Connect with us

Courts

CNN Settles $275 Million Lawsuit for Defaming Covington Catholic Teenager Nick Sandman

CNN has settled in the $275 million defamation lawsuit brought against it by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandman.

Published

on

Left-wing cable “news” outlet, CNN, has admitted to a settlement in the $275 million defamation lawsuit brought against it by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandman.

On Tuesday afternoon, a CNN spokesman confirmed to the Cincinnati Enquirer that the settlement had been reached.

The network did not reveal the dollar amount of the settlement and Mr. Sandman’s representatives have also not made any statements on the topic.

Sandman’s legal team is still pursuing similar lawsuits against the Washington Post, and NBC Universal for their fake news coverage of the incident that shot the teenager into TVs and newspapers all across the country last year.

Trending: In China People Are Posting Signs Cheering Coronavirus Deaths in the U.S.A.

Sandman and his highs school classmates were widely accused of “mocking” Native American activist Nathan Phillips while wearing a red Donald Trump “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) baseball hats during the March for Life event last January in Washington D.C.

The media nearly universally accused the teenagers led by young Mr. Sandman of taunting the Native American activists. But the teens were also accused of menacingly blocking the Native Americans and not letting them leave the area as the teens threatened them with violence.

The media portrayed Phillips and his radical left-wing activists of being threatened, intimidated and attacked by the teens. But in the days after the incident was first reported, more complete video of the incident came to light proving that the teens were simply minding their own business when Phillips and his crew went out of their way to confront the teens. Not only that, but the teens obviously did not block Phillips from coming or going as he pleased.

Furthermore, the whole incident was kicked off when a group of radical black leftists began verbally assaulting the teens in vulgar terms, and with a loud clamor that caught the attention of Phillips and his extremists.

In the end, it became clear that it was the teens who were the victims of harassment and intimidation, not the teens that perpetrated the same.

The media got the story 100 percent backwards, and in the process smeared the teenagers as hateful, white supremacists.

Sandman’s legal team noted that they are looking to sue Gannett news agency, as well.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Courts

U.S. Supreme Court Postpones Oral Arguments in Response to Coronavirus

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court postponed oral arguments scheduled for March in response to the coronavirus.

Published

on

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court postponed oral arguments scheduled for March in response to the coronavirus.

A statement from the nation’s highest court said the move was “in keeping with public health precautions” in response to the viral outbreak.

The move will postpone potentially landmark cases such as the Democrat demands that Trump turn over his taxes, according to The Hill.

“The court will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of the developing circumstances,” the spokeswoman for the court said.

The spokeswoman for the court noted that the postponement is nothing unusual.

“The Court postponed scheduled arguments for October 1918 in response to the Spanish flu epidemic,” the statement continued. “The Court also shortened its argument calendars in August 1793 and August 1798 in response to yellow fever outbreaks.”

The U.S. Supreme Court building itself remains open for official business.

The justices will also still be meeting for their March 20 conference, though some may attend the meeting by phone instead of in person.

The court is also looking to institute work from home rules.

“The court is expanding remote working capabilities to reduce the number of employees in the building, consistent with public health guidance,” the spokeswoman said.

Many of the justices are right on the most vulnerable age range.

“Six of the nine justices are age 65 or older, placing them in a population that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers to be at risk for serious illness from coronavirus,” The Hill noted.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 87; Stephen Breyer, 81; Clarence Thomas, 71; Samuel Alito, 69; and John Roberts, and Sonia Sotomayor is 65.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Sen. Chuck Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices, McConnell Blasts Him

Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened to retaliate against the U.S. Supreme Court if they rule against abortion.

Published

on

On Wednesday, Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened to retaliate against the U.S. Supreme Court if they rule contrary to Schumer’s ideas on abortion.

At Wednesday’s abortion rally, Schumer went on the attack and disgorged threats against U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh,” Schumer said to the applause of the radical crowd. “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

But Chief Justice John Roberts later took the unusual step of replying directly to Schumer’s threats condemning the New York senator’s “dangerous” rhetoric.

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” Roberts said.

Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, excoriated Schumer for his ignorant and dangerous rhetoric.

“I fully anticipate our colleague would quickly withdraw his comments and apologize,” McConnell said on the floor of the Senate. “Instead our colleague doubled down. He tried to gaslight the entire country and stated that he was actually threatening fellow Senators as though that would be much better.”

“The distinguished men and women of the Supreme Court do not and must not serve at the pleasure of angry partisans,” he continued. “They do not need to pay any mind to unhinged threats, as shameful as they may be.”

“I would suggest that my Democratic colleagues spend less time trying to threaten impartial judges, and more time coming up with ideas that are actually constitutional,” McConnell added.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Federal Court Orders Deposition of Hillary Clinton on Emails and Benghazi Attack Records

Judicial Watch announced that a U.S. District Court granted the request to depose former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her emails.

Published

on

Court: ‘It is Time to Hear Directly from Secretary Clinton’

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch today announced that U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her emails and Benghazi attack documents. The court also ordered the deposition of Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills and two other State Department officials.

Additionally, the court granted Judicial Watch’s request to subpoena Google for relevant documents and records associated with Clinton’s emails during her tenure at the State Department.

The ruling comes in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch famously uncovered in 2014 that the “talking points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements were created by the Obama White House. This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth first ordered discovery into whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” The State and Justice Departments continued to defend Clinton’s and the agency’s email conduct.

Judge Lamberth today overruled Clinton’s and the State and Justice Department’s objections to limited additional discovery by first noting:

Discovery up until this point has brought to light a noteworthy amount of relevant information, but Judicial Watch requests an additional round of discovery, and understandably so. With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers.

Additionally, Judge Lamberth said that he is troubled by the fact that both the State Department and Department of Justice want to close discovery in this case:

[T]here is still more to learn. Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The Court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails. Instead, the Court will authorize a new round of discovery …

With respect to Clinton, the court found that her prior testimony, mostly through written sworn answers, was not sufficient:

The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

“Judicial Watch uncovered the Clinton email scandal and we’re pleased that the court authorized us to depose Mrs. Clinton directly on her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under FOIA,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Mexican Family’s Claim Over Cross-Border Shooting

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a case for damages brought by a Mexican family whose son was shot by Border Patrol.

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a case for damages brought by a Mexican family whose son was shot by Border Patrol.

In a 5-4 ruling, the nation’s highest court ruled that Sergio Adrian Hernández Guereca, 15, lacked any constitutional protection against use of excessive force by a police officer because he was standing on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot in a confrontation with Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa, USA Today reported.

The incident occurred in 2010 when Guereca and others were on the Mexican side of the river separating El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, when the agent fired two warning shots across the border. One of those shots struck the teen, killing him.

The officer maintained that he was responding to a call of Mexican nationals throwing rocks across the border at American citizens.

The Mexican family sued based on a 1971 case where the court said that an American’s rights were violated when federal agents forced their way into his home without a warrant. Courts have used that precedent to prevent federal authorities from violating people’s rights.

However, in this case, the court ruled that the Mexican’s had no rights under the Constitution because they were not in the U.S. during the incident.

“A cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications,” Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion. “In addition, Congress has been notably hesitant to create claims based on allegedly tortious conduct abroad.”

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed saying that the court should not be moving into legislative territory, and the 1971 precedent itself should be overturned.

“Federal courts lack the authority to engage in the distinctly legislative task of creating causes of action for damages to enforce federal positive law,” Thomas said. “We are exercising legislative power vested in Congress.”

Alito is correct that this case could open a Pandora’s box of trouble for federal agents who deal with foreign citizens. If this were to pass the court’s muster and allow the Mexicans to sue the federal government, nothing would stop the whole world from assuming they are covered under the U.S. Constitution.

Our national law can ONLY apply to official U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

HOPELESS BIAS: Chief Juror in Roger Stone Trial Revealed as Democrat Politician

The media has completely ignored the fact that one of the jurors in Roger’s Stone’s trial is a failed Democrat candidate for Congress.

Published

on

The media has completely ignored the fact that one of the jurors in Trump associate Roger’s Stone’s trial is a failed Democrat candidate for Congress and therefore hopelessly biased against Stone.

Recently for instance, CNN reported on the jurors but did not bother to note that one of them is clearly biased against the Trump administration and probably should not have been allowed in the jury pool.

Roger Stone, a political gadfly and a longtime GOP operative who has operated in and around the Trump inner circle, was convicted in November on charges of obstruction, witness tampering, and five counts of making false statements to Congress. Federal prosecutors recommended nine years in prison for Stone, 67, causing outrage– especially from the president.

But, while reporting on the trial, CNN ignored the pertinent facts about juror Tomeka Hart.

It has been recently learned that Hart is a failed Democrat candidate for Congress. Not only that, but she has been found to have posted numerous anti-Trump posts on social media.

CNN refused to report any of this.

Per Daily Caller:

Hart wrote in the Facebook post. “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors. They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice.”

“As foreperson, I made sure we went through every element, of every charge, matching the evidence presented in the case that led us to return a conviction of guilty on all 7 counts.”

Hart’s social media accounts dictate a woman who closely watched the special counsel’s investigation. The juror also had numerous negative references to Trump on her Twitter, even calling him a “#KlanPresident” in one post. She also retweeted CNN analyst Bakari Sellers’ attack on Stone defenders after he was arrested in January of 2019.

Again, none of this was included in CNN’s reports.

Check out some of this stuff:

And check this out:

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Gen. Michael Flynn Withdraws Guilty Plea After Prosecutors Grossly Breach Plea Agreement

Former Trump national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is filing to withdraw his guilty plea in Mueller case.

Published

on

Former Trump national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is filing to withdraw his guilty plea in Mueller case.

Flynn officially moved to withdraw his guilty plea on Tuesday evening, two years after he agreed with prosecutors that he lied to federal agents about his contacts with a Russian diplomat before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, CNBC reported.

Flynn’s move comes only a week after federal prosecutors asked federal Judge Emmet Sullivan to hand Flynn only a six-month jail sentence because of the “serious nature of” of the “offense,” and “his apparent failure to accept responsibility” for his violations.

“Michael T. Flynn is innocent,” his attorney, Sidney Powell, wrote in her Tuesday filing.

Powell went on to slam the government:

Powell wrote that Flynn is withdrawing his plea “because of the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement.” She also asked Judge Emmet Sullivan for a 30-day delay of Flynn’s sentencing date, which is currently scheduled for Jan. 28.

Sullivan has yet to sign off on Flynn’s plea withdrawal. The judge could possibly reject Flynn’s motion, letting the guilty plea stand.

Powell posted her 22-page filing on Twitter for all to see.

Government prosecutors have slammed Flynn for his shift toward withdrawing his guilty plea.

CNBC added:

Flynn was charged as part of then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference during the 2016 presidential election. He had nearly been sentenced in December 2018, but opted to postpone that proceeding after Sullivan harshly urged him to first complete his cooperation with Mueller’s probe.

But Flynn’s attorney has hammered the government for its criminal actions against the general.

Flynn realized he was badly served by his former legal counsel and fired them. His new lawyer, D.C. power lawyer Sidney Powell, uncovered a ton of malfeasance by the FBI and federal prosecutors and filed a flurry of motions to try and force the judge to see the facts before his very face.

In August, Powell filed a motion asking the court to hold prosecutors in contempt for withholding evidence, and also alleged a long list of improprieties.

As the Daily Caller noted:

Flynn’s legal team has accused federal prosecutors of “egregious government misconduct” in the case and has sought evidence regarding internal FBI discussions about the decision to interview the retired lieutenant general about the Russian ambassador. Among the documents sought were text messages involving Peter Strzok, the disgraced former FBI counterintelligence official who took part in the Flynn interview.

“Strzok was fired from the FBI on Aug. 10, 2018 over anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page,” the site added.

Infuriatingly, the judge has now simply ignored the proof of misconduct by federal prosecutors.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Armed Bank Robber Commits Fourth Robbery After Being Released Due to New York Bail Reform

A man who police say has now committed four armed bank robberies was released without bail due to New York’s lenient new bail reform rules.

Published

on

A man who police say has now committed four armed bank robberies was released without bail due to New York’s lenient new bail reform rules.

Police in New York reported that bank robber Christopher Seamans was arrested on Tuesday for robbing yet another bank but was then released without bail due to the reform laws.

The police say that the 41-year-old suspect robbed the Pioneer Bank in Albany on Friday and got away with an undisclosed amount of cash, the Times Union reported.

Video of the crime shows Seamans demanding cash at a teller’s window. He did not show a weapon, but kept his hand menacingly inside his jacket during the robbery.

No one was hurt during the robbery, but Seamans reportedly threatened harm.

Seamans has been accused of three previous bank robberies.

He was sentenced in 2005 to four years in prison for crimes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was also sentenced to more than four years for robbing a New York bank in 2010.

Seamans was released from federal prison Dec. 17, 2017.

But despite being arrested for a fourth bank robbery, Seamans was immediately released due to the state’s new liberal bail reform law.

Seamans was released on his own recognizance after going before a judge on Friday.

So, now New York is releasing armed bank robbers due to this “reform” law.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend