NY Times getting sued for 250 million over Covington!

How so? Do you think he’s paying Lin Wood?????? Originally Posted by bambino

This is basically settled law. Even Justic Thomas sided with the defense in a similar case recently. Lots of legal experts who argue these type of cases says he had almost no chance of success.

New York Times vs Sullivan (1964) makes this case almost impossible to win

This is basically settled law. Even Justic Thomas sided with the defense in a similar case recently. Lots of legal experts who argue these type of cases says he had almost no chance of success.

New York Times vs Sullivan (1964) makes this case almost impossible to win Originally Posted by BigLouie

And then there’s this:

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/20...richard-jewell

Wood won those settlements for Jewell. I doubt he would waste his time if he didn’t think he would be successful. I’ll take his legal acumen over yours and WTFs any day.

And then there’s this:

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/20...richard-jewell

Wood won those settlements for Jewell. I doubt he would waste his time if he didn’t think he would be successful. I’ll take his legal acumen over yours and WTFs any day. Originally Posted by bambino

Not exactly, most settled probably because their liability insurance companies would rather pay a little rather than go to trial. The Atlanta Journal did go to trail and all claims were rejected and the cases dismissed.

The pertaining fact in this case is Sandmann is a minor.

The media and celebrities were willing to vilify this young man out of their hatred of President Trump.

Bring lawsuits sgainst them all. The bitches on the View are next.

Minors are not even supposed to be discussed here.

And then there’s this:

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/27/olympic-park-bombings-atlanta-1996-richard-jewell

Wood won those settlements for Jewell. I doubt he would waste his time if he didn’t think he would be successful. I’ll take his legal acumen over yours and WTFs any day. Originally Posted by bambino

Your ignorance on the matter of both Jewel and the Duke team is astounding if you are trying to compare it to this case.

The Duke case was a crooked DA.

As Louis said the Jewel the publication that did not settle and went to court, prevailed.

Jewell also sued the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper. According to Jewell, the paper's headline, FBI suspects 'hero' guard may have planted bomb, "pretty much started the whirlwind".[15] In one article, the Atlanta Journal compared Richard Jewell's case to that of serial killer Wayne Williams.[20][21]
The newspaper was the only defendant that did not settle with Jewell. The lawsuit remained pending for several years, after having been considered at one time by the Supreme Court of Georgia, and had become an important part of case law regarding whether journalists could be forced to reveal their sources. Jewell's estate continued to press the case even after Jewell's death but in July 2011 all of its claims were ultimately rejected by the Georgia Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action."[22]

The pertaining fact in this case is Sandmann is a minor.

The media and celebrities were willing to vilify this young man out of their hatred of President Trump.

Bring lawsuits sgainst them all. The bitches on the View are next. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The young man put himself in the middle of a political shitstorm by protesting in Washington DC with what some consider a racist hat on.

One can not really blame the kid but we can his parents for actually suing. They should do wtf our parents did back in the day...."You learnt a valuable lesson sonny." and left it at that. But no....nowdays you got people suing everytime their feelings get hurt. We are turning soft as a nation.

Not exactly, most settled probably because their liability insurance companies would rather pay a little rather than go to trial. The Atlanta Journal did go to trail and all claims were rejected and the cases dismissed. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Exactly!!!!! You made my point. Duke didn’t go to court, they settled for a reported 60 fucking million. Wood is suing everyone. Some will certainly settle.

Your ignorance on the matter of both Jewel and the Duke team is astounding if you are trying to compare it to this case.

The Duke case was a crooked DA.

As Louis said the Jewel the publication that did not settle and went to court, prevailed.

Jewell also sued the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper. According to Jewell, the paper's headline, FBI suspects 'hero' guard may have planted bomb, "pretty much started the whirlwind".[15] In one article, the Atlanta Journal compared Richard Jewell's case to that of serial killer Wayne Williams.[20][21]
The newspaper was the only defendant that did not settle with Jewell. The lawsuit remained pending for several years, after having been considered at one time by the Supreme Court of Georgia, and had become an important part of case law regarding whether journalists could be forced to reveal their sources. Jewell's estate continued to press the case even after Jewell's death but in July 2011 all of its claims were ultimately rejected by the Georgia Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action."[22]



The young man put himself in the middle of a political shitstorm by protesting in Washington DC with what some consider a racist hat on.

One can not really blame the kid but we can his parents for actually suing. They should do wtf our parents did back in the day...."You learnt a valuable lesson sonny." and left it at that. But no....nowdays you got people suing everytime their feelings get hurt. We are turning soft as a nation. Originally Posted by WTF

So what hat can you wear now that someone can say it’s racist? NASCAR hats? Rapper hats? You’re a lunatic. The kid didn’t do a thing wrong. Maybe you should join the Black Israeli group. Or beat a drum like Nathan Philipps. That kid had every right to be there and act responsibly. Which he did.

Exactly!!!!! You made my point. Duke didn’t go to court, they settled for a reported 60 fucking million. Wood is suing everyone. Some will certainly settle. Originally Posted by bambino

Duke is not a newspaper....you got your litter box and M&M's mixed up. Be careful what you put in your mouth bambino.

The kid has no case....this is just an attempted shake down.

