to come. Just because they haven't been heard yet, doesn't mean they don't exist and have not been filed. Everything I claimed in the post is true and backed up by links.

Why does the idea of these people/networks being sued by this kid bother you so much? You are really weird. Lol. Maybe get a hobby other than arguing with everyone all day long? How much time do you waste arguing every day, all day about things that you are wrong about? Life is passing you by, my man!

Most ironic thing I've read all day, the suggestion that somebody who doesn't watch TV of all creatures is "not informed".

This particular point doesn't need me to be informed, princess. It requires the READER to be informed. It requires the reader to present, from anywhere, any evidence of public defamation. Such evidence would be by definition PUBLIC, ergo easily accessible. It's not my job to find that, even though I did and found nothing. Rather, it's the job of those who ass-ert that such defamation suit has merit and is not simple vexatious litigation.

That's why I put it out there. Who knows, someone may yet find it. But the longer it sits, the weaker the case that the plaintiff was "defamed" in the public mind. The public can't even seem to locate it.

 

[Pogo]

Oh DID I now.

Where are they?

How come you can't quote them?

"At fault" for ---- what?

Cue crickets yet again.

No, hoop cheese, I made no such claims. I didn't even write his name, even though I did know how to spell it. What I did do was challenge anyone at all to show the board any evidence, any documentation whatsoever, of CNN... WaPo... ABC... NBC.... CBS....NYT.... NPR.... PBS.... QVC.... ESPN.... The Frickin' Jewelry Network.... any news entity at all publishing slander as claimed in the vexatious litigation. Any broadcast, any newsprint, any web page, that deliberately disseminated false facts. That went down last JANUARY and to this date I have received ZERO such documentation.

NONE of that has anything to do with "Sandmann" or with "who's at fault". It's a simple challenge to prove the assertion. To prove the material actually EXISTS. You know, like I just did with your made-up bullshit crapola claiming I posted anything about "who's at fault".

That's the facts, and there ain't jack cheese you can do about it.

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

THere are two separate cases that people are discussing here on the thread. There is a case that was settled against CNN, which I have posted about multiple times on this thread, but for some reason you refuse to read or understand that. The lawsuit that this thread is actually referring to is still pending.

The person who the lawsuit is against is a former CNN employee. Does that hurt you or something? I don't know . . . weird.

Once again --- here comes another one just like the other one ---- show us any evidence that the subject was ever a CNN employee. The OP was challenged to do that and he ran away.

I don't issue these challenges because I DON'T know what the answer is. Follow me?

No Virginia, the fact that some wanker on a message board posts that somebody is a "former CNN host" ---- doesn't make him a "former CNN host". I could sit here and claim that I'm Albert Frickin' Einstein, it doesn't give me a white mustache.

 

[ChrisL]

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

Look, it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about. How would you, considering you yourself claim that you are uninformed about current events. You don't watch TV, you don't follow along with stories on the net, you are basically a hermit, so . . . how can you claim to know what you are talking about?

The facts of the matter are that there are multiple lawsuits to come. Just because they haven't been heard yet, doesn't mean they don't exist and have not been filed. Everything I claimed in the post is true and backed up by links.

Why does the idea of these people/networks being sued by this kid bother you so much? You are really weird. Lol. Maybe get a hobby other than arguing with everyone all day long? How much time do you waste arguing every day, all day about things that you are wrong about? Life is passing you by, my man!

Most ironic thing I've read all day, the suggestion that somebody who doesn't watch TV of all creatures is "not informed".

This particular point doesn't need me to be informed, princess. It requires the READER to be informed. It requires the reader to present, from anywhere, any evidence of public defamation. Such evidence would be by definition PUBLIC, ergo easily accessible. It's not my job to find that, even though I did and found nothing. Rather, it's the job of those who ass-ert that such defamation suit has merit and is not simple vexatious litigation.

That's why I put it out there. Who knows, someone may yet find it. But the longer it sits, the weaker the case that the plaintiff was "defamed" in the public mind. The public can't even seem to locate it.

