AOC's attack on Trump should get her sued into oblivion

Florida’s top law dog, Attorney General James Uthmeier, unloaded both barrels on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, [aka Alexandria Obviously-Comatose, aka Sandy from da Bronx] the Bronx’s favorite communist, for cheering on ICE protests aimed at derailing Trump’s mass deportation plans. AOC, never one to shy from a fight because she's too dumb to know that she will lose, stepped in it big time, tossing around the word "rapist" like it’s confetti at a parade, slamming Trump on X over the Jeffrey Epstein clusterfrack.

The far-left Latina, who’s been trading haymakers with Trump since she swapped bartending for congressional hearings, couldn’t resist stirring the pot on the Epstein case. The disgraced financier, who took the coward’s way out in a New York cell in 2019, left a trail of slime that still has politicos pointing fingers. 

Sandy, never missing a chance to grandstand, fired off this gem on X: "Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?" She was poking at the 2023 E. Jean Carroll civil trial, where a jury pinned Trump for sexual assault but stopped short of rape, so the fact is, it isn't rape.

Her critics pounced, screaming defamation faster than you can say "hey buddy, got a dollar?"

The Trump DOJ, meanwhile, insists there’s no secret Epstein client list, but that didn’t stop AOC from dropping the “R” bomb. Trump’s loyalists and legal eagles smelled blood. "The President should sue AOC into bankruptcy. I realize she’s trying to raise her profile but this is way way too far," legal analyst Phil Holloway, one of my favorite lawyers said on X.

Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee, not exactly a shrinking violet, also piled on: "Even under the ridiculously lenient standards of NY Times v. Sullivan, you’ve managed to incur defamation liability Wow." 

Oklahoma’s Sen. Markwayne Mullin took a different jab, snarking, "Why didn’t you guys release the Epstein files over the last 4 years? Maybe you were too busy covering for Joe Biden… or, could it have something to do with another former Democrat President?"

The X peanut gallery wasn’t done. Bill Mitchell, host of YourVoice America, laid into her: "Well we have grounds for a huge defamation suit here you idiot because Donald Trump has never been indicted for rape much less convicted." 

Another X user chimed in, "You realize your X account doesn't carry the same protections to defame people that you enjoy during congressional proceedings?"

The "rapist" jab hit a nerve, especially after ABC coughed up $15 million to Trump for George Stephanopoulos’ loose lips last year. Stephanopoulos, in a March 2024 cage match with another GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, he kept hammering that Trump was “liable for rape” in the Carroll case. "You’ve endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape," Stephanopoulos said.

Stephanopoulos, a former Senior Advisor to President Bill Clinton for Policy and Strategy and Communications Director, used that term ten times, per Fox Digital. 

Trump, who’s always denied knowing Carroll, called her a liar chasing book sales. ABC and Stephanopoulos later ate crow, settling for $15 million and a public "regret" note: 

"Editor's Note: ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC’s This Week on March 10, 2024."

AOC’s low-information defenders on X argued she didn’t name Trump directly, so good luck with that defamation suit. But Trump ally Laura Loomer wasn’t buying it: "Donald Trump has not been criminally convicted of being a rapist. This is defamatory. And I hope you are sued by Trump for this the same way George Stephanopoulos was sued and forced to pay Trump $15 million dollars. I hope you have millions ready for Trump, Porky. @AOC."

Townhall’s Rachel Alexander cackled, "This is gonna be fun. AOC is so dumb she just called Trump a rapist, after ABC was forced to fork over $16 million in a settlement with Trump after George Stephanopoulos called him a rapist."

White House comms chief Steven Cheung threw the final punch: "AOC likes to play pretend like she’s from the block, but in reality she’s just a sad, miserable blockhead who is trying to over-compensate for her lack of self-confidence that has followed her for her entire life." 

Fox News Digital had reached out to AOC’s office Sunday for a response but got crickets, similar to the sound you can hear if you put your ear next to AOC's

So here we are, watching AOC swing for the fences and maybe whiffing into a legal buzzsaw. She’s got the lefty faithful cheering, but the Trump train’s ready to roll her into court. Just another day in the circus.

Gosh, I hope he goes through with a lawsuit and takes her to the cleaners.

