Did CNN’s Stelter Shatter The Sandmann Confidentiality Agreement?

Wood objected to a retweet from Stelter of a tweet from attorney Mark Zaid, who wrote “Those with zero legal experience (as far as I can tell) should not be conjecturing on lawsuits they know nothing about. What kind of journalism is that? I’ve litigated defamation cases. [Sandmann] was undoubtedly paid nuisance value settlement & nothing more.”

It is a rather ironic tweet since presumably Zaid has no knowledge or involvement in the settlement. Whatever “kind of journalism” or lawyering is involved, there is no way for any of us to know what was paid to Sandmann.

Wood went on the attack after the retweet: “This retweet by @brianstelter may have cost him his job at @CNN. It is called breach of confidentiality agreement. Brian Stelter is a liar. I know how to deal with liars,” Wood tweeted with a screenshot of Stelter’s retweet.


CNN analyst Asha Rangappa also weighed in and agreed with Zaid that “I’d guess $25K to go away.”


Wood also responded to that retweet by saying “Heads are going to roll at CNN or @N1ckSandmann is going to filing another lawsuit & reveal truth.”

At the outset, as I stated in the recent blog column, I find it astonishing and frankly disgraceful that media figures continue to downplay what happened to this 16-year-old boy in false accounts that ran nationally on his encounter.  Neither he nor his lawsuit should be described as nuisances or improper. It was chilling to see a kid treated to such an abusive media frenzy including comparisons to George Zimmerman who killed an unarmed African American.  The lack of empathy by figures like Stelter and Rangappa is striking in suggesting that this complaint should just “go away” like a strike suit or nuisance action filed by some crank. The media was wrong in its abuse of this kid. Terribly wrong. Yet, media figures continue to attack him for somehow causing this controversy.

Now to the legal issue.  We do not know the language of the confidentiality agreement anymore than Zaid does. Often these agreements include provisions that bind the employees of the signatories. That is meant to avoid precisely this danger of companies attacking the other party through its employees while claiming adherence to the agreement as a corporate entity.

That however is tough when the entity is a new organization and this is news.  For example, people look to Rangappa for legal analysis and she was analyzing the story.  Moreover these tweets could be viewed by a court as de minimis, particularly Rangappa’s six words.  Neither Stelter not Rangappa claimed knowledge of the settlement or disclosed terms. They did appear to disparage the underlying lawsuit and did comment directly on the settlement. That would technically trigger provisions of the agreement and it is the dilemma faced by CNN when it signs such agreements.

There is an interesting analogy to confidentiality agreements limiting future analysis or comments.  Some confidentiality agreements seek to limit the ability of lawyers to represent individuals in the future.  Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 states that a lawyer shall not participate in “an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.”

Here the agreement would contain a restriction of a news organization covering or discussing the settlement as part of a national news story.

The question could come down to the language. There are actually two types of provisions that could come into play, not one.  First, there can be a confidentiality provision barring comments on the settlement other than an approved statement.  These agreements often not only cover “disclosure” of terms but also comments on such terms.  Thus, parties will sometimes agree that they will not allow anyone to make “statements or otherwise permit or cause any publicity, directly or indirectly, concerning any Settlement Information.”

Second, there is often a non-disparagement provision preventing “heirs, assigns, agents, employees and attorneys shall not disparage or make any derogatory remarks whatsoever about any of the other parties thereto or their heirs, assigns, agents, officers, directors, employees and attorneys.”

CNN’s lawyers obviously knew that this would be a newsworthy story so they had a choice of allowing their employees to discuss the settlement or barring such comments. If they did the latter, the attorneys would ordinarily send around a memo informing all employees that they are not to comment on the settlement or go beyond an approved statement.

It will come down, therefore, to terms. However, much like not knowing about the money exchanged in any settlement, we do not know the terms.  There is no reason to assume that there was a tiny payment for nuisance value any more than a windfall. As we discussed earlier, the complaint against the Washington Post was dismissed as opinion but a court reinstated part of the complaint on appeal.  That does not mean that it was a strong case for trial but there are plenty of settlements are reached on meritorious actions to avoid discovery or trial or the risk of an adverse trial verdict.

The attorneys for CNN may be the most miffed.  Media lawyers are often the ones pushing for confidentiality because they do not want to encourage future lawsuits by stories of settlement payments. If these CNN employees are covered in the agreement, it could permit the filing of a new action for breach and a demand for damages.  This could prove a couple of costly tweets for the company.  However, if it turns out that way, the story shows the difficulty faced by media counsel in crafting non-disclosure agreements on issues of national concern. Ironically, in that respect, CNN finds itself in the same type of controversy over non-disclosure agreements that it has covered with respect to President Trump.


159 thoughts on “Did CNN’s Stelter Shatter The Sandmann Confidentiality Agreement?”

  1. The brilliant film “Mr. Jones” will help ensure that neither the evil of the Marxist regime nor its victims in that vast graveyard will be forgotten….

    the current crop of left wing ideologues at CNN et al are intent on resurrecting Walter Duranty’s lies for Marxists and destruction of innocent people. They learned nothing in journalism school

    Stalin’s Man at the New York Times


    A film explores the monstrous Soviet horror and the cover-up by a Pulitzer winner.

    “The words ‘must see’ are grotesquely overused in movie reviews, but in this case, they are apt,” writes Francis Maier. He’s talking about the remarkable film, “Mr. Jones,” currently available on Amazon and other platforms. It is a story of Soviet communist horror and the New York Times writer who enabled it.

    “At a time when lying, bullying, and violence seem to be making a comeback in the vestments of progress, equality, and justice,” Mr. Maier notes that the film “is a useful lesson in consequences. It’s an opportunity to watch and learn.”

    Anthony Lane explains in the New Yorker:

    What matters in “Mr. Jones” is the Holodomor, the famine that befell Ukraine in the years 1932-33. Current scholarship estimates that just under four million people died. They did not pass away from natural causes. The best and the most detailed English-language study of the subject is “Red Famine,” a 2017 book by Anne Applebaum, who demonstrates that starvation was a deliberate policy, enforced by Stalin through the requisition of crops and other products and the widespread persecution, deportation, or even execution of the non-compliant. His grand scheme of collectivized farming had failed, as any local farmer could have predicted, yet it was not ideologically allowed to fail. Who better than the Ukrainians, so often distrusted and demonized by Moscow, to be cast as scapegoats and saboteurs?
    National Review’s Kyle Smith writes:

    The genius move of this scathing and suspenseful film by Poland’s Agnieszka Holland (who was once arrested by the Soviets, during the Prague Spring) is in whom it selects to be the menacing, dead-eyed apparatchik with a cold determination to search out and destroy any threats to the regime: He is none other than Walter Duranty, the New York Times’s man in Moscow, or rather Moscow’s man at the New York Times. Duranty is portrayed by one of the screen’s true masters of all things snaky and slimy, Peter Sarsgaard. Sarsgaard, Holland, and screenwriter Andrea Chalupa perform such a vicious act of celluloid vivisection on Duranty that Mr. Jones may restore your faith in movies.
    The film’s title character is the real-life Gareth Jones, a young Welsh journalist in the 1930s who risked everything to tell the truth about communist mass murder. Mr. Lane notes:

    It was Duranty who, in brushing off Jones’s account of the atrocities, blithely explained to Times readers, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs”—one of the most shameful phrases in the history of the newspaper. The eggs were human beings.
    This determination not to know, or to look away when the facts admonish our beliefs, is among our most durable frailties, and Duranty was but the first of many skeptics. As late as 1988, an article in the Village Voice, reviling “one-note faminologists” and accusing them of falsehood, bore the subtitle “A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right,” as if the urge to verify hardship and grief were no more than a Reaganite affectation. Twenty years later, Dimitry Medvedev, Russia’s President at the time, referred to the “so-called Holodomor.” Any discussion of Ukraine’s being intentionally victimized, he added, would be “cynical and immoral.”
    Jami Ganz interviews filmmaker Agnieszka Holland in the New York Daily News:

    “I was thinking for quite a long time, since the end of the Iron Curtain, that very quickly we forgot and forgive the communist crimes. And some crimes against humanity are unbearable,” the Oscar nominee, 71, told the Daily News.
    Noting that much of the world “is not really familiar” with the film’s events, Holland added that even the true death toll is unknown.
    “No one speaks about it. No one knows about it,” she said. “So I thought that somehow it is a duty to put a light on that.”
    Emily Zemler writes in the Observer:

    To prepare to play Duranty, Sarsgaard read a few books about him and attempted to read his novels (which he doesn’t recommend). The actor also asked several journalists their perceptions and opinions of Duranty during a press junket for one of his films, just to see if people knew his story. He found that about a third of the journalists had heard of Duranty and those who were familiar felt strongly that Duranty’s Pulitzer should be returned.
    Perhaps busy with other issues lately, somehow the New York Times newsroom permitted the newspaper’s Manohla Dargis to write that the film is a “political thriller with an insistent, steady pulse.” The Times film critic adds:

    Holland is one of those filmmakers who doesn’t need dialogue to express meaning, and some of the strongest scenes in “Mr. Jones” are wordless or nearly so. Once Gareth leaves for Ukraine, the movie settles into an increasingly eerie, almost otherworldly calm. There’s a touch of danger to some of this stillness, as when other passengers in Gareth’s train car watch him eat with great intensity. (When he throws away a scrap, several scramble to retrieve it.) By the time he has ditched his government minder — sneaking away to tramp by foot through the snowbound, depopulated countryside — it seems as if he were walking through a vast graveyard.

    The brilliant film “Mr. Jones” will help ensure that neither the evil of the Marxist regime nor its victims in that vast graveyard will be forgotten.

  2. These tweets name CNN. CNN encourages us to trust and believe its talking heads. CNN asserts their reporters check facts. So to me, as a non lawyer, it’s fairly clear. As they stand these are like any other claim reported by CNN. In no news cast does a presenter preface each claim with an explicit assertion it’s a CNN claim; all their claims are CNN claims. CNN could have required Stelter to not name CNN on his Tweets. They did not. Instead I think they view his Twitter presence as part of his reportage. I do. That’s the whole point of citing his CNN affiliation.

    CNN must explicitly repudiate these comments or it is in breach. I do not see any convincing repudiation short of dismissal.

    1. “These tweets name CNN.”

      No, they don’t. Neither Zaid’s tweet (retweeted by Stelter) nor Rangappa’s tweet name CNN. I don’t understand why you think they name CNN.

      “CNN must explicitly repudiate these comments or it is in breach.”

      Why are you even assuming that they’re referring to the CNN agreement with Sandmann (with occurred months ago) rather than referring to The Washington Post agreement with Sandmann (which was announced on the same day as the tweets)?

      1. Why are you invested in spreading lies? What is your Reward on investment on repudiating truth and propagadting the discredited CNN, WP, NYT, etc?

        1. “Why are you invested in spreading lies?” and “What is your Reward on investment on repudiating truth and propagadting the discredited CNN, WP, NYT, etc?” are loaded questions (https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#LoadedQuestion) which assume things you haven’t demonstrated.

          Let’s start with your assumption that I was “spreading lies” — i.e., that I’ve knowingly said something false. Please (a) quote whatever I’ve written that you believe to be false, (b) provide evidence that it’s false, and (c) provide evidence that I knew it was false.

      2. You will find this at the top of Stelter’s feed

        Anchor of
        @CNN’s chief media correspondent.

        As for the connection to CNN’s settlement, read Turley’s post.

        1. @Ken B:

          You’re trying to move the goalposts.

          You said “These tweets name CNN,” but now you’re referring to “the top of Stelter’s feed,” not his tweet. The top of his feed isn’t a tweet. All Stelter’s tweet says is “Brian Stelter Retweeted” followed by Zaid’s tweet (click on the copy in the column if you doubt this, Sandmann’s attorney has a photo of it). And you’re silent about Rangappa’s tweet, which doesn’t name CNN either.

          Re: “As for the connection to CNN’s settlement, read Turley’s post,” I read his post earlier, and quoted from it, pointing out his errors:

          Turley is often sloppy with details and evidence. But I’m not going to be, and you don’t have to be either..

          1. CTHD is most certainly sloppy which sometimes hides his pettyness along with a more important issue, the fact that he doesn’t deal with the core of the discussion preferring to pick away at things having no importance or pertinence.

  3. In 1860, the president smashed the presses and threw the publishers in prison.

    In 2020, the presses smash the administration and the editors try to throw the president in prison.

    In 1860, the president seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled through executive order and proclamation.

    In 2020, the president must do the same.

    America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  4. Let me get this straight. CNN et al were sued for falsely disparaging a minor. They settled, and then…their analysts again falsely disparaged him again, claiming he was probably given a piddly amount since his was just a nuisance suit.

    There is a trend in CNN repeatedly getting the facts wrong. They couldn’t find journalistic integrity with both hands and a map.

    They used to have a good reputation.


    1. Please spare us the cutesy Tia Carrera “pity” line from “True Lies”. And..no one “falsely disparaged” that little beeoth, either.

  5. Just wondering when Turley is going to come to the defense of the many, many people Trump defames on his twitter feed daily – many of them non-public figures.

    No, Turley only wants to silence the free press.

    1. “No, Turley only wants to silence the free press.” You’re talking nonsense. Turley believes in Free Speech, regardless of if he agrees with it or not. Do you even read the blog? Apparently, not, as he has also repeatedly condemned Trump for lashing out at other public figures.

      So few bother to research facts before they run their mouths, spreading false and malicious gossip.

  6. Media:. If you defame then we blame. And we don’t watch your network anymore. Tell that to your advertisers.

  7. No, Turley, this isn’t a “major public controversy”, and no, that smirking little redneck from Kentucky isn’t any victim, either. He is the arrogant spoiled brat he appears to be, and became a public figure by his own choice by mocking the Native American while cameras were rolling. Everyone knows that sh*t eating grin was not a smile of friendliness. It’s only after people started criticizing him for being a hypocrite because he attends a Catholic school and was mocking someone’s religion that he suddenly became a victim. Now, Turley’s trying to help him get more free money by suggesting that the settlement agreement was violated by suggesting that he was only paid a nuisance settlement.

    But, today’s piece is another element of the larger picture of Turley’s assignment: come up with ways to attack mainstream media, to feed into the narrative that poor little Turmpy Bear has been treated unfairly by the “biased” media.

    1. Natch repeats slanders against the boy– and adds insults to Turley each day

      Let’s see what I think MAY BE true. i don’t claim that it is. just speculating

      You’re arrogant and presumptuous and rude (actually that much clearly is true)
      You are full of confidence in your own poorly informed opinions

      they reflect a person behind the screen that MAY BE” an angry old white lady full of self loathing and probably struggling with obesity and a big credit card balance from habitually buying too much cheap and useless junk, motivated by decades of excessive tv watching that you should have spent exercising
      a saggy and haggard face that would be pleasant except there is no pleasantness inside you, just pique and anger

      or perhaps not; how would I know? but neither do you know anything about the “redneck spoiled brat” who just got his payday

      wait — maybe that’s it. you’re seething with jealousy over the money! lol pathetic, spiteful shrew; termagant!~

    2. Native American?

      Indians use tribal names.