You are weird. PERIOD. You would think you, the fighter of LIES on the internet (though basically all you do is nitpick to death), would be upset about these mega media mega RICH corporations picking on a 16-year-old boy who was standing there smiling or even "smirking" at some weird old man who was banging a drum in his ear and wouldn't stop. They vilified and even encouraged violence against these CHILDREN, you doofus. This is my last post to you. Like I said, you are not worth my time. You are stubborn old hermit who gets some kind of weird kick out of arguing with people on the internet and wasting time. Fuck you. Lol.

 

[Pogo]

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

Look, it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about. How would you, considering you yourself claim that you are uninformed about current events. You don't watch TV, you don't follow along with stories on the net, you are basically a hermit, so . . . how can you claim to know what you are talking about?

The facts of the matter are that there are multiple lawsuits to come. Just because they haven't been heard yet, doesn't mean they don't exist and have not been filed. Everything I claimed in the post is true and backed up by links.

Why does the idea of these people/networks being sued by this kid bother you so much? You are really weird. Lol. Maybe get a hobby other than arguing with everyone all day long? How much time do you waste arguing every day, all day about things that you are wrong about? Life is passing you by, my man!

Most ironic thing I've read all day, the suggestion that somebody who doesn't watch TV of all creatures is "not informed".

This particular point doesn't need me to be informed, princess. It requires the READER to be informed. It requires the reader to present, from anywhere, any evidence of public defamation. Such evidence would be by definition PUBLIC, ergo easily accessible. It's not my job to find that, even though I did and found nothing. Rather, it's the job of those who ass-ert that such defamation suit has merit and is not simple vexatious litigation.

That's why I put it out there. Who knows, someone may yet find it. But the longer it sits, the weaker the case that the plaintiff was "defamed" in the public mind. The public can't even seem to locate it.

You are weird. PERIOD. You would think you, the fighter of LIES on the internet (though basically all you do is nitpick to death), would be upset about these mega media mega RICH corporations picking on a 16-year-old boy who was standing there smiling or even "smirking" at some weird old man who was banging a drum in his ear and wouldn't stop. They vilified and even encouraged violence against these CHILDREN, you doofus.

Fine. Then PROVE that happened. Show us a video. A newspaper story. A website article. Anything.

And when we cue crickets and you can't do it don't you DARE admit you were wrong.

I'll just sit here and watch the squirming.

 

[Muhammed]

Everyone saw them, stupid fuck.

You're a hack, and you failed AGAIN.

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

Look, it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about. How would you, considering you yourself claim that you are uninformed about current events. You don't watch TV, you don't follow along with stories on the net, you are basically a hermit, so . . . how can you claim to know what you are talking about?

The facts of the matter are that there are multiple lawsuits to come. Just because they haven't been heard yet, doesn't mean they don't exist and have not been filed. Everything I claimed in the post is true and backed up by links.

Why does the idea of these people/networks being sued by this kid bother you so much? You are really weird. Lol. Maybe get a hobby other than arguing with everyone all day long? How much time do you waste arguing every day, all day about things that you are wrong about? Life is passing you by, my man!

Most ironic thing I've read all day, the suggestion that somebody who doesn't watch TV of all creatures is "not informed".

This particular point doesn't need me to be informed, princess. It requires the READER to be informed. It requires the reader to present, from anywhere, any evidence of public defamation. Such evidence would be by definition PUBLIC, ergo easily accessible. It's not my job to find that, even though I did and found nothing. Rather, it's the job of those who ass-ert that such defamation suit has merit and is not simple vexatious litigation.

That's why I put it out there. Who knows, someone may yet find it. But the longer it sits, the weaker the case that the plaintiff was "defamed" in the public mind. The public can't even seem to locate it.

Here is a video of both Chris "Fredo" Cuomo and Don Lemon defaming Nick Sandmann.



Fredo falsely claimed that Sandmann made a choice to get into a standoff. That is a flat out lie and CNN knew it was a lie because they had access to the video which proves conclusively that it is a lie.

And Don Lemon defamed him too when he said "Boy you get your narrow ass out of the way of that old man, and show some respect". Of course the video proves conclusively that Sandmann did not get in his way. Nor did he disrespect the "village elder"

It's a false narrative fueled by their TDS. And what's funny is that they presented that false narrative in order to ridiculously forward the false narrative that Trump is a racist. Sandmann's MAGA hat triggered those TDS afflicted morons.

CNN is fake news.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So rude and impolite the CNN is going to pay the kid so they won’t look bad in court.

