Nick Sandmann's Wacky QAnon Supporting Lawyer Threatens Reporters For 'Speculating' On Washington Post's Settlement With Sandmann

from the why-so-mad-lin? dept

On Friday, we wrote about the bad reporting concerning Nick Sandmann’s settlement with the Washington Post, that nearly every knowledgeable lawyer figures was likely for “nuisance value” to get rid of the lawsuit. We noted that the NY Post’s coverage of it misleadingly suggested that the kid got many millions of dollars, when there’s no evidence to support that conclusion, and plenty to suggest he got very little. If you want a thorough debunking of “the kid got paid” narrative, this thread by @RespectableLawyer lays out the details. As we had noted in our post, the court had already rejected nearly all of the claims in the case, and only allowed it to be reinstated to allow for very narrow discovery on very narrow issues which Sandmann almost certainly would not have won on. There was basically no chance Sandmann would win the case. So, a nuisance fee settlement makes it worthwhile to everyone. The paper gets out of the case for less than the cost of going through discovery and the whole summary judgment process, and Sandmann gets to say he got paid, without ever saying how little.

However, on Monday, Sandmann’s lawyer, L. Lin Wood (who you may recall from his ability to lose one of the rare defamation cases that I thought actually had a chance to succeed, against Elon Musk) completely lost his shit on Twitter because enough people were calling out the fact that Sandmann most likely got peanuts, which destroyed the narrative Wood has been trying to sell. Wood, who apparently is now a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory based on his willingness to include the #WWG1WGA tag in his Twitter profile (if you’re not familiar, it stands for the silly QAnon phrase: “where we go one, we go all”), has apparently decided that merely speculating on the settlement amounts violates agreements people were not a party to.

Either way, Wood started threatening people and CNN. In separate tweets he accused both Brian Stelter (an on-air CNN personality) and Asha Rangappa (a lawyer and law professor who sometimes appears on CNN) for “speculating” on the settlement between Sandmann and the Washington Post. He even said that if Stelter isn’t fired, he’ll sue CNN.



Wood is arguing that CNN on air talent is violating a confidentiality agreement that was part of the settlement in a different case (CNN settled a similar case with Sandmann, likely on similar terms, back in January, at which point we wrote about similarly misleading reporting regarding the settlement). With Stelter, he’s arguing that merely retweeting a lawyer suggesting that the most likely outcome of the Washington Post case was a nuisance fee settlement is a violation of that confidentiality agreement. With Rangappa, it’s her own speculation.

First off, neither Stelter nor Rangappa are even remotely connected to the Washington Post settlement, so they’re not parties to the case and clearly are not restricted by any confidentiality agreement and are free to speculate (or in Stelter’s case, to retweet someone else’s speculation) of the Washington Post settlement. The only way there might be a tiny (extremely weak) argument is if they were employed by the Washington Post. But even then they would have no actual insight into the actual settlement terms or amounts, and speculating is not violating a confidentiality settlement when they have no awareness of the terms. But to say that CNN employees are somehow violating the confidentiality agreement in a separate case for speculating on a different case is… just wacky nonsense.

Of course, many lawyers who understand this stuff pointed out that Wood freaking out that it violates confidentiality agreements to say that he settled the Sandmann cases for nuisance value… certainly seems to suggest that Wood is effectively confirming that it’s true. Of course, after a bunch of people started to say that, he started insisting that his problem is with “false speculation” violating confidentiality agreements, but that makes no sense. That’s like when the White House tries to argue that a leak of classified information is false. If it’s false, it’s not classified info. Claiming it’s a leak confirms it’s accurate.

Here, if anyone is violating a confidentiality agreement (which, again, they are not) it would be in revealing information to that is covered by the agreement. Speculating — and even more bizarrely — speculating falsely, is unlikely to be much of a violation. At best, Wood might be able to argue that there’s some sort of total gag order that came with the settlements saying that CNN/WaPo and staff won’t ever discuss anything having to do with Nick Sandmann and his sketchy lawsuits. I’d be surprised if either company agreed to such things, but it’s not crazy, and the insurance companies backing CNN might have even been willing to agree to such nonsense terms.

But that’s still not going to do very much here. There’s no way on-air talent was privy to any of the details, and it’s hard to see how a gag order would extend to them.

Also, it kind of makes you wonder why Wood would be so insistent on this here. If he really pressured CNN into agreeing to such a total gag order, why would he do that unless it’s to hide a terribly tiny settlement for his client? If he actually won big money for Sandmann, he’d be excited about it, not negotiating for CNN to keep the details quiet. And why would he be so angry about anyone talking about the details of the settlement unless he didn’t want people speculating on how little he was actually able to secure?

The whole Twitter freak out did his own client a huge disservice, and filing any followup lawsuits will likely only serve to harm his client even more.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: cnn, washington post

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Nick Sandmann's Wacky QAnon Supporting Lawyer Threatens Reporters For 'Speculating' On Washington Post's Settlement With Sandmann”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
35 Comments
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Of course, many lawyers who understand this stuff pointed out that Wood freaking out that it violates confidentiality agreements to say that he settled the Sandmann cases for nuisance value… certainly seems to suggest that Wood is effectively confirming that it’s true. Of course, after a bunch of people started to say that, he started insisting that his problem is with "false speculation" violating confidentiality agreements, but that makes no sense. That’s like when the White House tries to argue that a leak of classified information is false. If it’s false, it’s not classified info. Claiming it’s a leak confirms it’s accurate.

Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Give L. Lin Wood a fishing rod and he’ll apparently catch it in his own lip.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Thanks for the confirmation snowflake

Well, if the lawyer involved is losing his mind over mere speculation that the settlement might have been for pocket-change, to the point that he’s threatening a lawsuit if one of the people speculating isn’t fired that sure sounds like a pretty solid confirmation that chump change is exactly what was handed over, assuming any money changed hands.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Khym Chanur (profile) says:

At best, Wood might be able to argue that there’s some sort of total gag order that came with the settlements saying that CNN/WaPo and staff won’t ever discuss anything having to do with Nick Sandmann and his sketchy lawsuits.

If there was such a gag order, wouldn’t CNN have told everyone working for them to not say anything, thus making disobeying that order a fireable offense?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Oh, come now...

You’re arguing in bad faith too.

Just look at the title… "Nick Sandmann’s Wacky QAnon Supporting Lawyer Threatens Reporters For ‘Speculating’ On Washington Post’s Settlement With Sandmann"

"Wacky QAnon Supporting Lawyer"

Poison the well much?

"Threatens Reporters"

What reporter? Stelter isn’t reporter. He’s a commentator.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

restless94110 (profile) says:

QAnon

I fail to see why you included the word wacky and QAnon supporting in your headline and in your article.

The "wacky" attorney also supports you sending flowers to your mother on Mother Day. Neither of those have a thing to do with a company–of any kind–violating an NDA.

And by including a disparaging descriptive in your piece and headline you just make yourself look foolish and prejudiced. Impartial journalism forbids the use of adjectives like wacky.

Try just reporting the facts. Stop being so wacky.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: QAnon

Mike is an editor who provides his own opinions on the pieces he writes.

Or in his own words:

"Really? I don’t think of myself as a traditional journalist/reporter at all. If I do any journalism it’s by accident, not on purpose. I think, these days, that everyone is always a bit of a journalist, so sometimes that comes through. But, on the whole, I’ve never thought of myself as a journalist at all. I don’t think that’s likely to change."

  • Mike Masnick

And QAnon is fucking wacky and indicates the believer is a nutjob. He was being polite with that description. Anyone who thinks QAnon discredits themselves from being taken seriously, except maybe as a threat to the truth.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: QAnon

"I fail to see why you included the word wacky and QAnon supporting in your headline and in your article."

Because they’re both accurate and reflect on his inability to deal with reality?

"The "wacky" attorney also supports you sending flowers to your mother on Mother Day."

I’m sure Mike can provide evidence of his assertions. Can you provide evidence of yours, or is it just projection to avoid dealing with the broken mental state of a Q guy?

"Impartial journalism forbids the use of adjectives like wacky."

What does that have to do with this opinion blog?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: QAnon

I fail to see why you included the word wacky and QAnon supporting in your headline and in your article.

Because it’s relevant in judging the kind of lawyer we’re talking about.

The "wacky" attorney also supports you sending flowers to your mother on Mother Day.

That’s not a wacky thing to support. If it was, then I might point it out. Supporting QAnon is fucking wacky.

Neither of those have a thing to do with a company–of any kind–violating an NDA.

No, but it does show something about his level of judgment and his credibility. Sending flowers to your mother is dog bites man. Supporting QAnon is man bites dog. Get it?

And by including a disparaging descriptive in your piece and headline you just make yourself look foolish

Heh. No. You look foolish for getting upset about it.

Impartial journalism forbids the use of adjectives like wacky.

I don’t give a fuck what a nutjob like you thinks. You always post dumb Trumpist conspiracy theories, and I seem to keep debunking your nonsense, and you never return to back up your nonsense. At some point I’m going to just have to call it out and say that you’re either a deluded idiot or a troll.

Try just reporting the facts

It’s my fucking site. And since day 1 we’ve done analysis and opinion and it’s my opinion that a famous lawyer supporting QAnon is wacky. So fuck off if you don’t like it.

I, Claudius says:

Anybody who thinks he got anything more than a bag of peanuts obviously has never dealt with the media to any degree. I’m not defending the media by any stretch, it really is difficult for them to get much of anything correct, but anybody who inserts themselves into the public eye on purpose or by accident needs to know that it may very well not turn out so good. Any other idea is a massive naivete on the part of that person. I’ve done hundreds of media interviews over the years (up to and including ALL of the national outlets), and you go into it accepting they may -or may not- get things right. This kid is a complete idiot … well maybe that’s a typical description for a 16-year-old. For example, whenever I’m in DC doing work, I keep myself far-and-away from any protest activity, and my advice to everybody else is to do the same.

Rishbus (user link) says:

how to know if a libra woman likes you

international dating For Women

He doesn’t <a href=https://www.love-sites.com/signs-that-you-can-recognise-when-a-vietnamese-lady-is-into-you/>how to tell if a vietnamese woman likes you</a> be aware, Because he’s lifting the name at faceAre you getting my drift here? With tens of thousands of women you could use, A man should skim down the list and stop when something appeals to him directly. Your username reflects you all your photo does. much more, anyway i daresay. reasons why? Because that’s you telling the world how we should always view you. And the earth has little choice but to take your word for it.

Still not sure spinning program so well? Take a look at some of the femme profiles on your match site you’re bound to run into a few brow raisers. for example, i’ve come across the names SexyGirl4You, HotKitty combined with LusciousLizzie. Great these people,descriptions, If a different immediate attention. Crap such as,suppliers, If you’re looking to hold his interest for more than one night. I’ve no doubt those girls get more emails than Santa your requirements?, Who are they providing them with from?

So what if you ever call yourself? Let’s uncover. Get yourself a pen and jot down all that makes you tick. I’ll use myself to illustrate this,one example is. let’s wait and watch Daniel Craig, Joaquin phoenix arizona, hockey, handbags, shops, method, women’s high heel sandals and writing, To name just a few. Now let’s see which of those might be fascinating to him. err. subsequently Mr. Right won’t find Craig and Phoenix as great as I do, So let’s cross them off their email list. Shopping and fashion probably won’t catch his interest, one. high heel pumps might get him, But i don’t want to convey that image yet he can find that out after we start talking. Sports might be a good solution, although, Some men like having that to themselves gives them a good excuse to get with the guys from time to time. I can’t run him off before he realizes I’m happy to let him hang with the boys.

Which leaves me with hints for. on hand already know, I write very dirty books as a living, So i’d rather not get too specific. Not if i would like to filter the bad boys out. The idea is to make myself sound intriquing, notable and approachable. Getting specific about my genre will make me even more interesting than I want to be right now. I need something elegant. Maybe something like LovesToWrite. virtually no? what about TheWriteStuff? tacky? yes, a slight. But the idea is to differentiate themselves and give him a reason to click.
[—-]

Bartonbcf (user link) says:

hot viet girl

online dating site Success

Although looking for love online may resemble simple, don’t be misled. It isn’t always easy to find what you want in the vastness of the worldwide web. If you wonder how this process can be made easier and produce a better outcome, a few ways to improve your online dating experiences.

First, it is critical to remember to be yourself. If you want someone to be genuine with you, You are being genuine as well. remember this when writing an online profile. It would also be cognizant of set up profiles on several dating sites. It will help you to find and connect with more people, Allowing you to have an improved chance at success. These sites are created to help you find the right person for you, allowing you to search for other singles and match them with you according to similarities and other criteria. This your skin look, most commodious, And best approach to find romance on the internet.

There are also some things think of when writing a profile. First, It is effective to post a picture of yourself. just about anything you look like, Potential dates would like to see you when looking over your profile. When you’re writing the actual profile, Remember that it is the way that people will first be getting to know you. Make sure you create an interesting and honest description of yourself. You ought to include things such as an introduction, Your hobbies and interests, Your ideals and morals, And other items you feel are required. keep your writing with a negative attitude towards yourself. be positive and confident.

As you’re getting to know someone who you have met online, It is a good idea not to release too much information at first. while, Don’t act overly paranoid or insecure. As the relationship progresses and you grow more comfortable against each other, Perhaps you may want to disclose additional information. Just which the internet isn’t always safe, Even if you are using a trusted online dating service.

When you find someone who you wish to meet in person, You should talk over the phone first. Being able to hear someone’s voice and how they talk let you know some more about who they are. This will aid you to get a better feel for each other, And will also let you be more well-off when you do meet. You won’t want to feel anymore stress than it is important to on your first date.

automobile chatted online <a href=https://www.love-sites.com/latin-women-date-online-dating-advice-for-men/>Latin women date</a> for a while with someone you like, Of course you will swiftly want to get together for a date. A first date with someone you meet for the isn’t a lot different than any other first date, Although you might think more like a ‘blind date.’ Arrange to in a public place, Just to be safe, And take something you will both enjoy. just don’t forget to be yourself, Remain rest assured, finally, enjoy yourself! get acquainted with your date even better and appreciate one another’s company.

don’t forget: Dating is about having fun! Enjoy meeting new people and observing them. If you choose to work at it, You can find great success with online dating services.
[—-]

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »