Suit by Covington Catholic student against Washington Post dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Dream on. In the current climate the Entitled Mr. Sandmann's suit wasn't going to go over so well. He took whatever the WaPo offered, which today is probably much less than it was before George Floyd's death.

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the Washington Post didn't want there to be any document discovery that Fox News and other outlets could use to expose the WaPo's political agenda? Also, why settle the case if the WaPo didn't do anything wrong? Isn't that the logic that the Left used against Trump when he settled various lawsuits and entered into confidentiality agreements?

Corporations settle cases every day, even though they know they did nothing wrong. It's one of the prices of doing business. In this case I'm sure it's Sandmann who pushed for the settlement. Now he can go to college and do douchey fratboy things without worrying that it'll hurt his court case.

Why are you so sure? So using your logic, every settlement that Trump has entered into is a "price of doing business" and we must assume that he did nothing wrong?

Can't have it both ways.

I'm sure that's how Trump thinks of it. You know that's one reason why NY wants to see Trump's taxes - to see if his payoff to Stormy was deducted as a legal expense.

But you obviously don't. So a double standard once again. If the WaPo settles, that's a cost of doing business. If Trump settles, he's trying to hide something. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile the owner of WaPo net worth grew by $13 billion on Monday. Petty cash.

But the reporters and editors didn’t see any of it. And that’s also where this settlement will be be paid for with - from money that would’ve gone to reporters and staffers. It delights me that they’ll pay for this while Bezzos gets richer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Absurd.

SMH

Agreed. Another whiny, entitled jerk. Guarantee he's up on sexual assault charges before the age of 24.

Care to make a wager on this?

Say, $1,000?

If I win, you stroke a $1,000 check to the NRA Eddie Eagle Youth Gun Safety Program.

If you win, I give $1,000 to the charity of your choice.


Deal?

We can post our contact info and make the bet off-line. Maybe we both put up our money for a third party to hold, and see who wins.

Sound good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Absurd.

SMH

Agreed. Another whiny, entitled jerk. Guarantee he's up on sexual assault charges before the age of 24.

Care to make a wager on this?

Say, $1,000?

If I win, you stroke a $1,000 check to the NRA Eddie Eagle Youth Gun Safety Program.

If you win, I give $1,000 to the charity of your choice.


Deal?

We can post our contact info and make the bet off-line. Maybe we both put up our money for a third party to hold, and see who wins.

Sound good?

Your stereotyping is highly amusing.

[Anonymous]

Cue the "he didn’t get much" posters, even though they have no idea. He got more than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Absurd.

SMH

Agreed. Another whiny, entitled jerk. Guarantee he's up on sexual assault charges before the age of 24.

Care to make a wager on this?

Say, $1,000?

If I win, you stroke a $1,000 check to the NRA Eddie Eagle Youth Gun Safety Program.

If you win, I give $1,000 to the charity of your choice.


Deal?

We can post our contact info and make the bet off-line. Maybe we both put up our money for a third party to hold, and see who wins.

Sound good?

You go PP. apparently today is Nicks 18th birthday. Very happy for him that he got this generous gift

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile the owner of WaPo net worth grew by $13 billion on Monday. Petty cash.

But the reporters and editors didn’t see any of it. And that’s also where this settlement will be be paid for with - from money that would’ve gone to reporters and staffers. It delights me that they’ll pay for this while Bezzos gets richer.

No, it’ll be insurance money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Dream on. In the current climate the Entitled Mr. Sandmann's suit wasn't going to go over so well. He took whatever the WaPo offered, which today is probably much less than it was before George Floyd's death.

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the Washington Post didn't want there to be any document discovery that Fox News and other outlets could use to expose the WaPo's political agenda? Also, why settle the case if the WaPo didn't do anything wrong? Isn't that the logic that the Left used against Trump when he settled various lawsuits and entered into confidentiality agreements?

Corporations settle cases every day, even though they know they did nothing wrong. It's one of the prices of doing business. In this case I'm sure it's Sandmann who pushed for the settlement. Now he can go to college and do douchey fratboy things without worrying that it'll hurt his court case.

Why are you so sure? So using your logic, every settlement that Trump has entered into is a "price of doing business" and we must assume that he did nothing wrong?

Can't have it both ways.

I'm sure that's how Trump thinks of it. You know that's one reason why NY wants to see Trump's taxes - to see if his payoff to Stormy was deducted as a legal expense.

But you obviously don't. So a double standard once again. If the WaPo settles, that's a cost of doing business. If Trump settles, he's trying to hide something. Got it.

NP.
How many suits has Trumpy brought?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Source or speculation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cue the "he didn’t get much" posters, even though they have no idea. He got more than you.

Kid got sold up the river for clicks by the mainstream media.....he deserves every penny and what little public trust there is left in the media should erode to zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Philips felt “he was being blocked.”

When you watch the video, you can clearly see the guy went straight up to the kid for a confrontation. Anyone with a brain can see this.

Yep. Sadly, few people with brains at the WaPo. Why they would even publish this drivel is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

Raise your kids well and you won't have to worry about things like this.

Raise your kids well, and you won't have to worry that they'll steal, mug, and murder people.

+1
See: NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc. etc. So many poorly raised kids thinking they have the right to destroy our cities. I'll take a kid standing still and politely smiling any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

A defamation suit is the wrong way to address that.

Hitting corporations in their wallet seems to be the only way.

Filing frivolous lawsuits? Great strategy.

I totally disagree that it was frivolous, and I hope they pursue it further.

With the Washington Post? They were merely quoting statements made by others. That is not defamation. You need to stop letting emotion cloud your critical thinking. You should read the Constitution and its Amendments sometime. His lawyer should be counter sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He should know the elements of defamation. He probably knew it was a clunker and wasted everyone's time to enhance his own profile.

I'm not an attorney, but it's disgusting that news media sources can do that (I'm not necessarily referring to this case) without penalty.

Yes it is obvious you are not an attorney and why is it disgusting? That’s what reporting is. Do you seriously want journalists to be liable for quotes? That would be the end of newspapers and blogs and pretty much all forms of journalism.

Use you brain.

PP here. I happen to think that it's wrong for people's lives to be turned upside down (example--someone accused of abuse, rape, etc) by "quoted information" in the papers and repeated on tv stations, internet, etc. and then an often weak or buried retraction that isn't seen or heard by as many people. We all know that news media can slant the delivery of info to influence public opinion as well.

+ a million
Can't wait to pull out this thread the next time some liberal idiot is unhappy about being quoted saying idiotic things. Oh well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that kid is a little sh#t.
But as a parent I’m disappointed in this ruling...

This culture of reporting what is trending is bad for all of us.
He may be a little prick, but the whole thing was misrepresented/misreported by the media for the first day or two.

A defamation suit is the wrong way to address that.

Hitting corporations in their wallet seems to be the only way.

Filing frivolous lawsuits? Great strategy.

I totally disagree that it was frivolous, and I hope they pursue it further.

With the Washington Post? They were merely quoting statements made by others. That is not defamation. You need to stop letting emotion cloud your critical thinking. You should read the Constitution and its Amendments sometime. His lawyer should be counter sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit. He should know the elements of defamation. He probably knew it was a clunker and wasted everyone's time to enhance his own profile.

I'm not an attorney, but it's disgusting that news media sources can do that (I'm not necessarily referring to this case) without penalty.

+100
Completely agree. It’s such a cop out to say, “well, we were simply repeating what so and so said...” Like the school gossip who plays passive-aggressive while spreading gossip and lies.

+200
Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$2.5 million

Absurd.

SMH

You jealous?