Devin Nunes Follows Through And Sues CNN In Laughably Dumb SLAPP Suit
from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept
As he promised last week, Rep. Devin Nunes has now sued CNN for defamation for accurately reporting what the indicted Lev Parnas's lawyers had told them about Devin Nunes. Rather than state court in Virginia, this time, Nunes' lawyer, Steven Biss filed the case in the big boy federal court in Virginia. This complaint may be the most laughable one yet of Nunes' various SLAPP suits, and I should remind you that one of them involves him suing a cow.
The timing of this suit was a bit inauspicious, given that it was filed at around the same time as the House Intelligence Committee released its Impeachment Inquiry Report, which shows multiple phone records showing that Devin Nunes and Lev Parnas were in phone contact with each other -- which is the very heart of the CNN story. From the report:
That appears to show Parnas and Nunes playing a bit of phone tag before finally talking for nearly 10 minutes.
After the report came out, Nunes went on Fox News to says he didn't recall ever talking to Parnas and that he hadn't checked his records.
“Did you ever talk to this guy Les Parnas or whatever his name is?” Hannity asked, mispronouncing the Giuliani henchman’s name while acting like he barely knows who Parnas is.
“You know, it’s possible,” Nunes replied. “I haven’t gone through my phone records. I don’t really recall that name.”
“I remember the name now because he has been indicted,” the conservative congressman added. “Why would CNN rely on somebody like this? I will go back and check my records, but it seems very unlikely I will be taking calls from random people.”
And yet, in the complaint, Nunes makes explicit claims about when he was not in contact with Parnas, suggesting that he has checked his records. The complaint is oddly specific in the timing:
I'm sorry, but if CNN just got the date wrong for when Nunes and Parnas spoke, that's not even anywhere in the vicinity of defamation. The lawsuit says that they weren't in contact in December, but the phone records show (at the very least) that they were in contact in April. While Biss's various SLAPP filings have all been fairly performative, this one takes the performance to new and ridiculous levels. It seems likely that the entire point of this lawsuit is to whip up something of a frenzy among people who insist that CNN is "fake news." No serious lawsuit would start this way:
CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable.
But, this one does. Much of the complaint focuses on the argument that Parnas is not a trustworthy source. That may be true, but then it would seem if Nunes had a claim against anyone, it would be Parnas, not CNN. The complaint is 47 pages, but a significant percentage of it is taken up by giant screenshot of tweets, rather than actual legal arguments. And, beyond the defamation ("per se" because people like to say "defamation per se" in the belief that it means "obvious defamation" even though it does not), it also includes a "common law conspiracy" claim based on more nonsense.
With this lawsuit, in which he demands $435 million, Nunes' total claims in his various SLAPP suits is rapidly approaching a billion dollars.
In March of this year, a parody Twitter account caused $250M in damages by destroying @DevinNunes's life/reputation/etc. So how could CNN, Ryan Lizza, and the Fresno Bee do additional damage to the tune of $435M, $75M, and $150M respectively? pic.twitter.com/ebvpxp9R85
— Asher Langton (@AsherLangton) December 3, 2019
Meanwhile, recall that last week, Nunes promised Hannity that CNN would "run" from this lawsuit and he would chase them down. I'm guessing that the opposite is going to happen, as CNN will likely "run" towards the courthouse to try to get to discovery as fast as possible:
Discovery, baby! https://t.co/tdCNKBHwl5
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) December 4, 2019
Meanwhile, with all of these lawsuits, more and more people are starting to ask just who is paying for all of these lawsuits. Nunes has definitely decided that going on the offensive in filing multiple SLAPP suits against journalists and critics (even satirical cows) is a worthwhile strategy, but it's difficult to see an end game here that makes any sense at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-slapp, conspiracy, defamation, devin nunes, lev parnas, slapp, steven biss, virginia
Companies: cnn
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I understand that these lawsuits are all about harassment, and that they are usually very effective.
But I fail to see how this one can accomplish its goal. He's not suing a cow, which presumably has very modest resources to hire lawyers, risks losing its life savings, and doesn't have thumbs. He is suing CNN, which has staff lawyers, makes money over big headlines, and certainly looks forward to the prospect of forcing this plaintiff into discovery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Especially as if you believe the name, its his own Cow, so he would only be doing himself wrong...
Saying that, he's doing that already....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [CNN looking forward to discovery]
That is likely to be the better strategy: answer, raising as defenses things such as might otherwise be bases motions to dismiss. Then you can launch discovery, with interrogatories including identification of untruthful statements, speaker of each, damages flowing from each, and of course Mr. Nunez' starting value prior to the defamation.
Depending on the rules in the forum state, there may also be an opportunity to include an offer of judgment at an early stage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He won't scare CNN, but he may very well scare smaller outlets that don't have CNN's resources into thinking twice before they criticize him.
And there's another element: publicity. He's a Republican running for reelection. "Look at the lies those socialist Fake News traitors at CNN are telling about me! Please contribute to my campaign and help me defeat them!"
Also, he's an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devin Nunes, to his lawyers: CNN would obviously run from this fight. It’s owned by a massive multi-billion-dollar media conglomerate with plenty of money for lawyers. So why would they risk losing the suit by keeping it alive and going through to discovery?
One of the lawyers: Well, sir…
Nunes: You’re fired. And sued for defamation. And I’m pretty sure I can claim eminent domain on your house now. Now get out before I have you thrown out and sued for the emotional distress of having you thrown out.
[the lawyer leaves]
Nunes: This is an excellent plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mr Burns, if he had Homer's brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much $$$ ?
"With this lawsuit, in which he demands $435 million..."
Wait, what? Nunes thinks his reputation is worth $435 million???
I want to suggest otherwise, but I'm udderly afraid that he would sue me if I did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're not an actual billionaire, there's always pretend
Oh no no no, $435 million is simply the damage (he claims was) caused by this particular target, according to Nunes his reputation is worth far more than that even now, to the tune of just shy of a billion dollars so far.
In March of this year, a parody Twitter account caused $250M in damages by destroying @DevinNunes's life/reputation/etc. So how could CNN, Ryan Lizza, and the Fresno Bee do additional damage to the tune of $435M, $75M, and $150M respectively?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you're not an actual billionaire, there's always pretend
Nothing like Devin Nunes inflating the value of his reputation by a factor of one million.
Personally, I think his reputation is worth 5 cents...give or take 4.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
660 million in damages before cow and before intact reputation
Nunes' reputation has suffered more than 660 million damages in reputation (not including mom and cow). If he were the Titanic (and sinking) this would be the first six of sixteen watertight compartments, making his reputation (according to the Titanic metaphor) worth $1.1 billion
So Devin Nunes, according to this math is like Nathan Explosion from Dethklok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much $$$ ?
I'm pretty sure a news outlet could refer to him as an accused traitor & criminal, and it would likely be accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much $$$ ?
Mr. Nunes is shooting for the monetary MOOOOOOOON!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much $$$ ?
Well, of course it is. In late 2008 Zimbabwe dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe Nunes thought he would be chasing CNN toward the court house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He'd be chasing CNN because they're already so far ahead of him in their arguments, they've presented their airtight case and left before he bothers to show up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Look over there, a distraction!'
Nunes has definitely decided that going on the offensive in filing multiple SLAPP suits against journalists and critics (even satirical cows) is a worthwhile strategy, but it's difficult to see an end game here that makes any sense at all.
You answered your own question earlier in the article, as the goal is pretty clearly an attempt to rile up the gullible and act as a distraction from things he'd much rather people not be talking about.
Much better(for him) to spin this as a story about a poor beleaguered politician who's had his reputation dragged through the mud by liars than have people asking just why he's been so defensive about certain claims and why he might have been talking to certain people, and if the cases get laughed out of court he can then play that up as further proof of how 'victimized' he is to the foolish as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, these lawsuits are absolutely part of a right-wing grift. He’ll be fundraising off at least the CNN suit (and its eventual withdrawl) sooner rather than later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A sucker born every minute
The only thing more pathetic than that sort of tactic is that they keep doing it because it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If CNN wants this to continue (and it might), the company could make it impossible for Nunes to drop the suit unilaterally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If, as seems to be the case, the facts being sued over are accurate or mostly accurate I don't see why they wouldn't want to nail his foot to the floor and keep the lawsuit in play until it's conclusion, as it just provides them an opportunity to show just how groundless the lawsuit against them is.
