Devin Nunes Files Another SLAPP Suit; Sues The Washington Post Again

from the suppressing-speech dept

Devin Nunes is one of the most vocal supporters of Parler, regularly insisting that he supports Parler because Parler supports free speech (of course, as we’ve highlighted, Parler blocks users quite frequently, contrary to its marketing claims). Of course, Nunes is a free speech hypocrite. As we’ve highlighted over the last few years, he seems to have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to suing the media and various critics for their free speech, in a variety of SLAPP lawsuits — with no clear answer yet on who is actually paying for these lawsuits designed to stifle and suppress free speech.

Earlier this year, Nunes sued the Washington Post and reporter Shane Harris in the Eastern District of Virginia. That case was was transferred to the federal district court in DC where it continues to move forward (slowly). Now Nunes, with his regular lawyer Steven Biss, have sued the Washington Post yet again, this time with reporter Ellen Nakashima. Once again, it was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, meaning that the Washington Post is likely to go through the same process again to try to transfer the case to the DC court.

Like so many Nunes/Biss SLAPP suits, this one is… bad. At issue is the news from right after the election that a Trump loyalist and former Nunes staffer had been made the NSA’s General Counsel apparently over the objections of the NSA’s own director. This has raised a bunch of alarms for a variety of reasons — and is seen as evidence that for all of the bullshit talk of “the deep state” being out to get Trump, he’s spending his last couple months in office trying to construct his own deep state.

It was Ellen Nakashima at the Washington Post who broke the story of the Ellis appointment, and that’s the article that Nunes is now suing over. The lawsuit — somewhat laughably — argues that two sentences in the article are defamatory. Neither are defamatory. These are the two sentences:

?In March 2017, [Michael Ellis] gained publicity for his involvement in a questionable episode involving Nunes, who was given access at the White House to intelligence files that Nunes believed would buttress his baseless claims of the Obama administration spying on Trump Tower?

?News reports stated that Ellis was among the White House officials who helped Nunes see the documents ? reportedly late at night, earning the episode the nickname ?the midnight run.? [Three White House officials tied to sharing of intelligence files with Devin Nunes]

The filing nitpicks at both of these statements, but has a difficult time alleging false statements of fact, which is kind of necessary for there to be defamation. For example, with that second statement while the WaPo article talks about the alleged midnight run, Nunes first says it “never happened.” But then almost immediately admits that he did, in fact, go to the White House — it just wasn’t at night. Whether or not the meeting was at night or “when the sun was out,” as Nunes claims, is not defamatory. Even more to the point, the WaPo article highlights that its citing “news reports” and that the nighttime aspect of the meeting was “reportedly” what happened, and noting (accurately) that others have referred to this as “the midnight run.” In other words, the article appropriately hedged those points and highlighted that it was covering what others were saying.

And then there’s this: even though the Washington Post was basing this statement on “news reports” Biss/Nunes tries to argue that those news reports somehow don’t count, because they were from the NY Times which is “well-known for spreading false statements.” I kid you not.

Upon information and belief, one of the ?News reports? referred to in the Article is a ?report? manufactured by New York Times reporters Adam Goldman, Matthew Rosenberg and Maggie Haberman, well-known for spreading false statements and defamation on behalf of anonymous ?sources? at the FBI and State Department.

This is conspiracy theory fan fiction masquerading as a lawsuit.

There is basically no attempt to get over the actual malice standard necessary for any of this to be defamation of a public figure. The complaint tries to twist some minor potential inaccuracies into evidence of knowledge that the statements were false, but that is not at all supported by the complaint. It argues, ridiculously, that she should have known certain statements from Rep. Adam Schiff should not be trusted because Schiff and his staff “had an axe to grind against Plaintiff and a reason to lie.” What? That is not at all how the actual malice standard works.

This is yet another ridiculously weak complaint that is hard to see as anything other than yet another nuisance SLAPP suit from an incredibly thin-skinned Devin Nunes who has now sued multiple media outlets and reporters (not to mention a satirical cow). For all his talk about supporting free speech and being against the suppression of speech, these lawsuits suggest that no one in Congress is more engaged in the blatant suppression of speech than Devin Nunes.

Once again, these kinds of intimidation tactics by lawsuit are exactly why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law (and why Virginia needs to get its act together early next year and pass the anti-SLAPP bill it almost passed earlier this year).

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: 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 “Devin Nunes Files Another SLAPP Suit; Sues The Washington Post Again”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
22 Comments
Owen says:

Defamation? Libel? Slander?

What about Nunes’ own statements:

…one of the “News reports” referred to in the Article is a “report” manufactured by New York Times reporters Adam Goldman, Matthew Rosenberg and Maggie Haberman, well-known for spreading false statements and defamation on behalf of anonymous “sources” at the FBI and State Department.

Would any of that cross the threshold for defamation/libel/slander? Could/should NYT and/or its reporters countersue (in WVA) Nunes? That would be hilarious (but on the downside, would probably encourage his antics, so maybe not the best idea)…

Owen says:

Defamation? Libel? Slander?

What about Nunes’ own statements:

…one of the “News reports” referred to in the Article is a “report” manufactured by New York Times reporters Adam Goldman, Matthew Rosenberg and Maggie Haberman, well-known for spreading false statements and defamation on behalf of anonymous “sources” at the FBI and State Department.

Would any of that cross the threshold for defamation/libel/slander? Could/should NYT and/or its reporters countersue (in WVA) Nunes? That would be hilarious (but on the downside, would probably encourage his antics, so maybe not the best idea)…

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Defamation? Libel? Slander?

Would any of that cross the threshold for defamation/libel/slander?

I don’t believe so.

“for well over one hundred years” New York has provided “absolute immunity from liability for defamation…for oral or written statements made by attorneys in connection with a proceeding before a court ‘when such words and writings are material and pertinent to the questions involved.’”

https://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/2016-12-22-attorneys-beware-limited-immunity-from-defamation-suits/_res/id=Attachments/index=0/Spiro%20Mogul%2012.22.16.pdf

It could vary in different jurisdictions though.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Nunes likely wants an out-of-court settlement more than he wants a trial. A trial means discovery, after all. And Nunes strikes me as the kind of lowlife asshole who would do anything he can to avoid letting WaPo (or any of the other people targeted by his lawsuits) dig around in his life.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Remember when we didn’t elect thin skinned assholes?

Every one of his lolsuits has been laughable, yet for some reason the courts seem unwilling to just benchslap this idiot, his lawyer, and who ever the fsck is paying the bills for this bs.
Its wasting the courts time, it is allowing a sitting member of Congress to spin an ‘alternative view" of events (Read as HE IS FUCKING LYING ALL THE TIME).

I miss when political parties would horsewhip liars to make a point, but then we reelected people who supported ‘Mall Food Court’ Moore coming back to power.

I miss civics

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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 »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...