You mean they paid him to go away... If he got anything signifigant, he'd be screaming it from the rooftops.

 

[Pogo]

Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them.

That's why I put the challenge out a year ago. The vacuum is eloquent. And no, that's not a reference to the voices in your head; I'm sure they're eloquent too.

So no Pothead, given that I got exactly the crickets I suspected I'd get, I ain't the one who "failed" at all. Am I.

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

Look, it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about. How would you, considering you yourself claim that you are uninformed about current events. You don't watch TV, you don't follow along with stories on the net, you are basically a hermit, so . . . how can you claim to know what you are talking about?

The facts of the matter are that there are multiple lawsuits to come. Just because they haven't been heard yet, doesn't mean they don't exist and have not been filed. Everything I claimed in the post is true and backed up by links.

Why does the idea of these people/networks being sued by this kid bother you so much? You are really weird. Lol. Maybe get a hobby other than arguing with everyone all day long? How much time do you waste arguing every day, all day about things that you are wrong about? Life is passing you by, my man!

Most ironic thing I've read all day, the suggestion that somebody who doesn't watch TV of all creatures is "not informed".

This particular point doesn't need me to be informed, princess. It requires the READER to be informed. It requires the reader to present, from anywhere, any evidence of public defamation. Such evidence would be by definition PUBLIC, ergo easily accessible. It's not my job to find that, even though I did and found nothing. Rather, it's the job of those who ass-ert that such defamation suit has merit and is not simple vexatious litigation.

That's why I put it out there. Who knows, someone may yet find it. But the longer it sits, the weaker the case that the plaintiff was "defamed" in the public mind. The public can't even seem to locate it.

Here is a video of both Chris "Fredo" Cuomo and Don Lemon defaming Nick Sandmann.



Fredo falsely claimed that Sandmann made a choice to get into a standoff. That is a flat out lie and CNN knew it was a lie because they had access to the video which proves conclusively that it is a lie.

And Don Lemon defamed him too when he said "Boy you get your narrow ass out of the way of that old man". Of course the video proves conclusively that Sandmann did not get in his way. It's a false narrative.

CNN is fake news.

You posted this same video before. You should watch your own video.

"I'm not talking about the people in the confrontation, I'm talking about everybody else".
"I've not seen any credible evidence that the kid involved did or said anything extreme to the man playing the drum".
"He did make a choice, and that was to make it a standoff. That was not a good choice. Was it legal? Sure. That's not my test".
"I don't blame the kids. My concern were [sic] the reactions more so. The left and the right almost instantly had equal and opposite reactions."

Those are VERBATIM from your own video. Of course the kid made a choice. Did someone else make the choice *FOR* the kid to stand there smirking? Was it some kind of mind control?

Further, this entire video is commentary, not news reporting. "That's not MY test -- here's MINE". "If that were MY kid". "Would I like what he did". "There was a disrespect that doesn't work for ME in these situations". Notice the first-person pronouns? News reporting NEVER contains first-person pronouns unless it's to say "the minister told ME that..." and then it's about what the minister told him, not "me".

Defamation requires stating false facts. Commentary is by definition stating opinion, not facts. Facts come from events; opinions come from "me". Facts are impersonal.

What you need to show instead of wanking off with this evasive commentary shit is somewhere that some TV station, or newspaper, or news website, KNOWINGLY CLAIMED FALSE FACTS, not opinions.

 

[Muhammed]

Just what is your problem anyways? The facts of the matter are that the boy's family and his family's lawyer sued CNN, and the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of dollars, but they were asking for $250,000,000.

Were they now. Linkie?

The suit in this case is against him personally, and he is a former CNN employee.

Ummm nnnno he isn't. Go ahead and prove that. The OP pulled that out of his ass, we established that on the first day of the thread. If I have a "problem", it's posters yammering on and on and on about fake facts that have already been disproven, as if they still exist. Why do you do that exactly?

This case has yet to be settled, I believe, but the CNN case was settled. Maybe if you were to follow along with current events, get a TV or read something on the internet, you would be more informed about what is happening instead of being a pig headed jackass?

I'm not the one who can't back up his assertions sooooooooooo.............

Actually this case has yet to even be established, for as also pointed out upthread, the link the OP gave us, cites no source. For all we know that's fabricated as well. Go ahead, check me.