Dropping the lawsuit on the other hand could all too easily(if incorrectly) be spun as them 'running away', playing right into his hands and letting him get away without any sort of penalty, potentially to pull the same stunt again in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More to the point: Continuing the lawsuit would give CNN’s lawyers access to the discovery phase, and I highly doubt Nunes’s reputation (such as it is now) would survive whatever comes out of discovery. He’ll try to drop the suit before it ever gets that far. I’d personally love to see CNN nail his feet to the floor on this one, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'They'll run away any second now!' screamed the fleeing man
Oh yeah, I fully expect that once he realizes that CNN isn't going to stick to the script he's written out for them where they run away(for some reason), and that if the lawsuit continues CNN will be able to dig into things even more than they already have he's going to remember that he's got just so many ovens he needs to check back home and bail as quickly as possible if he can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'They'll run away any second now!' screamed the fleeing man
Wrong metaphor. He's got voters cows to milk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I hope they do make it impossible for him to cut and run...discovery alone would be priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nunes cannot unilaterally drop the lawsuit.
All the delicious popcorn. All the delicious popcorn in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's it...I'm calling it. Devin Nunes has achieved Prenda status for chutzpah.
My popcorn futures haven't looked this good in years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's normal procedure...
What's normal procedure when a company tells provable lies about you repeatedly? How are you supposed to react to that? He has proof they told lies. What should he do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's normal procedure...
Start by suing the person who made the supposed lies, not the media agency quoting that person in the course of reporting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
So he should sue CNN then. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
So how is CNN responsible for quoting what Lev Parnas's lawyers told them? All CNN did is accurately quote what they were told, and who told them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zof, probably: They should’ve known this guy who had contact with Nunes was a liar! …wait—
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
Just like the networks who lost to Richard Jewell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
No. Thanks for playing though. Our hostesses have some lovely parting gifts for you. Including the home version of whatabout...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
"Accurately quote what they were told" is not a defense to defamation; CNN has their own responsibility for the truth of what they're reporting. Since Nunes is a public figure, that responsibility is pretty low, but it isn't obviated by the fact that "that's what he told me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'In other news, person X said... something... and is being sued'
"Accurately quote what they were told" is not a defense to defamation
Barring some legal precedent or law I'm not aware of it kinda is, yeah, as the alternative would make it illegal to report on defamation cases without being vague to the point of uselessness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. So if the person they're reporting on actually said the thing CNN reported that they said, then there is no defamation case against CNN. Remember, if the statement by CNN is "Lev Parnas said 'Roses are red'" then the question of truth is whether Parnas said that, not whether roses are red.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
Feel free to join Nunes at the kiddie table and let the adults continue their conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
There are certainly some limits, but this doesn't appear to come close to those limits.
CNN can't search for some uninvolved person willing to make outrageous claims, and then report a quote as if it has validity.
But this is quoting the lawyers for a major figure directly involved in the situation and, as it turns out, a person that has provably been in communication with Devin Nunes. It's absolutely newsworthy. I don't see their reporting as even being in a grey area, let alone coming close to the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
Not sure what state you are in, but I bet it has a lot of other unusual laws also. Well, yes, I guess "drug-induced stupor" is a state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
Obviously reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's normal procedure...
Devin Nunes is a public figure. There are other ways to defend yourself than frivolous and unconstitutional defamation lawsuits. For instance, hiring PR flacks to spin the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, you prove they told a lie. Given the evidence, I see no flagrant lies in what CNN reported about him — or, at the least, no lie that rises to the level of defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Especially considering that Nunes would have to prove actual malice and not just his standard butthurt in the first degree claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's normal procedure when a company tells provable lies about you repeatedly?
First, you prove they told a lie. Given the evidence, I see no flagrant lies in what CNN reported about him — or, at the least, no lie that rises to the level of defamation.