      Indians do not refer to themselves as Americans.

      Indians came from Asia as undocumented emigres.

      Undocumented emigres from Asia emerged on this continent millennia before there was an America.

      Indians were mortal enemies of the British/Europeans who did not become Americans until 1789.

      What in the —- are you talking about?

      Your preposterous, forged utterances are those of a swindler attempting to permute reality in order to surreptitiously appropriate other people’s money, culture and nation.


      Why do they allow you?

    3. You are correct sir. This was a video circulating on Utube millions of times before CNN got involved. People had their own reactions to the smirking kids; it wasn’t an interpretation CNN thrust upon them. He looked like he was being an a-hole; which wasn’t that unusual or that big a deal. Because he was being an a-hole in a mAGA hat all the other MAGA hat wearing types decided they needed to come to the rescue of this kid; who should probably have just let it go.

      1. He looked like he was being an a-hole; which wasn’t that unusual or that big a deal.

        No he didn’t. You’re a jack-wagon and you project your bad attitude on normal human beings.

    4. You’re wrong on this one Natasha. Look at more video of the incident.

      Sandman was not smirking, he was trying to maintain composure after the Indian freak jumped in his face while beating a drum and singing something in a language the kid would have no way of recognizing. The Indian claimed he was trying to bring peace to the situation but made no effort to actually communicate with a minor by, you know, smiling, or saying something in English the kid might understand as seeking peace and fellowship. In any case, he was a kid! So were the rest of that group and of the 3 parties who interacted there that day – counting the Indians, the black religious nuts, and the church group from Kentucky – they were the most well behaved. Yeah, some were wearing the stupid hats. They’re kids. Their opinions aren’t formed or earned. Some of them will be Bernie Bros when he runs again in 2028.

    5. Natacha – as an “ambulance chaser” you must know the most about nuisance claims. However, this Nick Sandmann was vilified by a US Senator (who is trying to get out of it) [you can guess her name]. Anyone spending 15 minutes of investigations would have known that Mr Sandmann was the victim. Almost all news networks did not do due diligence. That included CNN and WaPa.

    6. Natacha:

      You have really outdone yourself this time. These were minors, who stood there waiting for their ride while the Black Israelites shouted racist, antisemitic screed at them. Then this grown Native American man, Nathan Phillips, confronted them and beat a trump inches from Nick Sandmann’s nose. He was smiling, trying to remain calm, in the face of multiple adults acting with hostility. He was praying to God these grown men didn’t assault them.

      He. Did. Nothing. Wrong. If you think smiling to diffuse the situation is a sin, then that’s crazier than 2 left shoes. He did not breathe a word of insult to any of these aggressive men, even though he had been provoked. He stayed quiet and calm.

      Adults could learn from his restraint and poise.

      Natacha, when you cyberbully an innocent person who was a minor at the time, it’s despicable.

      “Everyone knows” what he was thinking? Do you have a telepathy tinfoil hat? He didn’t mock anyone’s religion. Shame on you.

      1. You went away for awhile, but now you’re back, again trying to pretend that you’re knowledgeable, defending things you hear on Fox, which constantly attacks CNN. I saw video of the entire exchange. He wasn’t the only smirking a-hole there, and they were all Catholic school students making fun of the Native American. His smirk was not kind or friendly, and he was wearing a MAGA hat, which puts a lot of context into the entire situation. Why didn’t he just step back and mind his own business or move down the way a piece? He knew he was being filmed, and it was all very funny until people started pointing out what hypocrites these Catholic school boys were for mocking an old man playing his drum and singing in a language they didn’t know. There was even talk of expelling him from his school, and then he became the victim. What about the fellow hill jacks who were openly laughing at the old man? Context is everything. Wearing a MAGA hat says you agree with caging young brown children and their parents for seeking asylum, praising White Supremacists as “good people”, that you agree that brown people are “murderers, rapists, criminals and animals”, that you think it’s fine to disrespect a Gold Star family because they are Muslim…the list goes on. Someone wearing a MAGA hat and smirking at an old Native American man singing and playing his drum while others of your group are openly laughing at him, is a jerk, and if they go to Catholic school, a hypocrite, but certainly no victim.

        1. Natacha,
          If your tripe on this blog is permissible, surely a 16 year old, peacefully wearing a MAGA hat in our nation’s capital, is more so. Speaking for myself, I’m a Christian and not only do I smirk at the nonsense you post, I LOL. 🙂

        2. Natasha, I’d make fun of that dipsh.. geezer and I’m older than he was. If he was a catholic and popped up in front of some Muslim kids doing Ave Marias in their face, would that be cool? F…k no. Be a human first, then the Indian or whatever.

            1. Absolutely Seth. Like voting for Trump in 2016, it’s forgivable if one first believed the creepy Indian, but like still supporting Trump now, it’s just doubling down on ignorance and lying to still believe the creepy Indian.

          1. You, a fan of a mentally ill narcissist who cages brown people, including infants and young children, who calls Mexicans “rapists, criminals, animals and vermin”, who praises White Supremacists as “good people”, are calling someone else a “bigot”? Exactly what am I bigoted about? Hillbillies from Kentucky (who, sadly, don’t understand why they are hillbillies) wearing MAGA hats and laughing at a Native American man who was praying? Again, you are using words you don’t know the meaning of.

            1. Listen to the hateful Natacha spin out her venomous dislike of the white working class, the native born Americans, and people from Kentucky and Appalachia.

              Remember, she is a Democrat cheerleader, and not an uncommon type of one.

              This is why I don’t agree with Republicans running down the memory of the great Robert Byrd. He had his faults but he did not hate his own constituency. He represented them and gave them a voice in Congress.

              If the Democrat party was full up with Robert Byrds, then Trump never would have had to step forward and become President in the first place.

              Today you would think that the entire Democrat party was run by hateful Starbucks customers sipping lattes who went to college somewhere in New York city.

              1. Shut up Kurtz. You encourage racial hostility, so your pretend loyalty to the “working class” is as phony as it gets. By the way, there aren’t Starbucks customers to win 6 of the last 7 presidential votes. That takes the working class to get that.

                1. Working class includes workers of all races. So let’s deal with that, and ignore your taunt about racial things. because I don’t care anyhow, of course I am interested in the fate of my own group. That is a normal and healthy instinct. But, let’s look at the group of workers, as a whole. by this I mean, essentially, unskilled labor. So exclude from this highly skilled laborers and professionals. This is what i mean when i say the workers, for this subject, even though pretty much all of us are workers, since we have to live on wages. including me. but just looking at unskilled workers for this topic.

                  I assert, that the policy of Democrat party, is against the interests of the American working class.
                  I have one simple reason: more workers has a downward effect on workers’ wages.

                  Democrats want to encourage the migration of tens of millions of new workers into the US. Moreover, they want to naturalize or at least, legalize, a number of existing undocumented persons who are workers that are also in a number counted by tens of millions. IE, not just DACA but their parents.
                  Now naturalizing or normalizing existing tens of millions and inviting a few tens of millions more, means, a major downward pressure on unskilled laborers.

                  A fast influx of a large number of new workers will quickly spell into lower wages. This is what the Democrat party leadership wants, and how it responds to its major donors like billionaires Tom Steyer and Geo Soros who ardently believe that labor should be free to cross from the “global south” into America and Europe. because, in short, they are capitalist who employ labor, so they want to pay less for it. There is one basic way to achieve that: more workers. And since white natives do not breed excess population, they want to import the labor. Very simple equation and I am actually quite sure you understand it full well.

                  more laborers = lower wages. Democrats in every generation have encouraged more laborers. They do this why? Not because they represent workers interests one by one,. but because they represent the group as a whole. And the group as a whole, if they can grow it fast, due to their “leadership,” will be beholden to them, and lead by the nose.

