CNN may have a chance to write another check about its poor job performance, this time to relatives of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for labeling them as negatives. QAnon plot.
You will remember CNN reported that wrote a very big check to Covington High School alumnus Nicholas Sandmann last year after false statement he confronted and sought to belittle a Native American gentleman during a protest in Washington, DC. It was indeed the man who approached and stood on tiptoe to the teenager.
Sandmann wore the “Make America Great Again” hat, and established media read into the encounter what it wants to see. But when video of the incident started going viral, CNN, washington articles and other leftist outlets had to back down.
On Thursday, a federal judge authorized a case brought by Flynn’s brother John “Jack” Flynn and sister-in-law Leslie Flynn. CNN.
Of course, CNN’s “news” coverage seems to go astray when it covers any topic or person even remotely associated with the former President. Donald Trump.
According to US District Judge Gregory Woods’ rule, the network aired a report this year titled “CNN Goes Inside the Gathering of QAnon Followers.”
“The report included a short clip of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn declaring, ‘we go one place, we go all.’ Plaintiffs John P. (‘Jack’) and Leslie A. Flynn… appear in the clip standing next to General Flynn,” wrote Woods, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
Jack and Leslie claim in their lawsuit against CNN that they are not followers of QAnon. They are seeking $75 million in damages, saying the network’s reporting smeared them and brought them to light.
Politico describes QAnon as a “popular online conspiracy theory that claims elites are sexually abusing children and that former President Donald Trump is planning to declare a national emergency in response to shadow figures.” I participated in the abuse.”
Do you think the Flynns will win CNN?
Yes: 94% (15 Votes)
No: 6% (1 Vote)
CNN attempted to dismiss the lawsuit, pointing to tweets posted by Jack that the network’s lawyers said were consistent with the beliefs of QAnon followers.
The Flynns countered that Jack’s tweets show that he “accepts the Constitution and equal justice under the law. . . not the dangerous, extremist, racist, anti-Semitism and violent beliefs espoused by QAnon” and he “denied the basic tenets of the QAnon movement. ”
As is the case of SandmannThe Flynns said one of CNN’s major failures was not contacting them prior to publication. Furthermore, they said the network “has no independent evidence to corroborate that [they] are followers or supporters of QAnon. “
Woods denied defaming the Flynns because current law requires them to list specific monetary damages resulting from the CNN story. However, the judge allowed the false light complaint to continue.
According to the ruling, the Flynns must show that “[t]there have been some claims of false fact or fiction implying a non-existent association; [and] [t]his published or implied affiliation would be objectionable to a reasonably ordinary person under these circumstances. “
Looks like that standard was met in this case.
Woods writes: “Whether the Flynns are followers of QAnon, and in particular, whether the Flynns are ‘believers’ as that term is understood in the context of the CNN publication, is an investigation. highly realistic”.
He explained that Jack’s tweets were “not explicitly contradictory [the Flynns’] factual allegations. At this point in the proceedings, the couple’s allegations must be admissible with legal validity.
“These allegations, which the Court must accept as true, are sufficient to reasonably allege that CNN has no reasonable basis to believe that the Flynns are followers of QAnon,” Woods wrote.
He allowed the Flynns to amend their defamation complaint if they wanted the court to review the matter.
Politico noted that Woods “did not discuss whether Jack and Leslie Flynn should be treated as public or private figures,” but the presiding judge who reviewed the case determined they were private.
That detail was pivotal in the Sandmann case because he was clearly a private citizen. As a result, his lawyers only had to prove negligence on the part of CNN and others to win the court. The higher standard of knowingly making false statements or recklessly disregarding the truth applies to public figures like politicians if they want to sue a news agency.
The establishment’s media must continue to be tackled for its misrepresentation, and the Flynns could be next to teach CNN a lesson.
https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-hands-big-win-gen-flynn-will-allow-family-sue-cnn/ Judge gives General Flynn big victory, will allow his family to sue CNN