This applies in all cases. When that troll came after me, I was able to prove the negative by pointing out the multiple posts using similar aliases and linking to that helpful post with the screenshot of the email from a .ru address. There was no need to sue, I just provided the evidence and down went the false posts -- from the reliable platforms. The unreliable one at least let me post a rebuttal. Remember, it's not defamation unless actual harm is done. Trash talk is not defamation until it has a visible effect on your life, e.g. you lose your job over it.
While the lies told about me do rise to the level of defamation per se, I'd have no standing due to the lack of actual harm done; I was promoted shortly afterwards so there's only butthurt to sue for, and that is not actionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's normal procedure...
“He has proof they told lies.”
Cool story bro. I for one can’t wait for your eventual apology for being demonstrably wrong. Though we all know you’re not man enough to own up to your own mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
Cool story
https://prepaidgiftbalance.onl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's normal procedure...
The only obviously lie that we have right now is that Nunes was untruthful when he said that he didn't talk to Lev. Nunes didn't expect that there would be phone billing records.
My guess is that Nunes missed many other details. The paper trail has already tripped him up just a few days into his lawsuit. You can deny everything and spread manure on TV talk shows, but once you get into court your claims and comments aren't forgotten by the next news cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
Guess again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
Ok. Nunes is up to his neck in Russian mob money just like his boss and just like his boss, Putin has kompromat on him. Wanna go for three bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's normal procedure...
What's normal procedure when a company tells provable lies about you repeatedly? How are you supposed to react to that? He has proof they told lies. What should he do?
Publicly present proof of the lies, and their reputation will suffer.
You don't need a lawsuit to do that. Nunes has a bully pulpit and the media will widely report on what he has to say.
Why do you need to sue over non-defamatory material. So odd that you immediately assume that suing is the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
What Mike said.
Publicly present proof of the lies, and their reputation will suffer.
No damage was done to my reputation since nobody could take an obvious troll seriously. When "Obvious troll is obvious," nothing worth reporting happens.
Here's the fun part; suing for butthurt to shut people up tends to backfire hard on the perpetrators. We point and laugh at them for being so thin-skinned and resorting to the bully pulpit instead of taking it on the chin like a grownup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
That's part of what keeps the extreme-right an echo chamber and all the rest of media mostly honest. When Fox lies, Breitbart backs them up, when Breitbart lies likewise. When any other media source, from the far left to center-right lies, everyone else pounces on their competitor like a pack of wolves. Posting false stories is self-damaging anywhere outside of the Trumpalo cult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
forgot source:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190117/15361941413/splinters-our-discontent-review-netwo rk-propaganda.shtml?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
It's worse; the same pouncing will happen on the right wing outlets too, it's just not for making a mistake or telling a lie in that case, but for not being "loyal" enough. Not backing up fox's lies or vice versa would mean sicking the wolf pack on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think he's suffering from mad cow disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: suffering from mad cow disease.
More likely, there are cows suffering from Mad Nunes disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devin Nunes, for times when you don't just want your corrupt Congress critters to be garden variety dishonest but aggressively stupid too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can’t run from your sins
Nunes: you are the cause of all my sorrows! Why are you doing this? WHY ME?!
🐄:moo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The state of California sincerely apologizes for sending this assclown to Congress instead of sticking him in a high-chair at the kiddie table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being linked to Devin Nunes is "defamation per se".
Maybe Lev Parnas should hire a reputation attorney.
On the other hand, truth is an absolute defense to "defamation per se," just as it is to other forms of defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, projection. Always a classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There seems be no extent to which Nunes won't go to be the high minded butt of self ridicule. He should focus more on Jim Baker's suggestion of lawyering up for the investigation in which he is likely to be one of the guests of honor, instead of working diligintly to alienate himself even more than he already has with these frivolous lawsuits (that his attorney should be sanctioned for filing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money...
Any bets that someone like Peter Thiel is the money behind Nunes' debacles? There is nothing too slimy for Thiel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While certainly possible, we haven't seen anything to indicate that is probable yet. How much have these lawsuits really cost Nunes to this point? Filing fees and a few hours of his atttorneys time.
The purpose of SLAPP lawsuits is not to litigate, but to make the defendant submit out of fear of how much it could cost them. Nunes, for the most part, has tried to avoid lawsuits in states with decent anti-SLAPP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]