Hey amazing readers! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Cretin News Network worried over defamation suit's outcome as trial heats up

Alright, buckle up, because CNN's in for a wild ride, or should I say, a defamation lawsuit rollercoaster! Here's the scoop from Fox News, and trust me, it's juicier than a five-pound burger at a vegan conference.

CNN's bigwigs are sweating bullets over this defamation case that's hotter than a summer day in Phoenix. They're not just worried about losing their reputation; they're terrified of another massive payout that could make their already dismal ratings look like the good old days. [I refer to the Nick Sandmann case where CNN paid a bundle to the smiling teen.]

Now, while the network's bottom feeders are dealing with sinking viewership and whispers of layoffs, they're also staring down this lawsuit from Navy vet Zach Young. This guy says CNN smeared him worse than a tabloid does to a Hollywood starlet, claiming he was some kind of black market profiteer during the chaotic Afghanistan pullout under Biden.

"It's a big concern of upper management," an insider squealed to Fox News Digital. "All the damning stuff, text messages, etc., has already been published. So I don't think there's concern in terms of exposure. But I think there's definitely concern about the outcome. It seems very likely that CNN is going to have an enormous payout at the end of this."

Young didn't just sit back; he warned CNN's reporter, Alex Marquardt, that he'd see them in court if they aired what he considered a load of bull. He claims CNN "destroyed his reputation and business" by painting him as the bad guy exploiting "desperate Afghans" in a segment aired on "The Lead with Jake Tapper."

The discovery process? Oh, it's like Christmas for lawyers, with internal CNN chats showing editors had doubts but went with the story anyway. And let's not forget the charming language used by CNN staff to describe Young in private.

But, here's the kicker: while this lawsuit is brewing like a witch's potion, the everyday CNN grunt isn't losing sleep over it. They've got other fish to fry, like their own jobs and ratings that are lower than a limbo stick at a beach party.

Another insider spilled, "I don't know if that pans out. But for some reason it hasn't permeated the org at all. And that is probably because the org is in toxic shock daily and crisis at its situation, so there are bigger morale fish to fry." They added, "Ratings, cuts, confusion on strategy, all of the above. Which isn't unique to CNN but is acute at CNN."

CNN, trying to put on a brave face, says, "When all the facts come to light, we are confident we will have a verdict in our favor." Sure, they're as confident as a cat at a dog show.

New CEO Mark Thompson, who's been cleaning up since Licht's departure, isn't denying the pink slips are coming. They're pivoting to digital, but with ratings that would make a ghost town look lively, it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

And let's not forget, CNN's ratings have hit rock bottom, with numbers so low you'd need a microscope to count them. They're losing to the Food Network, for crying out loud!

So, while Thompson's got his game face on, the industry's like a sinking ship with everyone bailing water, from the Washington Post to HuffPost.

"I think people still feel right now it's a very uncertain time in the business overall, so I think that there's still a feeling of, 'what's going to happen to CNN,' and that people don't really know about that," said the insider.

In the end, it's a mess at CNN, and this defamation suit might just be the cherry on top of a very sour sundae. Stay tuned, folks!

Tweet

Jake Tapper's vilification of Fox News may kick him in the butt in CNN defamation trial

CNN anchor Jake Tapper's criticism of Fox News might come back to haunt the network during an upcoming defamation lawsuit. This lawsuit stems from a 2021 segment on Tapper's show where they wrongly accused a Navy veteran named Zachary Young of exploiting Afghan nationals trying to escape after the Taliban took over.

A Florida judge decided on Thursday to side with Young, who claims that Tapper and CNN wrongly painted him as an "illegal profiteer" during America's exit from Afghanistan. This ruling allows Young to bring up Tapper's harsh words about Fox News from November 2023 in court. Back then, Tapper called Fox News a "cancer on the democracy we have" and accused them of not fulfilling their "grave responsibility" to report news fairly and honestly. This was first reported by Law and Crime.

Young is seeking $1 billion in damages, arguing that Tapper’s statements should be part of the trial to demonstrate that both Tapper and CNN knew they had a duty to deliver accurate and fair news. He claims the November 2021 broadcast harmed his reputation and destroyed his business, Nemex Enterprises.

Judge William Henry, overseeing the case in Florida’s 14th Judicial Circuit, has also allowed Young to use text messages in court. These messages allegedly show that CNN staff intended to tarnish Young's image as a war profiteer.

In one text, Alex Marquardt, the national security correspondent for CNN and lead reporter on the segment, said he wanted to "nail this Zachary Young mfucker." Another message from CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan referred to Young as "a shit." CNN did not respond to requests for comment on this matter.

This lawsuit could be another public relations hit for CNN, which prides itself on being "the most trusted name in news." Previously, they settled with Nicholas Sandmann, a 16-year-old student from Covington Catholic High School, in 2020 after wrongly depicting him in a confrontation with activist Nathan Phillips.

The trial against CNN is scheduled to begin later this month, shortly after ABC News paid Donald Trump $15 million to settle a claim over comments made by ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, who labeled Trump a rapist.

Tapper, who once worked for ABC News after serving as press secretary for former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky in the 1990s, joined CNN later in his career.

Tweet

Trump sues Stephanopoulos and ABC for defamation

If there is one thing we know about former President Donald Trump, it's that he's a mud fighter. While he's on the defense on many legal matters right now, he's going offense against ABC News' George Stephanopoulos [aka Mister Snuffalopougus] over comments he made in an interview with Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace early in March.

In the interview, Stephanopoulos tried to shame Mace for supporting Trump because she had been raped as a 16-year-old and he mischaracterized legal findings against Trump by saying that  "judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape."

This is a total lie and now Trump has filed a lawsuit for defamation against the former Clinton operative and ABC over the remarks.

Trump’s lawsuit highlights how Stephanopoulos at various points in his questioning of Mace said that Trump had been found "liable for rape." What the jury actually found was that the former President was liable for sexual abuse under New York law--not rape.

“Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw, ” Stephanopoulos asked Mace.

“These statements were and remain false, and were made by Defendant Stephanopoulos with actual malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth given that Defendant Stephanopoulos knows that these statements are patently and demonstrably false,” Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, wrote in the 20-page complaint.

“Indeed, the jury expressly found that Plaintiff did not commit rape and, as demonstrated below, Defendant George Stephanopoulos was aware of the jury’s finding in this regard yet still falsely stated otherwise,” Brito continued.

The 20-page complaint pleads two counts — one for defamation per se (statements automatically deemed harmful) and one for defamation per quod (statements the plaintiff must prove caused damage) — and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

It is definitely harmful for Trump's re-election because anyone who watches the mainstream media will never be told about the mischaracterization of how Stephanopoulos lied. 

As seen in the complaint, the jury, though it found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll suit tried first (Carroll II), declined to find him liable for rape. (The second Carroll trial involved only a claim for defamation.) And, as the complaint points out, Stephanopoulos was well aware of this, as he specifically asked Carroll about it in an interview shortly after the initial verdict in May of 2023. 

So the little man lied.

Hopefully Trump will be able to collect $500 million to cover his bond in another case waged against him. 

Tweet

Trump sort of fires lawyers for E. Jean Carroll appeal

Former President Donald Trump lost the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll to the tune of $83.3 million in damages for defamation in 2019 after Carroll accused him of rape and he basically said that she wasn't his type and denied it ever happened.

“I am in the process along with my team,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media network Truth Social on Tuesday night, “of interviewing various law firms to represent me in an Appeal of one of the most ridiculous and unfair Witch Hunts our Country has ever seen.”

Ms. Carroll went after Trump's money twice. One lawsuit last May accused him of raping her inside Manhattan's Bergdorf Goodman in 1996. Number two came in October 2022 when she accused him of defaming her by calling her a "complete con job."

The jury found that Trump sexually assaulted her but did not rape her and awarded her $5 million.

The judge in January’s jury trial, Lewis Kaplan, however, ruled that sexual assault and rape are the same thing and that Trump did indeed rape Carroll.

In that same January trial, Carroll alleged Trump defamed her with statements he made in June 2019, while he was president, shortly after New York magazine published an excerpt from Carroll's book, in which she detailed her claims about the fateful encounter in a dressing room on Bergdorf Goodman’s lingerie floor. 

Trump denied the allegations, called them a “disgrace,” and said that she wasn't his “type,” effectively branding her an unattractive liar. But in all honesty, when you compare all the women that Trump may have boffed, it's obvious that Carroll isn't in the same league. 

Judge Lewis Kaplan

But in spite of that, the jury awarded Carroll a ridiculous $ 83.3 million for these damages.

Trump’s quite attractive lead defense attorney, Alina Habba, told reporters after the verdict that she was proud to represent the former president and would continue to do so in the appeal. “We did not win today,” she said last Friday, “but we will win.”

On Monday, Ms. Habba filed a letter to the judge, who presided over both cases, Lewis Kaplan. She cited a recent New York Post article, which claimed that the judge had a “mentor” relationship with Ms. Carroll’s lead lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, [no relation] when they briefly worked together at the same law firm in the 1990s. Thus, establishing a conflict of interest.

On Tuesday, Ms. Kaplan fired back with her own letter, calling the “mentor-mentee relationship” a “false allegation.”

“I have no recollection from that time period of ever interacting with Your Honor on a case, participating with Your Honor in a client or case-related meeting, or attending a court proceeding with Your Honor. In fact, I remember no direct interaction from that time period with Your Honor at all,” Ms. Kaplan claimed. She referenced the large size of the firm, and that the future judge was a lead litigator, while she was merely a junior associate. 

“While Ms. Habba ends her letter by characterizing this as a ‘troubling matter,’ … what is actually troubling is both the substance and timing of her false accusations of impropriety on the part of E. Jean Carroll’s counsel or the Court,” Ms. Kaplan added and reserved her right to seek sanctions.

Ms. Habba immediately walked back her allegation, explaining to the judge, in yet another court filing, that “the point of my January 29 letter was to verify whether the information contained in the New York Post article is accurate. Since Ms. Kaplan has now denied that there was ever a mentor-mentee relationship between herself and Your Honor, this issue has seemingly been resolved.”

Not a good look for Trump's defense team.

In a small footnote at the very bottom of the page, Ms. Habba wrote, “There are, however, various other issues relating to the Court’s conduct, including potential bias hostility towards defense counsel, that will be raised in post-trial motions and on appeal.”

After Mr. Trump posted that he and “his team” were “interviewing” firms for the appeal, media outlets began reporting that the former president was looking for a “new” lawyer.  

Ms. Habba, who led the defense in January’s courtroom debacle, was often criticized for her behavior in the courtroom by the judge. For example, she did not stand up when she addressed the judge; instead, she spoke to him while seated in her chair. She also did not know, or disregarded, the procedure the federal judge demanded for objections. Ms. Habba had to be reminded numerous times not to raise objections during cross examinations of witnesses her co-counsel, Michael Madaio, had initially questioned.

Not a good look again, for the Trump defense team.

Ms. Habba’s courtroom feud with the judge culminated on the last day of the trial. The defense attorney tried to introduce new evidence for her closing argument, even though both parties had rested their cases the day before. When Ms. Habba did not stop insisting, Judge Kaplan threatened to throw her in jail.

Even a worse look for the Trump defense team.

Habba was not the only one the judge reprimanded. One time the former President's longtime legal adviser, Boris Epshteyn, who also attended the hearings at the Federal Court, and would frequently pass notes to Ms. Habba, and stood up and tried to address the court. The judge reminded Epshteyn that without having taken the required bar exam for the district court, he was not licensed to argue in the courtroom.

I believe that Trump's track record for hiring and firing staff with whom he is displeased is also a problem.

But Trump wasn't wrong when he stood up to the judge after Kaplan ruled that Carroll's allegations of sexual assault was proven fact, and that he wouldn't allow Trump to defend himself against them on the stand.

Of course, when he muttered things the jury heard, or disobeyed Judge Kaplan's instructions, or when he walked out of the courtroom in the middle of his opponents closing arguments the same day the jury deliberated the verdict, wasn't a good look. Worse, the mainstream media reported that Ms. Habba did not control her client. But really now, who can control Trump?

 On Wednesday, Ms. Habba stated that she will remain to represent Trump.  “Hiring a separate firm to handle the appellate process is a normal step in a case of this nature,” she told ABC News, adding that her team will work with the new firm as the appeal proceeds.