NONE of the above has anything to do with the post you quoted, my exchange with Pothead, which was about my challenge of just-about-a-year ago for anyone on this board to show any documentation of any material published or broadcast to the public, that would serve a defamation case. That challenge has never been met.

Seems to me if some public media entity issued defamation to the public, the public would you know, KNOW about it. And here, given a year, no one can find any. That's EXACTLY what the line "Apparently they were so "everyone" that "nobody" can find them", MEANS. All Pothead and his fellow travellers can do is whine about the fact that they can't find any. But then, they shouldn't have got on that horse to nowhere in the first place, should they have.

Look, it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about. How would you, considering you yourself claim that you are uninformed about current events. You don't watch TV, you don't follow along with stories on the net, you are basically a hermit, so . . . how can you claim to know what you are talking about?

The facts of the matter are that there are multiple lawsuits to come. Just because they haven't been heard yet, doesn't mean they don't exist and have not been filed. Everything I claimed in the post is true and backed up by links.

Why does the idea of these people/networks being sued by this kid bother you so much? You are really weird. Lol. Maybe get a hobby other than arguing with everyone all day long? How much time do you waste arguing every day, all day about things that you are wrong about? Life is passing you by, my man!

Most ironic thing I've read all day, the suggestion that somebody who doesn't watch TV of all creatures is "not informed".

This particular point doesn't need me to be informed, princess. It requires the READER to be informed. It requires the reader to present, from anywhere, any evidence of public defamation. Such evidence would be by definition PUBLIC, ergo easily accessible. It's not my job to find that, even though I did and found nothing. Rather, it's the job of those who ass-ert that such defamation suit has merit and is not simple vexatious litigation.

That's why I put it out there. Who knows, someone may yet find it. But the longer it sits, the weaker the case that the plaintiff was "defamed" in the public mind. The public can't even seem to locate it.

Here is a video of both Chris "Fredo" Cuomo and Don Lemon defaming Nick Sandmann.



Fredo falsely claimed that Sandmann made a choice to get into a standoff. That is a flat out lie and CNN knew it was a lie because they had access to the video which proves conclusively that it is a lie.

And Don Lemon defamed him too when he said "Boy you get your narrow ass out of the way of that old man". Of course the video proves conclusively that Sandmann did not get in his way. It's a false narrative.

CNN is fake news.

You posted this same video before. You should watch your own video.

"I'm not talking about the people in the confrontation, I'm talking about everybody else".
"I've not seen any credible evidence that the kid involved did or said anything extreme to the man playing the drum".
"He did make a choice, and that was to make it a standoff. That was not a good choice. Was it legal? Sure. That's not my test".
"I don't blame the kids. My concern were [sic] the reactions more so. The left and the right almost instantly had equal and opposite reactions."

Those are VERBATIM from your own video. Of course the kid made a choice. Did someone else make the choice *FOR* the kid to stand there smirking? Was it some kind of mind control?

Further, this entire video is commentary, not news reporting. "That's not MY test -- here's MINE". "If that were MY kid". "Would I like what he did". "There was a disrespect that doesn't work for ME in these situations". Notice the first-person pronouns? News reporting NEVER contains first-person pronouns unless it's to say "the minister told ME that..." and then it's about what the minister told him, not "me".

Defamation requires stating false facts. Commentary is by definition stating opinion, not facts. Facts come from events; opinions come from "me". Facts are impersonal.

What you need to show instead of wanking off with this evasive commentary shit is somewhere that some TV station, or newspaper, or news website, KNOWINGLY CLAIMED FALSE FACTS, not opinions.

You just quoted defamatory falsehood that Fredo made.

"He did make a choice, and that was to make it a standoff." That is a clearly false statement. The video proves conclusively that it is a false statement.

The video proves conslusively that Sandmann was just standing there minding his own business. The filthy scumbag with the drum walked right up to Sandmann trying to bait him into a confrontation. He held a drum next to his head and started aggressively loudly and violently banging on it while threateningly swinging a stick a few inches from his face.

In an extremely calm cool and collected manner Sandmann respectfully declined to engage in any sort of dispute or confrontation with the moronic lying asshole (aka Democrat).

Fredo flat out lied.

CNN is fake news.