                  One of my buddies explained this all to me when I was younger and I asked him why a certain union which shall remain unnamed, did not oppose illegal immigration. “Mexicans make better union members than natives” is what he told me. “they know how to stick together,” I was too stupid at the time to understand this so he spelled it out for me. “More guys paying dues, see?”

                  A true friend I was able to ask him about the tradeoff. He admitted that there was a downward pressure on wages from migrant labor. “However, we believe the tradeoff is in everyone’s interests.”

                  Now, if you are honest book, and I think you are, do you not admit that an increase in the labor supply, will have a downward effect on wages?

                  Anyhow, if you want to jab at Republicans, I can take a jab at them too. They are for “Right to work” laws that seek precisely this effect by moving industry south from the yankee states which are strong union states to the right to work states. But this is a vastly smaller number of jobs and workers concerned, so the overall effect on the national set of workers is somewhat less, than the ruinous and obviously bad policy Democrats have advanced by promoting mass migration from the third world now, going all the way back to the 1965 immigration Reform act.

                  PS if the black workforce is the least educated, then who will the mass migration of third world peoples hurt the most economically?
                  blacks. yes, a most loyal constituency of the Democrats, also the one which has had their economic interests most directly harmed by mass migration.

                  1. Kurtz:

                    1. Having over 12 million people here who are illegals without a path to citizenship depresses their wages, since they are hiding, and makes them more desirable bottom rung employees than American citizens with their higher wages plus legally required overhead.
                    2. We have a stagnant to declining birth rate. We need immigrants if sustaining economic growth remains our means to a good economy.
                    3. Over 80% of lost American jobs over the last couple of decades has been through automation. Yang brought this up during the primaries and you seemed in agreement then. This will be a challenge to deal with going forward, though based on a good thing, technological progress.
                    4. Democrats have consistently favored increasing the minimum wage, which will cause upward pressure on all lower tier wages, and the GOP has consistently opposed them. The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, or even close to it due to GOP opposition.
                    5. Democrats have been trying for 26 years to increase health coverage for poorer Americans while the GOP has promised their own plan which they then never produce. Instead they have done everything they can to weaken efforts in this direction by the Democrats.
                    6. The GOP always favor tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans while throwing short lived chicken feed to the working class, and then using the resulting deficits as an excuse to undercut programs like health care, child care, food stamps, and work-providing infrastructure, which would especially benefit the working class.

                    The only thing the GOP offers working class voters is racial and cultural resentment. That works with some.

                    1. Thanks for a serious reply Book.

                      t’s not up to me to answer that challenge to the Republican party– its up to Republicans who lead the party and keep it locked down and ossified.

                      Trump has failed to overhaul the Republican party as an organization. They respond to his dynamic leadership begrudgingly and with constant foot dragging to protect old bad habits. But he spends most of his time working on his day job and doesn’t do much to correct the lame old GOP which is stick in the mud with little imagination and usually content to play the role of “heel”

                      Now, I would argue that Trump has addressed the working class interests in fair trade vis a vis China, and to some extent the immigration issue, but not much more. There was also some economic growth due to his leadership before the COVID crushed us all. But these are just three issues; more could be done.

                      There could be a hundred initiatives to assist working class Americans. There have been precious few. Republicans do not work hard at trying to appeal to working class people the way that Trump has tried. there is Steve bannon who talks a lot about it but where are the specifics and initiatives.

                      The Republican party is stagnant, and paid off by many of the same networks of oligarchs who also pay off the Democrat leadership to remain corrupt and nonresponsive to good ideas.

                      I would be pleased to start with taxation. Please observe Trump; has raised taxes on imports. So this is a tax that a lot of billionaire importers really really dislike. The money collected may be passed on to customers, but it really hurts the importers like Bezos who hates Trump’s guts, or the exporters of agriculture products like Kroch bros who hate his guts too. So yes Trump has raised taxes and the pain going on Kroch bros and Bezos, I appplaud it.

                      Now i have 2 other initiatives to raise tax revenues in a way that helps the working class. Now in my mind, it will have other salutary effects too. But the main thing is,

                      I could think of a lot of other taxes to roll out too. How about taxing Apple corporation, that sells phones chock full of patents that were cooked up by taxpayer funded research in the first place? Isnt it perverse how Silicon valley has advanced itself on the taxpayer dime and does not pay its fair share? I think it is. I think we could find a bipartisan support for something like this.

                      I wonder if Democrats would join with me in an initiative to force universities to pay their fair share of property taxes? There’s a tax we can raise that would generate billions for nearby urban communities. I feel we could find some bipartisan support for this too. Personally I find it shameful how these billion dollar budget enterprises just keep growing and growing with all their unfair tax advantages sucking all the air out of metro areas.


                    2. The Fighting Irish of Ireland’s antitrust enforcement crew have kicked Apple in the shins, let’s do it too!


                      “It wasn’t meant to be like this for Margrethe Vestager, the European Union competition chief who’s made a name for herself as Silicon Valley’s worst nightmare.

                      Her order for Apple Inc. to pay back a record 13 billion-euros ($14.9 billion) in state aid from Ireland in 2016 sealed her reputation as the world’s most feared antitrust enforcer.

                      But the iPhone maker’s court victory on July 15, toppling the decision, risks leaving her crusade against unfair tax deals in tatters. It follows separate criticism that huge EU antitrust fines for Google have made little difference.

                      How she reacts now will define her attempts to ensure some of the world’s top companies pay their fair share of tax and that U.S. tech giants don’t abuse their power as they grow ever more dominant.

                      “This is a painful defeat” for Vestager after she “made tax rulings under state-aid rules a priority,” said Annabelle Lepiece, a lawyer at CMS, noting that this week’s reversal comes “hot on the heels” of another defeat involving Starbucks Corp.’s tax treatment in the Netherlands.

                      While she’s been depicted on social media caricatures as an ax-wielding Viking warrior, Vestager is a mild-mannered Dane who calmly bats off angry presidential tweets and Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook’s complaints that her decisions are “political crap.”

                      Fair treatment
                      Her motive, she says repeatedly, is to ensure fair treatment and to ensure all companies face the same tax rules. Her method was to deploy EU state-aid laws to go after secretive preferential agreements that big businesses often reach with tax authorities.

                      “The only comfort here is that the court agrees with us that we can use state-aid tools to look at fiscal state aid as well,” Vestager said in an online event on Thursday. “It was never so that state aid, too, will give us tax justice as such. Of course, we need to change legislation and implement it.”

                      A crack team of EU antitrust investigators, known as the tax-planning task force, has targeted Amazon.com Inc., Starbucks, Nike Inc. and Ikea for fiscal deals — known as tax rulings — they reached with Luxembourg or the Netherlands.

                      Along with Ireland, where Apple’s European headquarters are, the three countries have attracted many multinationals that shift profits across units. Ireland especially has become a favorite for U.S. tech giants, attracted by a low corporate tax rate that’s often criticized by bigger European countries.

                      What seemed like Vestager’s master stroke was to attack individual companies’ taxation arrangements and push countries to change tax rules. She extracted progress that years of EU governments had failed to achieve. Until recently, tax was a taboo issue among EU nations, with any of them — often Ireland or the U.K. — able to threaten a veto to any effort to push for more uniform tax rates or treatment.

                      Despite the defeat, Vestager vowed not to give in on taxes — even though she didn’t say whether the commission would take up its right to appeal.

                      Her team “will continue to look at aggressive tax planning measures under EU state-aid rules to assess whether they result in illegal” subsidies, she said in a statement soon after the judgment.”

                    3. Universities get massive public grant money, they come up with new patented technologies, and do they share the wealth backwards to the taxpayers? Do they ever pay the grants back at least, out of their windfalls, when they reap profits from new inventions?

                      Enquiring minds want to know!



                    4. Ever wonder if your local university which may have oh say five or six different restaurants or bars on campus, do they pay retail tax on the booze they buy and resell, competing with local restaurants and bars?

                      or do they cheat, and use their tax exempt certificates, that they use to buy office supplies, to buy stuff for the unrelated businesses too?

                      oh they may be required by law to do so or pay UBTI taxes. but do they>?


                      I would guess– next to NEVER. Rackets! Audit them, and build cases to lock the capos of these rackets up for tax evasion.

                      That’s a faster way to curtail some of their abuses and excesses than any sort of fiddling with tenure system. That is a fast way to hammer them into submission. Oh they have armies of lawyers and accountants, but it can be done.

                      Power can be exercised. If we see that it is never exercised against certain people or institutions, then we need to wake up and figure out, how and why this new aristocracy has risen above us so high.

              2. Nah. Just sounds like she thinks Sandmann is an idiot playing the victim card. Getting a dose of what being discriminated against might look like and that the irony of a white boy from Kentucky becoming a nuisance lawsuit is just too rich.

                And, I repeat, WTF was he doing wearing a maga hat in D.C.??? He might as well have gotten a face tat proclaiming his racism.

                1. Bug, it’s free country, he was a kid, and why wouldn’t he wear whatever hat he wanted? You’re being a jerk and hanging on to a stupid meme that anyone who has followed it closely knows was an unwarranted attack against a minor but a lying adult who lacked any manners or self awareness. Can I jump in your face chanting some religious BS known only to me? Will you stand up and salute, or bow dean ans self flagellate? Now imagine you’re a kid in a big city in a crowd.

                2. Buggie – so you think 16 y/o should be harassed for stating their political views? Frankiy, these young men were more adult than any of the adults around them. Thankfully the video from the Black Israelites saved him and them. BTW, Robert Barnes is representing 15 of the Covington kids in separate suits.

                  1. 16 is plenty old enough to have the experience of group belonging, and group conflict

                    i went to an integrated school. i had it by the time i was 10.

                3. @Johnny Buglife:

                  Again: I live near DC and until the pandemic often visited the museums, gardens, …Not only do you see plenty of people in DC wearing MAGA hats (perhaps especially in a location like the Lincoln Memorial, which draws people from all over the country), but it’s also easy to buy them in DC (again, perhaps especially in the locations that draw a lot of tourists). I look forward to the day that Trump is out of office, but I support free speech, and Sandmann can wear whatever hat he wants.

                  I don’t know why you have such a narrow view of DC.

                  1. Drag! Typed a long response to both you and Book hoping to address the level of condescension sent my way, and also detailing my experiences living in D.C. and coaching high school basketball in my past.

                    Guess I dropped an f bomb or two and it looks like I’m kicked off the site. Again.

                    Good time for me to exit stage left. Peace.

                    1. Peace to you too.
                      I wasn’t trying to be condescending, sorry that’s how it came across.

            2. I often wonder why “Native Americans” of non-white ancestry are good just because their “native” ancestors were here previous to 3 centuries ago, but the native born Americans of white ancestry, who may only have ancestors who have been onshore in America for the past 3 centuries, are bad.

              Perhaps this is just an extension of the “white bad, non-white good” trope that Hollywood and universities have been feeding us for decades.

              I won’t blame my friends who are members of Native bands. I have found them to be very patriotic and law abiding Americans. The average member of a Native band does not hate white people just because they are white. Now some of their self appointed advocates do, like Natacha here, who obviously hates white folks, even though she is white too, guaranteed

              What do we make of a people who hates their own color of skin? If you are white and your own Europan ancestry sickens you with shame, then you are mentally ill. I will pray for you. But stay away from me., And don’t think anyone normal will ever trust you. And that includes your supposed non-white friends. Deep down they think you are deranged, too. Twisted, filled with guilt, and at best, an easy mark for them to exploit. But mark me, they have zero respect for you.

            3. Natasha, how was a teenager supposed to know the Indian was praying? He jumped in his face chanting a language no one else there knew and without a smile, “Hi, how are you doing”, or even “kiss my a.s” though it could have meant that. The kid was from a suburb of Cincinnati, so no, not a “hillbilly”, though ho would that matter.

              Look at the videos again. You couldn’t be more wrong and are behaving like Trumpsters unable to recognize basic human decency, or it’s absence.

      2. I agree with Karen’s description of the even, and I think anyone who saw the several videos from different angles would have to come to the same conclusion. It also helps to understand one party was a kid and the other was a supposed adult.

    7. Natacha, I’ve read a lot of your postings and I do believe you would be a great novelist. Fiction most certainly.

  8. The American people through Lin Wood and this young man are at least getting some justice for the lieing and scheming perpetrated on us by CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc. We revel in this young man’s wins. Hopefully this will allow for even more legal action against those who so shamefully lie every day about their political hit list. I hope Flynn, Carter Page and others contact Lin Wood. May his winning record continue.

    1. DK the others but the WaPo covered it straight – the 1st day quoted the chatty indian and posted video, the next day video form another angle which confirmed the included comments of onlookers who said the kids were alright.

  9. George Zimmerman killed an “unarmed African American” who was attempting to beat his brains out. Remember that a duly seated jury found that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. That makes the media comparisons even more disgusting. As for this suit, CNN is nothing but a smut channel pushing political baloney. I used to watch them but gave up when they stopped reporting the news and became political commentators.

    1. That’s Zimmerman’s story but he killed the other witness. He should have been charged with manslaughter and as per the jurors, they would have convicted on that.

      1. By ‘the other witness’ I assume you mean the thug, Trayvon.

        You forgot that there was a third party witness, a homeowner who heard screaming outside and opened his door to see Zimmerman on his back on the cement [he was screaming] while Trayvon straddled him delivering blows mixed martial arts style.

        Trayvon could have been a witness to an extent since his cell phone recorded comments about the fight club he was in and how he appeared to enjoy seeing people bleed. The phone also included photos of him holding a gun and smiling at the camera. The women’s jewelry found in his school locker, along with a burglary tool, was subsequently traced to a private residence near the school that had been burglarized. This kid was another George Floyd hoodlum looking to be killed sooner or later.

          1. There were 8 “witnesses” and their stories were not uniform.

            No, there weren’t. There were other people the prosecutor put on the stand, but they didn’t see anything and were successfully impeached by the defense counsel. You had other ear-witnesses and recordings of 911 calls where you could hear Zimmerman yelling in the background, but none of that supports your thesis. The salient witness was standing 30 feet away. There was another eyewitness out walking his dog, but he was a juvenile and not put on the stand.

            And, again, there’s the autopsy report, the recordings, the electronic data, the crime scene photos. Nothing you want to be true is true, but you cannot acknowledge that.

          2. You post that like it means something when it means nothing. Few things on earth are as unreliable as “eyewitness” reports Re. crimes. Eyewitness reports of a perpetrator’s height often cover a range of difference of 10 inches.

      2. That’s Zimmerman’s story but he killed the other witness. He

        You’ve been told repeatedly how that is wrong, but you continue to recycle this statement. There was a nearby eyewitness, there were crime scene photographs of Zimmerman and his effects (which identify where Martin attacked him), there are recordings of Zimmerman’s call to the non-emergency dispatcher which identify Martin’s movements throughout the complex, and the recording also identify Zimmerman’s. All of these discredit your thesis and it’s been explained how they do. You cannot process that because you’d have to acknowledge you were wrong about something, and you’re too pathological to do that.

        1. BTW, there was also the autopsy report, which identified the range of possible distances for the shot that killed Martin and the angle. Bottom line, Zimmerman was on the ground on his back. (Something corroborated by the man standing 30 feet away watching).

        2. The evidence is not conclusive. Martin would be a live if Zimmerman had not stalked him with a gun. He was overcharged with 2nd degree murder – JT agrees with that – and if charged with manslaughter would be in Raiford now where he belongs, or at least that’s what the jurors said.

          1. The evidence is not conclusive.

            The evidence was quite conclusive, and not one piece of it supports your thesis. What you cannot do is process the evidence because you’re emotionally invested in a different outcome.

          2. Martin would be a live if Zimmerman had not stalked him with a gun.

            Zimmerman never stalked Martin, with or without a gun. He parked his truck, called a non-emergency dispatcher to report someone behaving suspiciously, and only got out of his truck to try to keep Martin in eyeshot. Martin abruptly ran away down an alley for no discernable reason. Zimmerman was recorded talking to the dispatcher for several minutes as he walked one street over an then turned around to go back to his truck. He could not, during this conversation, see Martin and thought he might be hiding in earshot. We know from timing Martin’s movements, from maps of the complex, and from a witness who was supposedly on the phone with him that Martin arrived at the back door of Brandi Greene’s townhouse, but instead of going inside walked 75 yards back down the alley and attacked Zimmerman. We know precisely where he attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman dropped his key chain, and the location was recorded in crime scene photographs.

            1. Absurd–Anyone who watched the trial could see very clearly that Zimmerman stalked nobody. It does appear, however, that Trayvon stalked Zimmerman and attacked him without warning when he got near. Like George Floyd he was a thug looking for death and found it.

              1. professor jenny garcia advocates for continued protests including violence


                we know that protests and violence works. The “Left” and Democrats get this
                they openly advocate violence and they have been doing so a long time
                the tools of change are not lawsuits, those are slow salami slices.

                violent protests are like a dog who comes along and eats the whole salami instead of slicing it

                time for regular law abiding conservative Americans to get it, too. understand fully, what must be done

                not waiting around for a slow or nonexistent police responses. not waiting to “convince” people whose minds are twisted by irrationality

                but the signs of a healthy strong people opposed to the demands of the opposition; counter-rallies, protests, and perhaps as professor jenny says –violence

            2. I know or knew personally at least two people who have been shot. In both cases, and in other cases I have read about, the person shot verbalizes something like, “You shot me.” I suspect it’s just a natural involuntary reaction, like blinking.

              It gives me some little pleasure to know, for all the misery Trayvon causes Zimmerman, that unless Zimmerman’s bullet hit Trayvon in the heart or brain cortex, there was at least some period of time wherein Martin realized he picked the wrong guy to beat up, and he likely regretted it, and likely saw his short list of his pathetic life’s memories passing through his mind, while he slowly bled out and then died.

              There is some little comfort in that.

              1. Edit: I meant I know 2 separate cases in which 1 person legally shot someone else (2 persons who shot are not the same person). The persons who were shot recovered. Sorry!

      3. If pigs had wings they could fly. If you had a reasonable thought Re. Zimmerman the world would stop spinning on its axis.

      4. That’s Zimmerman’s story but he killed the other witness.

        Yesterday you claimed there were eight other witnesses. There was actually only one person killed, the assailant. The two eyewitnesses who actually saw the fight are very much alive.

        You cannot stop lying.

  10. Nick Sandmann had a Native American elder, Nathan Phillips get in his face.

    Nathan Phillips was advertised as a glorious Vietnam Vet & a medicine man.

    Nathan Phillips entered the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves on May 20, 1972. … On May 5, 1976, Phillips was discharged as a private following disciplinary issues.

    As records came to public view, Nathan never served in Vietnam & no sovereign Indian nation knows Nathan as a medicine man. There was some financial backing for Nathan Phillips, often referred to as riot boasting funds.

      1. Yep.

        And his claim that aggressively beating a drum in someone’s face is part of his culture is baloney. If he’d walked up to a grown Apache, Lakota Sioux, Comanche, or Cheyenne, and shoved a drum in their nose, he would have probably been yelled at to get out of their face.

        Chahnloh wahnkah Nathan Phillips. I probably did not spell that correctly.

        1. Karen S– If he walked up to another Indian and pulled that drum stunt he might have gotten yelled at. But often on the Res they tend to deal with grievances violently. Due process could be a knife in the guts.

  11. If Turley is so concerned about lawsuits on confidentiality agreements, maybe looking into the hundreds of millions “FOX NEWS” paid out would be a good place to start. Or maybe the Dear Leader himself, he paid off some porn star while running for the POTUS. And you can bet the farm that’s not the only one. Didn’t Turley say Mary Trump would lose in court and lose the money she made on book sales?

    1. FishWings – I saw Stormy in a bad C- movie, I think she is trying to be an actress. BTW, she owes Dear Leader 200K +

      1. Paul, You better stand in the shadows of the Dear Leader’s Wall, you’ve been in the sun to long.

      2. Don’t lie, Paul. You were watching some of Stormy’s finer work, the stuff that made Floptop pay to keep quiet about him wanting to get spanked with the rolled up magazine just after his third wife gave birth. Don’t be ashamed. Own it, bruh.

        1. Buggie – I would not have picked her out, but the guys at Red Letter Media found her in a group scene during one of the Best of the Worst episodes. I don’t think Stormy’s film won Best of the Worst, but they did like the costumes for the women.

          Think how brave our President is to have bonked Stormy without wearing a rubber.

          1. Totally. i can see his thoughts on the matter completely shaped his ‘governing’ practices.

            1. Buggie – that is if you assume that a washed up porn star is telling the truth about the event. He is a germophobe. He talks about how hard it was for him to learn to shake hands with supporters. Do you think he is going to bonk a porn star without a rubber?

  12. Defamation cases frequently are about something other than money, usually an attempt to restore a reputation that has been unlawfully damaged. In this case, in spite of the concerted efforts of most media, Sandmann fought back and got the truth out. Once that was done and the public realized he was a good kid and not the racist portrayed by the media, the goal was accomplished. In these circumstances, it is not unusual for a defamation plaintiff to accept considerably less than a jury might award because again, money usually is not the primary motive. In a defamation case, a confidentiality agreement protects both sides. It allows the now satisfied plaintiff to accept a low dollar settlement without being accused of taking less because “he had no case” and it protects the defamer by discouraging other litigation. I have no idea what the settlement was here but what is clear is that the spineless creeps at CNN have learned nothing from the lawsuit spawned by this ugly episode.

    1. liberals can’t lose, ever, on anything. They HATE to lose, see? This is just another example of how they CAN’T let it go. Whining, baby, sissies. You lost. Losers. Sore losers. Keep using your big platform to whine and cry about this and watch your viewership go even lower, if that is possible. You sissie losers. You are pathetic.

      1. Some liberals are “Sore losers.” Some conservatives are also “Sore losers.” Some liberals are “Whining, baby, sissies.” Some conservatives are also “Whining, baby, sissies.” Honest people have no problem admitting both, and honest people also have no problem noting that it’s only true for some of each group but not either group as a whole.

        It’s ironic that you complain about “pathetic” liberals while yourself whining.

  13. Trayvon Martin had two arms, which he was using to practice his MMA moves on George Zimmerman, who was flat on his back at the time. You ought to know better than that.

    These people make gross and malicious mistakes, to which they’re unwilling to own up. You see the mentality every day from your progtrash commenters.

    1. Absurd– During Zimmerman’s trial the health care provider who first treated Zimmerman’s head injuries said that if he had not stopped what was causing those injuries he could have died. She was a prosecution witness. Zimmerman’s life was in danger

      1. The defense in that case was talented at questioning the prosecution’s witnesses so they actually buttressed the case for acquittal.

        1. Yes, the defense made their case before the prosecution rested. If the prosecution hadn’t called most of those witnesses the defense would have. It was an attempted judicial lynching motivated by Obama politics.

        2. I presume the DA charges were corrupt from beginning to end, and solely for political gain.

      2. On one of the 911 calls you can hear Zimmerman loudly whimpering in the background as he is being beaten by Trayvon Martin.

      3. you can watch it in MMA fights. if they get the “mount” position which is on top and their hips above yours, you are done, they can lay on the choke around the neck and bang your head on concrete until skull is crushed and you are dead. or just choke you to death. that takes longer time than smashing your head like a watermelon
        there are escapes but they are no good unless somebody has trained them and practiced newaza extensively. the usual bs about poking an eye out of the guy on top does not work. they just squint their eyes and shake their head and bang yours on the ground harder.

        Zimmerman did what he had to do — good for him

        1. I never want to be in Zimmerman’s position when Trayvon mounted him. But if you bet my 35″ arms are not going to reach the persons eye sockets above me, and if you think that person squinting is going to prevent the thumb on my XXXL hands from compressing against that person’s skull and pulling out chunks of his brain matter, you might be surprised, and that person more so.

          1. Princess, I am a big guy too. I assumed you were a lady but perhaps not given your claimed size. nonetheless…

            back when i was a teenager, I had a lot of scuffles. And that was before I had studied judo and learned the techniques that are so well known as MMA. I have been on the ground in the wrong position trying to gouge out eyes twice before. Once it works and the guy got off of me and let it go

            another time, the guy was a lot more motivated to harm me, and he just squinted his eyes, shook his head, and banged my head on the granite floor. One, two, three times and I was out. Luckily, one of my friends pulled him off me before the guy murdered me. I got off with a concussion. But the whole eye gouge thing is not going to work against a strong aggressor.

            the logic is the same against a solid choke. i can’t bite my way out if it is in place. the aggressor can take he bite and put me to sleep faster than the pain from the bite or eye gouge will matter

            here dont take it from me, take it from Bas Rutten


  14. While the agreements are not public, they are known to Sandmann’s lawyer and he is the one calling foul here. Either his is misrepresenting his case to the media or he believes he has good cause.

    I with the analysis would have included this dynamic.

  15. CNN and their Staff HATE TRUMP SO MUCH they go after any and everyone who supports Trump, they are so blinded by their hatred they ignore contracts, agreements, good journalism and etc.

    They picked the wrong lawyer to combat, Lin Wood is not afraid and if he has a case he will go after CNN and etc. CNN get out your Check book and start writing another big check. Brian Settler ( Little George Kastanza from Siefield) The so called Legal experts CNN uses are always suspect and they too hate Trump – Asha should be fired by CNN – Also, CNN should FIRE little Brian as well.

  16. A decent human being upon realizing his error in attacking a 16 year old who did nothing would apologize and move on.

  17. Turley claims that “presumably Zaid has no knowledge or involvement in the settlement. Whatever “kind of journalism” or lawyering is involved, there is no way for any of us to know what was paid to Sandmann.”

    But Zaid didn’t make any claim about a specific amount paid. He claimed “[Sandmann] was undoubtedly paid nuisance value settlement & nothing more.” And that actual claim is absolutely something that an informed lawyer — without specific knowledge of the settlement — can make.

    Why? Here’s another lawyer’s helpful explanation:
    “THREAD: Did the Covington Kid just score millions of dollars? People won’t stop asking me about this headline, bullying me into writing this long explanation of why it’s obvious the suit against the Washington Post was settled for peanuts. So here goes. …”

    As for Stelter and Rangappa, as yet another lawyer noted, “This is the dumbest [expletive] thing I’ve seen in a while. Brian Stelter did not breach CNN’s confidentiality agreement by retweeting a non-party’s expert speculation about a settlement reached between the Covington kid and the Washington Post. God help you.”
    Rangappa’s speculation isn’t a breach of confidentiality either.

    And Turley would serve his readers better by saying so and explaining why instead of pretending that “There is no reason to assume that there was a tiny payment for nuisance value any more than a windfall.” Turley simply doesn’t like to dig into the details of relevant evidence — the kind of analysis done in the thread above.

    1. Thank you for an intelligent comment. The kid, legally, had a position of innocence. However, the expression on his face in the photo which initiated this whole thing expressed at a minimum contempt and confrontation. The media rag is just that, a media rag. It’s no different from the National Enquirer, a rag that gets sued daily. Trump has stated that he reads the National Enquirer for info and likes it.

      In the end, this is a circus and arena of legal fine tuning, for little else than Turley’s self gratification and left wing bashing. Perhaps Turley illustrates the excesses of legal scrutiny here with his platform. If you open a door for a woman, you are a sexist pig. If you take a gun to an altercation and start losing the fight and kill your victim, you are acting in self defense. If you suggest looking into using Lysol intravenously to ward off Covid-19 you can claim that you were only joking. Etc., etc., etc.

      Turley might server his readers better if he put larger issues out there to discuss. This is pablum. Turley is overcooked and getting close to be nothing but inedible mush.

      1. However, the expression on his face in the photo which initiated this whole thing expressed at a minimum contempt and confrontation.

        Because you feel you know Sandmann so well, you are so familiar with his facial gestures, that you conclude that? What do you have to say about the facial expression of the adult banging a drum in his face? What do you have to say about the facial expressions of the MSM figures that were attacking Sandmann?

        1. “However, the expression on his face in the photo which initiated this whole thing expressed at a minimum contempt and confrontation.”

          Let’s not forget that this is “expression on his face in the photo” is the face of a sixteen-year-old. We can assign motives to his expression, but are those motives his or the ones we assign to him for politically expedient reasons? I will not assign motives to that face, so I must concede that his expression might have been one of contempt and confrontation, but I personally don’t think so. I think that the sixteen-year-old Covington Catholic kid was an uncomfortable teenager caught in an uncomfortable confrontation with an adult, who probably felt some peer pressure from the kids behind him to avoid backing down. When we’re uncomfortable, especially in our as of yet unformed teen years, we smile and laugh a lot to pretend that we’re sure of ourselves. Adults often make the mistake of assigning ulterior motives to kids, I do it with my kid all the time, but the truth is often a lot more innocent and uninformed than we adults can imagine.

          1. Rilaly,
            I frankly was impressed with Sandmann’s ability to restrain himself in those circumstances, regardless of his age. While we’re witnessing acts of the non-peaceful protests throughout the country by minors and adults, the 16 year old Sandmann demonstrated the very definition of a lawful and peaceful protester. Assigning a motive to his facial expression is scraping the bottom of the barrel, especially given the obvious motives being expressed by the violent anarchists throughout this country.

      2. “However, the expression on his face in the photo which initiated this whole thing expressed at a minimum contempt and confrontation.”

        The older, Native American male walked into the kid’s face loudly banging a drum. You are being ridiculous.

      3. Ever notice how many stories the National Enquirer broke? Quite a few. Like Michael Jackson molesting kids. Plenty others too.

        Say that reminds me. Did anybody notice that the New York times quietly admitted that the US government has recovered UFO vehicles or materials, and has them in hand? I am serious. Read this entire article. This is a new admission, above and beyond the releases of the UFO videos taken by the F-16s last year.


        by the way, a lot of the credit for this goes to Harry Reid Democrat from Nevada. He really served the people in helping get these disclosures moving.

        PS i have to wonder if they were referring to Roswell….

    2. BTW, Zaid’s comment — retweeted by Stelter — was made in response to a since-deleted tweet from Noah Smith (@Noahpinion) that’s still viewable as a Google cache and that said:
      “The Covington Catholic kid won a big defamation settlement from the Washington Post. He previously also won a settlement from CNN. Considering his initial asks were $250M and $275M, he is probably financially set for life.”

      Zaid said nothing specific about CNN, and neither did Rangappa in response to Zaid. Given that both were responding to Smith’s claim about “a big defamation settlement from the Washington Post” that only mentioned “a settlement from CNN” without referencing the size, and given that they were both tweeting on the day of The Washington Post settlement, it’s not even clear that either Stelter or Rangappa were referring to the CNN settlement.
      Details, details.

  18. Interesting conundrum. It was a wage paid to make a nuisance go away. Let’s be honest about that. And by letter of the law the kid should be allowed to where whatever hat he wants. But seriously? Wearing a MAGA hat in D.C. and getting filmed in the situation he was filmed in, no matter what snippet of it went viral??? Idiotic. Pick your spots, Nick. That one isn’t every going to go smoothly. Realize D.C. is not the state you come from that *legally* lynched blacks well into the ’50’s.

    Enjoy the 25k you just got for stupidly proclaiming your red hat-ness, kid. Now drift off into the shadows.

    1. Stupid? Jews still living in pre-WWII Germany…stupid? Rosa Parks…stupid? Reginald Denny…stupid? Is there a line you won’t cross to victim-shame?

        1. Nick Sandmann is a nuisance. An idiotic one.

          It’s in the nature of teenagers to be nuisances. Idiotic? LOL! That 16 year old idiot beat the WaPo and CNN. What does that say about them? Bwahahahahaha

            1. CNN intentionally defamed him. He was visiting D.C. and goons that you support tried to intimidate him and then other goons tried to libel him. You add your intellectual void to the mix.

        2. You know him from when he was a kid. It is unseemly to judge so harshly, and especially in this case where the adult in the interaction was the jerk .ff.

    2. “Enjoy the 25k you”

      Maybe it was $25 million or more. You don’t know but it is amazing how you latch onto whatever number CNN tells you.

      The Bug likes to demean people that have a different ideology than you. ” It was a wage paid to make a nuisance go away.” CNN acted badly as they have been doing for some time. Sandmann wasn’t a nuisance. He was slandered by CNN and CNN chose to do that. Then they chose to pay rather than go to court.

      “But seriously? Wearing a MAGA hat in D.C.”

      D.C. is the capital for all Americans whether Bug recognizes that or not. This further demonstrates a total lack of toleration by the Bug. He should think more and talk less. Following that the Bug makes a poor attempt at playing the race card, ” Pick your spots, Nick. That one isn’t every going to go smoothly. Realize D.C. is not the state you come from that *legally* lynched blacks well into the ’50’s.”s own history

      The Bug likes to use other people’s unfortunate lives to throw out at innocent people. It sounds like the Bug needs to look into his own ancestry and where the mistakes were made in his childhood.

      1. Dare ya to wear a MAGA hat in D.C. right now. Feel the discrimination. Get in touch with occupying minority status. I know, I know, it’s completely unfair…

        Except wait!! There’s that other thing we don’t like to talk about, isn’t there?

        Now that would involve some serious thinking rather than speaking, which of course means Allan would never do it.

        1. “Dare ya to wear a MAGA hat in D.C. right now.”

          That is all the proof one needs to know the left doesn’t believe in civil liberties and is violent.

          Your type doesn’t scare me. You demonstrate cowardice on the blog so my guess is you are a coward when alone.

        2. It’s true, the street tugs feel empowered to attack law abiding citizens wearing maga hats. And you can see some people think that’s just great

          oK, if the law is no longer the standard, if free speech is now irrelevant, ok. i am fine with that. formerly docile law abiding people will change. they will become unruly, too. they will learn to speak in other ways.

          give it some time, this is human nature. it will awaken. people will have to reckon where they stand, when it jumps off, quickly.

          your eyes will tell you all you will need to know, in an instant

        3. I live near DC. I’ve only visited once in the last few months, due to the pandemic and the museums, etc. being closed. But I regularly see people wearing MAGA hats and people selling MAGA merchandise in DC. It’s not an issue for most people, nor should it be.

    3. ROFLMAO

      You sound like an old man telling a woman who was raped that she brought it on herself due to the way she dressed, or a woman who sought an abortion brought it on herself because she parted her legs, or a black woman sitting at the front of the bus was escored off of the bus by police knowing her place was in the back of the bus

      No worries. Americans now have a perfect reason to walk around with AK-47 rifles and point them at whomever they like because it feelz gud

      I was told by the gun shop to purchase a red dot to increase my odds of survival but my wife likes the hollogram sights. With people like you tho’, aiming and pulling the trigger will result in a score with one eye closed considering how you draw attention to yourself like the porn panic buffoon your ilk shows us day after day.


    4. The only “nuisance” was CNN continually framing the situation improperly and besmirching a 16-year-old. Whatever hat he was wearing is irrelevant except that the Native American man may have chosen to make a scene with the kid based on his assumption of what the hat may have meant, or perhaps it was because the kid was white. You’re grasping at straws bringing up “lynching” of blacks in the 1950s, well before this kid was born. That’s “being honest about that.”

    5. Bug, he was a kid on a trip to DC. Of course he won’t be savy but probably excited to be where politics come to fruition. We see kids all the time dressed up by their parents politics and there si no way to know if they stick with them later. Cut them slack. They’re kids.

      1. True, kids make mistakes.

        But what’s most hilarious to me is how MAGA nation is all about righteous indignation about how he was treated. Shoe’s on the other foot when it involves a white child with a red hat I guess.

        1. True, kids make mistakes.

          Sure they do. So do adults, like yourself. In this case Sandmann made no mistakes. But for some god-awful reason, you believe this white 16 year old made a mistake by choosing to visit our nation’s capital in a MAGA hat. Last I checked, he had every right to wear that hat and the law defends that right. Are you suggesting our rights end where they are not secure? Using your logic, the children being gun down in Chicago deserve their fate. George Floyd deserved his fate. Every victim of every crime deserves their fate because they obviously were in circumstances where those rights weren’t secure. Damn, you are quite pathetic. We certainly need more Sandmann’s and less of you.

    6. Bug —-> The entire point of this contretemps (look it up; it means controversy — if you don’t know what THAT means, I cannot help you) is that neither of the parties is permitted to disclose the terms of the settlement. The 25K figure is merely speculation. And if you actually accepted it as fact, that merely demonstrates how incapable of critical analysis you are. Here, the employees of CNN “pooh-poohed” (no, Bug, this is NOT a reference to excrement) the settlement to disparage the validity of plaintiff Sandmann’s claim. But these on-air commentators did not actually know the amount and if you listened or read carefully to what they said, you should realize that. Bug, are at best a naïf for accepting it for purposes of your hateful contentions. You call the kid a “slacker” without knowing the least thing about his life.

  19. Perhaps more than anything, this controversy shows the contempt that the MSM shows for traditions, agreements, contracts, and decency.

    CNN appears to have violated at least the spirit and maybe the letter of its contract with Sandmann.

    It certainly violated both ethics and decency in its coverage of Sandmann.

Leave a Reply