So what hat can you wear now that someone can say it’s racist? NASCAR hats? Rapper hats? You’re a lunatic. The kid didn’t do a thing wrong. Maybe you should join the Black Israeli group. Or beat a drum like Nathan Philipps. That kid had every right to be there and act responsibly. Which he did. Originally Posted by bambino

I'll not argue with any of that. Hell the Black wtf ever they are called , had a right to act like they did. The Injun was within his rights.

Everyone was within their rights....why the fuck is anybody suing? Because it took a while for the facts to come out? Come on man, the facts came out....sue twitter for turning the world into a report the video first and check the facts later. Trump is actually one of the worst abusers of posting inaccurate facts than any other human on the planet. I find this whole thing amusing. maybe WaPo should have reported he was an paid actor....

So now it's slander to state your opinion in America? No freedom of speech? Fuck that little douche-bag and his cum slurping supporters

Mahr can't say he thinks the little prick is a little prick but "client number three" and carlson can open their cockholes and say whatever they want because it's opinion?

The fox assholes get their say just like Mahr.


And come on. He is a smug little bastard. Just like a trumpy. The arrogance of ignorance.

Note it is the Washington Post being sued and NOT the New York Times as the heading states. Note also the amount is the exact amount that was paid for Post which leads me to suspect that either Trump or someone close to Trump is behind the case. The boy and his family is being played. if he loses and has to pony up the legal fees for the Post it is my guess that whoever came up with the idea is going to slink away and leave the family stuck.

Exactly...they are just trying to fire up Trumps base. They are just doing this until the election.

Kind of like the Benghazi investigation get wrapped up right after the November 2016 election.... it shut down

Duke is not a newspaper....you got your litter box and M&M's mixed up. Be careful what you put in your mouth bambino.

The kid has no case....this is just an attempted shake down. Originally Posted by WTF

It’s you that’s eating in your litter box. It’s you that said you can’t calculate future earnings for young people who never worked. Well, Duke settled for 60 million to kids who never worked. They didn’t sue the DA, they sued Duke for slander. It is the same type of case. Were they ginning up the Trump base then? How ridiculous. Wood is going to sue a lot of people and I’ll bet some are going to settle instead of spending time and money in court.

Saying stuff over and over doesn't make it true. If the NYT gets something wrong, they correct it.
You, trump and your ilk, not so much. You people don't acknowledge trump lies on a daily basis, let alone correct past lies.

"Donald Trump says New York Times apologized for 'bad coverage' of him
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The @nytimes sent a letter to their subscribers apologizing for their BAD coverage of me. I wonder if it will change - doubt it?


Trump’s tweet is a distorted and over-the-top description of a Nov. 13 letter to readers from the New York Times’ publisher and executive editor.

The 200-word letter primarily serves to thank readers for their loyalty and to say that New York Times will "rededicate" itself to the high journalistic standards it has employed thus far.

Nowhere in the letter did the authors write anything like an apology. Nor did they say that the organization’s overall coverage of Trump was "bad."

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said Trump was referring to the fact that the letter includes an admission that the New York Times underestimated Trump’s chances. The letter said the outcome was "unexpected" and posed the rhetorical question: "Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?"

At times during the election, the New York Times presidential poll forecast predicted Hillary Clinton had more than a 90 percent chance of winning the election, and that turned out to be incorrect.

"Doesn’t that speak volumes about the coverage?" Cheung said of the inaccurate predictions at the New York Times and elsewhere. "It wasn’t just a disservice to President-elect Trump, but it’s also a disservice to the voters looking for reliable coverage — which they obviously didn’t get during the election."

But predictions and polling are just two aspects of the New York Times’ Trump coverage throughout the campaign season.

They also broke the story that he likely didn’t pay federal income taxes for years, on top of stories about women who claimed Trump groped them. On the other side, the New York Times also broke the news that Clinton used a private email server.

The letter from publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and executive editor Dean Baquet praised the organization’s work overall. It said reporters consistently covered the election "with agility and creativity" and that they will cover the new president with "the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence" that they already do.

So it’s a stretch to say the letter’s line about an inaccurate prediction is an admission of "bad coverage" of Trump overall, nor is it an apology.

A spokeswoman for the New York Times told PolitiFact: "We're incredibly proud of our coverage of the 2016 campaign. There was no suggestion either in our note to staff, or the note to subscribers, that we were apologizing."

Certainly, the New York Times and other media outlets are reflecting on their coverage from the year and why they so underestimated Trump’s support. The New York Times public editor Liz Spayd, for example, wrote Nov. 9 that reporters could have done more to immerse themselves in Trump supporters’ lives.

Our ruling

Trump said, "The @nytimes sent a letter to their subscribers apologizing for their BAD coverage of me."

The New York Times sent a letter to subscribers thanking them for their loyalty and promising to provide strong coverage of Trump going forward.

While the letter does note that the New York Times underestimated support for Trump, it does not say their coverage of him throughout the campaign was bad. In fact, the letter praises New York Times reporters’ work.

The note does not include any semblance of an apology.

We rate Trump’s claim False."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ogized-bad-co/

It should be easy to find a link that proves your statement. Let see one.

let them go down. they deserve it. the NY Times engaged in knowingly biased coverage of Trump on order by senior editors at the least, if not directly from top management to throw any dirt they could, true or not.

it all blew up on them where they had to admit to their readers they slanted their coverage to favor Clinton and slam Trump. they had to admit to embellished reporting if not outright base rumor mongering for the sensational effect.

i want them to lose so much money they fold. not even worth wiping yer ass with. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid