Rep. Devin Nunes Now Threatening To Sue Fellow Congressional Reps

from the frivolous-lawsuits-for-everyone dept

It really wasn't that long ago that Rep. Devin Nunes was a co-sponsor of the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act. Of course, since then, he's been filing a whole bunch of frivolous lawsuits against news organizations, journalists, political operatives, critics, and, most famously, a satirical internet cow.

At times he's admitted that these lawsuits are about fishing for journalist's sources, but it certainly seems pretty clear that this is all an intimidation campaign, by a silly little man who is an elected representative in Congress and simply can't handle criticism. Of course, as more evidence comes out that, at the very least, suggests that Nunes is somehow tied up with all of the mess around impeachment -- including reports revealing that the indicted Lev Parnas spoke by phone with Nunes -- he seems to be getting more and more upset with anyone calling him out.

The latest is that fellow California Representative Ted Lieu noted on Twitter that Nunes' lawyer sent him a letter threatening to sue Lieu for saying "that Nunes conspired with Parnas."

Unfortunately, Lieu hasn't yet released that letter, but I'm hoping he does. I'd be curious to see if Nunes tries to sue Lieu in Virginia like most of his other lawsuits, rather than California. Also, I'd love to see how Nunes and his lawyer think they can get around the Speech or Debate Clause.

In the meantime, Ted Lieu, we really could use more people in Congress supporting a federal anti-SLAPP law. Seems like now might be a good time for you to support such a law, right?

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, defamation, devin nunes, free speech, lev parnas, slapp, speech or debate clause, ted lieu, threats


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Qwertygiy, 16 Jan 2020 @ 11:45am

    Fallacy?

    Could you enlighten me as to which part of the article you find fallacious? I've looked, and alas, I find nothing which appears to violate the rules of debate. There are no strawmen, unless you consider Nunes to be in similar straits as the fellow from the Wizard of Oz; there is no false dichotomy presented anywhere; there is no false attribution or jumping to conclusions unless you think Lieu did not actually receive such a threat, in which case it would be he, not Mike, who has committed the wrong; there's no begging the question, no equivocation, no slippery slopes except the one Nune's reputation finds itself traversing.

    Please, do tell which part I've missed, exactly.


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.