Having an appellate specialist represent Trump makes sense, however, and it should be expected. It isn't that he fired Habba, but he's looking to win the appeal and is going about it the smart way.

Many legal observers agree that the various civil and criminal cases against Trump, may end up before the Supreme Court, three of whom Mr. Trump appointed.

On Tuesday, the former President wrote in his Truth Social post, “Any lawyer who takes a TRUMP CASE is either “CRAZY,” or a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT. I will make my decision soon!’”

Always more to come--always the showman.

Tweet

Nation of Islam's head anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan sues ADL for $4.8 billion

Notorious Jew-hater and Nation of Islam's leader Louis Farrakhan is suing the Anti-Defamation League, a former civil rights group than now acts on behalf of the Democratic Party for $4,800,000,000. He filed the lawsuit in Manhattan Federal Court and it alleges defamation for calling him out as an anti-Semite. 

"This lawsuit is to ensure that the abuse, misuse, and false use of the terms 'anti-Semite,' 'anti-Semitic,' and 'antisemitism,' as falsely charged by the [ADL] is permanently barred from being a tool to defame [Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam] and stifle the exercise of constitutional rights," the lawsuit read, the New York Post reported Saturday.

The lawsuit "has no merit," according to ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt.

"Louis Farrakhan is an antisemite," Greenblatt told the Post. "One need look no further than his own words and statements to come away with the same conclusion." Now he can join the ranks of the anti-Semites of Harvard, Yale, Brown, and so on. 

Farrakhan who has been correctly compared to human excrement, has had an oft-criticized and detailed modus operandi of making statements against the nation of Israel and Jews. The POS has even called Adolf Hitler a "great man."

Here's Farrakhan with Obama

However, Farrakhan alleges in his lawsuit that correctly labels him as antisemitic is a "false narrative" pushed by the ADL, according to the report. 

But let's not forget that he referred to Jews as termites: "So when they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know what they do: Call me an antisemite; stop it. I'm anti-termite," Farrakhan infamously stated, referring to a common pest that is treated by exterminators.

The lawsuit argues Farrakhan "has never harmed a hair on the head of any Jewish person or even advocated for such." BECAUSE HE'S A COWARD AND NOW HE'S 90 YEARS OLD!

Farrakhan called out the "battle of Biblical proportions" against the ADL in the lawsuit filing, which included 787 pages, arguing against his being deemed anti-Semitic, according to the Post.

In another speech from 1998, the Nation of Islam lunatic said, "The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust."

More recently the Minister of Hate said in 2018, "Jews are responsible for all this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out."

Anti-Semitism has become acceptable in some circles and fashionable in others. It's disgusting and shameful.

Tweet

BREAKING: Tucker Carlson's firing may now be known

Although the precise reason Tucker Carlson was fired from his highly successful cable show on the Fox News Network has not been officially confirmed, it may now be known. The "decider" was apparently Rupert Murdoch. 

Sources have told various outlets that there were several factors involved with Fox's decision. The Los Angeles Times was told that Murdoch was worried about Carlson's coverage of the January 6, 2021 attack on Capitol Hill whereby Carlson downplayed the scene as "mostly peaceful chaos" and said the attack was provoked by government agents.

Carlson was criticized by many people for his opinions, including some Republican senators. “The American people saw what happened on Jan. 6,” Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) explained to reporters. “They’ve seen the people that got injured, they saw the damage to the building. You can’t hide the truth by selectively picking a few minutes out of tapes and saying this is what went on. It’s so absurd. It’s nonsense.”

Another decision to fire Carlson was likely inspired by accusations his ex-producer Abby Grossberg made according to the L.A. Times. She had been moved from Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo to Tucker Carlson Tonight where she claimed she was bullied and a target of anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Grossberg filed a lawsuit against Fox last month, accusing Fox lawyers of coercing her into giving misleading testimony in the legal battle with Dominion Voting Systems, the New York Times wrote.

Axios also cited Grossberg as a factor in Carlson’s exit. The news outlet pointed to Carlson’s attempt to get Fox’s White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, the Fox White House correspondent, fired for fact-checking a tweet from former president Donald Trump.

According to a representative from Dominion Voting Systems, which settled with the outlet for $787.5 million, Carlson's firing was not related to the lawsuit, which accused Fox of defamation for allowing hosts and guests to make false claims about the company regarding election-fraud.

The Dominion discovery process revealed negative comments Carlson made about the company and others, including Trump, who the anchor said he hates passionately.

“Do the executives understand how much credibility and trust we’ve lost with our audience?,” Carlson wrote a day after Fox called the election for Joe Biden, the Washington Post reported. Carlson expressed the same sentiment in another message, using an expletive: “Those f**kers are destroying our credibility,” he wrote.

More information implicating Carlson and legally damaging for Fox News could be out there as the company faces the possibility of additional defamation suits.

Tweet

Oberlin College pays out $36M to Gibson's Bakery in defamation suit

Well it finally happened. Oberlin College, in Ohio, handed over the $36,000,000 they owed to a local campus bakery after they accused the family-operated business of being racist. [H/T New York Post.]

The bakery won a defamation lawsuit against the school that called them racist after three black students were caught stealing from the business in November 2016.

“We can confirm that all funds have been disbursed and that the family is continuing with the process of rebuilding Gibson’s Bakery for the next generations,” Brandon McHugh, the Gibson family’s attorney, told 3News last Thursday.

“It’s definitely about right and wrong. And to be quite frank, the three students that shoplifted, they admitted their crimes,” added McHugh. “It was Oberlin College that could never admit that what they did was wrong.”

Is it possible that, as a country, the term 'racist' is thrown around a bit too much? Sounds like that's the case.

The bakery was first started when Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden were both in diapers 137 years ago. The store plans to rebuild with the money they were awarded as they had lost much of it after the false accusations and the Fauci-China pandemic hit at the same time.

“I would replace the compressors for the refrigerators and replace the fryers and proofers that we use for our dough. I would pay off the mortgages on my properties that I’ve taken out in the past few years. I’d hire back employees and ramp up production,” Lorna Gibson wrote in a September piece for The Post.

The defamation suit was filed by Gibson's Bakery in 2017 after the shoplifting incident in which one of the perps tried to use a fake ID to purchase a bottle of wine, while swiping two more bottles, according to court documents.

Lorna's son, Allyn, chased the three stooges, Jonathan Aladin, Endia Lawrence and Cecelia Whettstone. A kerfuffle ensued outside the store and when police arrived, the stooges claimed Allyn racially profiled them.

Clueless protestors virtue-signaled and picketed the business after the three stooges claimed they were racially profiled.

An Oberlin College staffer created and distributed flyers claiming, without any proof whatsoever that the family had a “LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.” The flyers urged shoppers to boycott Gibson's and business went down the tubes because of the allegations, Gibson said, in spite of the fact that the three stooges admitted in 2017 that they had not been racially profiled and pled guilty to attempted theft.

The Gibsons decided to sue the college because the family’s patriarch, 89-year-old Allyn Sr. “who had dedicated his life to the business, did not want to die being falsely branded a racist,” Lorna Gibson said. 

He died in early 2022.

Oberlin College was initially fined $11 million in 2019 after they were found to have defamed the bakery when the staffer made the flyers. Oberlin tried to appeal the ruling but in September, the Ohio Supreme Court denied the school's bid to hear its appeal and ordered them to pay the Gibson's over $36 million.

“It’s definitely about right and wrong. And to be quite frank, the three students that shoplifted, they admitted their crimes,” McHugh said Thursday. “It was Oberlin College that could never admit that what they did was wrong.”

Oberlin College is the poster child of the Left and wouldn't know a racist, even if they looked in the mirror.

Tweet

OANN sues MSNBC's Rachel Maddow for $10 million

One America News Network (OANN) has filed a defamation lawsuit for $10 million against Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.

The conservative network is suing Maddow, Comcast Corporation, MSNBC and NBC Universal for defamation based on the allegation that Maddow "maliciously and recklessly" attacked OANN by suggesting it is a Russian state propaganda outlet, as per the complaint, according to Law and Crime.

Maddow said that OANN “really, literally is Russian propaganda” on “The Rachel Maddow Show” in July.

Maddow’s thoughtless comment was based on an article in the far-left Daily Beast, stating OANN’s Kristian Rouz is a “Russian national on the payroll of the Kremlin’s official propaganda outlet, Sputnik.” 

OANN demanded a retraction from The Daily Beast reporter along with Maddow on July 29.

“This is vile, sensationalistic reporting,” OANN’s lawyer, Skip Miller, said according to a previous press release. “These defamatory statements must be retracted immediately. One America News Network has no connection to the Russian government or any other government — no connection whatsoever, financial or otherwise.”

In fact, if you watch the channel on TV or read their online posts, you'd see a rather conservative as well as a pro-Trump leaning.

Comcast is being sued for refusing to carry OANN as part of its cable programming because the network could go against liberal politics of MSNBC, according to the complaint. The lawsuit also alleges that Maddow and the other defendants were aware that her comment was false, and suggests the statement was intentionally made to hurt OANN because of the network’s conservative views. 

It would also blow MSNBC out of the water in competitive terms if they were granted a cable spot.

OANN’s lawyers gave Maddow and The Daily Beast until Aug. 15 to retract its statements, according to the cease-and-desist requests sent on July 29.

“One America is wholly owned, operated and financed by the Herring family in San Diego,” Miller said according to a statement. “They are as American as apple pie. They are not paid by Russia and have nothing to do with the Russian government.”

“This is a false and malicious libel, and they’re going to answer for it in a court of law.”

MSNBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment and Rachel Maddow was last seen looking androgynous.



Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not. But seriously, please check out the ads as this is my source of generating revenue. And you can also see my blog on the Times of Israel.





Tweet

Stormy gets Trump's legal bill for frivolous lawsuit

Two months have passed since a judge dismissed Stormy Daniels' frivolous defamation lawsuit against President Trump. He ruled that the porn performer must now fork over Trump's legal fees and the president's attorneys have delivered the bill.

This might mean that Daniels and her weasel whisperer lawyer, Michael Avenatti, will not be on the best of terms.

In a Los Angeles federal court on Monday, the president's lawyers said they've billed over 500 hours of work at rates as much as $840 an hour, according to an NBC report. The total legal costs for Daniels comes to $340,000.

Trump's legal team explained that the reason for so many hours is due to Avenatti's public antics. When the accusations began against Trump, Avenatti seemed to have a tent pitched at both CNN and MSNBC. In just two months, the creep racked up over 100 appearances between the two leftist networks.

"This action is virtually unprecedented in American legal history," wrote lead attorney Charles Harder in the filing, NBC notes. Stormy Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Cliffords) not only brought the "meritless" claim against the sitting President of the United States, "she also has engaged, along with her attorney, in massive national publicity," including the fact that she gave her strip tour a name which referenced the president's "Make America Great Again" with "Making America Horny Again", and writing a memoir, all of which the media coverage helped promote.

Avenatti called the fees "staggering and grossly inflated" Monday, insisting that they should not exceed $25,000, NBC reports. Of course, Avenatti would have charged much more than Trump's team if the shoe was on the other foot.

Daniels told The Daily Beast that the defamation lawsuit filed by Avenatti, was done so against her wishes. The suit revolved around a Trump tweet in response to Daniels and Avenatti showing a composite sketch of a man she claims threatened her on Trump's behalf in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2013. This occurred when she was telling her story to a publication about her alleged one-night affair with Trump.

Avenatti then had a big media build-up to which Trump responded on Twitter: "A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!"

The "goon" and Daniels' ex-husband

So Daniels sued Trump for defamation over the "con job" comment, a lawsuit she told the Daily Beast last week was Michael Avenatti's idea.

"I'm tremendously grateful to him for aggressively representing me in my fight to regain my voice," she said in a statement. "But in other ways Michael has not treated me with the respect and deference an attorney should show to a client. He has spoken on my behalf without my approval. He filed a defamation case against Donald Trump against my wishes."

If this is true, Avenatti may be in big trouble.

In a ruling in October, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero agreed with President Trump that the lawsuit was frivolous. "The court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.," said Judge Otero. "The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement."

The "porn star and the president" saga began with Michael Cohen's payment of $130,000 in "hush money" to Daniels before the election in 2016 in exchange for her signing a non-disclosure agreement she has since broken and claims was null and void because Trump never signed it. In one of his multiple plea deals, Cohen said he knowingly violated campaign finance law to cover up Trump's alleged affair.

But in any case, Michael Cohen is in big trouble.


Hello fellow conservatives. Please click the "Follow" button in the margin to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, if you would visit the ads on this page it helps the economy grow and it does a world of good for me.

Tweet

Alex Jones of InforWars being sued by Sandy Hook parents

Many people take Alex Jones seriously. That's probably due to the notion that he says things that conspiracy theorists want to believe, so they do. Sometimes Jones makes claims that are so far out over his skis that he needs to be held accountable.

The families of two kids who were killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre filed suit against Infowars head for his claim that the Connecticut shooting never happened.

The whole thing was a hoax, he claimed.

Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, the parents of Noah Pozner, and Neil Heslin, the father of Jesse Lewis, filed separate defamation lawsuits Monday against Jones seeking over $1 million in damages.

The suits were filed in Travis County, Texas, the home of InfoWars, Jones' media company.

Mark Bankston, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called Jones' accusations "goulish."

Jesse Lewis

"Even after these folks had to experience this trauma, for the accusations next five years they were tormented by Alex Jones with vicious lies about them," Bankston told the Huffington Post. "And these lies were meant to convince his audience that the Sandy Hook parents are frauds and have perpetrated a sinister lie on the American people."

Six teachers and 20 first-grade students were gunned down on December 14, 2012 by the gunman, a mentally ill young man who first shot and killed his mother and took her legally-owned guns to continue the slaughter before killing himself.

Noah Pozner

The lawsuits allege that Jones insisted the shooting was staged and this resulted in the encouragement of other crazy people to make death threats against the victims' families.

"So, if children were lost at Sandy Hook, my heart goes out to each and every one of those parents. And the people who say they're parents that I see on the news. The only problem is, I've watched a lot of soap operas. And I've seen actors before [he's one of them]. And I know when I'm watching a movie and when I'm watching something real," Jones said at the time.

Jones and InfoWars did not comment on the lawsuit.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and defamation.


Tweet

Sarah Palin going after the "Gray Lady"

Photo: Fox News

Sarah Palin plans to subpoena about two dozen New York Times staffers in her defamation lawsuit against the canary cage liner.

Lawyers for The Times arguing for the case to be dismissed said that Palin's lawyers served notice that she plans to subpoena "23 non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees--most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial issue," as per the court documents obtained Wednesday by the New York Post.

The former governor of Alaska's legal team apparently plans to ask the "Gray Lady" to produce "every internal communication it has has since 2011," in order to obtain "documents that might reveal, among other things, their 'negative feelings' toward her," the Times told the judge on Wednesday.

The so-called 'paper of record' had no comment.

Palin's lawsuit stems from a Times editorial on June 14, just a few hours after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and seriously wounded at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va. Ms. Palin alleges the editorial tied her to the January 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D- Ariz.). 

The editorial, attributed to the Times' editorial board titled "America's Lethal Politics," initially linked Palin's rhetoric to the shooting that killed six people and wounded thirteen others, including Giffords.

The Times posted a correction the following day, admitting that "no such link was established," and at least a dozen people read the correction because that's generally something people skim over or disregard because it's so small and visually insignificant.

In addition, the editorial claimed, wrongfully, that an ad from Palin's political action committee put "Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs" [apparently suggesting they were being targeted with a rifle scope].

The Times also corrected that statement, admitting that the crosshairs on the map targeted "electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers."

Well gee, it's almost the same thing . . . if you're the fake news New York Times. 

The lawsuit stated "The Times used its false assertion about Mrs. Palin as an artifice to exploit the [Scalise] shooting." It added, "The Times published and promoted its editorial board's column despite knowing . . . the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited [Tucson shooter Jared] Loughner to murder six people. In doing so, the Times violated the law and its own policies."

The substitute pooper scooper has reportedly claimed that Ms. Palin has no case because she can't claim malice, the legal standard for claiming defamation.

Perhaps the NRA can claim malice for her if it's proven she cannot because the Times is no longer unbiased--they clearly have a leftist agenda. But really, they always did.


Tweet