Connect with us


Exclusive: Devin Nunes' Libel Claim Over Rachel Maddow Show Broadcast Can Proceed for Now, as to One Assertion –



San Jose Unified School District Discriminated Against Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Based on …

#Devin #Nunes039 #Libel #Claim #Rachel #Maddow #Show #Broadcast #Proceed #Assertion

From today’s decision in Nunes v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC by Judge P. Kevin Castel (S.D.N.Y.):

Plaintiff Devin Nunes, a former Member of the House of Representatives, alleges that he was defamed by defendant NBCUniversal Media, LLC. According to Nunes, statements made on the March 18, 2021 broadcast of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC portrayed him in a false and defamatory light. The statements purported to describe Nunes’s conduct regarding a package addressed to him from Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian legislator with ties to Russian officials and intelligence services….

On December 11, 2019, a package was delivered to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence …, of which Nunes was Ranking Member.  It was addressed to Nunes from Andriy Derkach and was handled solely by Nunes’ staff and delivered, unopened, to the offices of the FBI.  That same day, Nunes sent a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr advising him of the receipt of the package.

On July 29, 2020, the Intelligence Committee held an open business meeting. During this meeting, Representative Sean Maloney asked Nunes two questions. First, Maloney asked if Nunes had received materials from Derkach.  Second, Maloney asked if, in the event that Nunes had received materials, whether he was prepared to share them with the Committee.  When asked if he wished to respond to the questions, Nunes declined.

In March 10, 2021, the National Intelligence Council declassified a report titled “Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections” (the “DNI Report”).  The report stated that Derkach and his associates sought to use prominent Americans to “launder their narratives to US officials and audiences.”  The report also stated that Derkach provided materials to individuals linked to the Trump administration and attempted to contact several senior U.S. officials.

In the March 18, 2021 broadcast of The Rachel Maddow Show, host Rachel Maddow discussed the declassified DNI Report as part of a longer segment about Derkach, Russian disinformation and election interference.  Maddow referred to the report and discussed the package addressed to Nunes, as well as the interaction between Nunes and Maloney at the Intelligence Committee meeting.  Maddow said that Nunes had accepted a package from Derkach and refused to answer questions about the package. Maddow also said that Nunes refused to hand the package to the FBI.

The court allowed the libel claim to proceed as to the last sentence in the statement that “Congressman Nunes has refused to answer questions about what he received from Andriy Derkach. He has refused to show the contents of the package to other members of the intelligence community. He has refused to hand it over to the FBI which is what you should do if you get something from somebody who is sanctioned by the U.S. as a Russian agent.” (Emphasis added.)

A reasonable viewer could plausibly understand the speaker to assert that Nunes “refused” turn over the Derkach package to the FBI. A reasonable viewer could conclude that such conduct is significantly more serious than what was suggested in the Committee proceeding. A refusal to turn over the package to the law-enforcement body tasked with investigating and enforcing the intelligence laws is factually distinct from declining to publicly answer questions raised in a public legislative proceeding, and could plausibly be understood by a reasonable viewer to suggest unlawful conduct on the part of Nunes. Because the assertion involving Nunes’s interactions with the FBI does not speak to the events of the Intelligence Committee meeting and “suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested at the proceeding,” it does not fall within the fair report privilege

NBCU also relies on the then-newly declassified DNI Report stating that Derkach and his associates sought to use prominent Americans to “launder their narratives to US officials and audiences” and that Derkach both provided materials to individuals linked to the Trump administration and attempted to contact senior U.S. officials. Had Statement Two merely reported on the DNI Report and noted that Nunes did not answer questions about receipt of package from Derkach, it is doubtful that it would have been actionable. But the Statement also focuses on Nunes’ refusal to turn the material over to the FBI. The Statement in this respect was false, not just technically but also in substance and meaning, and capable of injuring Nunes in his profession….

A public figure alleging defamation must “prove that an allegedly libelous statement was made with actual malice, that is, made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” To survive a motion to dismiss, “malice must be alleged plausibly in accordance with Rule 8.” “When actual malice in making a defamatory statement is at issue, the critical question is the state of mind of those responsible for the publication.”

“The hurdles to plausibly pleading actual malice, though significant given the First Amendment interests at stake, are by no means insurmountable.” “[W]hether actual malice can plausibly be inferred will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case” and “a court typically will infer actual malice from objective facts ….” “[A] public-figure plaintiff must plead ‘plausible grounds’ to infer actual malice by alleging ‘enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of’ actual malice.’” A failure to investigate is not alone sufficient to establish actual malice, but “reliance on anonymous or unreliable sources without further investigation may support an inference of actual malice.” The actual malice analysis also may weigh whether the speaker knew and ignored “the journalistic consensus” about a disputed statement, any revisions made during the editorial process and whether the speaker “had a personal connection … that animated his [or her] hostility ….”


The Complaint asserts that NBCU and Maddow had knowledge that the Derkach package had in truth been given to the FBI, based on a July 29, 2020 article published on the Breitbart website.  The Breitbart article quotes Rick Crawford, a Republican member of Congress, as stating in part:

Here’s the thing: it’s standard practice that if you get a package from unknown source in a foreign country, it’s probably a good idea to call the FBI and let them handle it and not handle those packages and don’t open them and go, ‘Hey I wonder what this is? I guess it’s Christmas came early this year.’ No, you follow the protocol, which is you turn that over to the FBI. That’s what happened. [Emphasis added.]

After quoting this passage, the Complaint states: “MSNBC and Maddow had no source that had told them prior to publication of the Statements that Plaintiff had ‘refused’ to turn over the Derkach package to the FBI.”  It states that Maddow “provided no source for the defamatory Statements about Plaintiff because, in truth, Maddow fabricated the Statements, including the story that Plaintiff ‘refused’ to turn over the package to the FBI.”

It further asserts that other reports reviewed by Maddow and her producers “confirmed the package had been turned over to the FBI” but that they “purposefully evaded the truth” and “chose not to interview important witnesses ….”

NBCU points to a July 23, 2020 article published in Politico with the headline, “Democrats: Packets sent to Trump allies are part of foreign plot to damage Biden.” The article described “concerns” of “[t]op congressional Democrats” that packets were “mailed to prominent allies of President Donald Trump,” including Nunes and then-White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.  The article included the following passage:

The packets, described to POLITICO by two people who have seen the classified portion of the Democrats’ letter, were sent late last year to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Sens. Lindsey Graham (R- S.C.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and then-White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

The packets were sent amid a Democratic push to impeach Trump over his effort to pressure Ukraine’s president to investigate Biden and his son Hunter the sources said. Graham and Grassley denied having received the material, and Mulvaney and Nunes declined repeated requests for comment. One person familiar with the matter said the information was not turned over to the FBI. The FBI declined to comment. [Emphasis added.]

This Politico article is not cited or referenced in the Complaint, nor is it cited or referenced in the segment. Because the article goes beyond the pleadings and the materials integral thereto, it is not properly considered on a motion to dismiss. On this bare record, the Court declines to convert the motion to one for summary judgment….

The court held, however, that the other statements that Nunes claimed were libelous were either substantially true, expressions of opinion, or fair reports of the House of Representatives proceedings; those were all the following statements, except the part (marked in strikeout font) that was found actionable (see above):

Statement One: “Andriy Derkach is sanctioned by the U.S. government as a Russian agent. He is singled out by name by the Director of National Intelligence as someone under Vladimir Putin’s direct purview who helped run this organization targeting our election last year. Congressman Nunes accepted a package from him. What was in it?”

Statement Two: “Congressman Nunes has refused to answer questions about what he received from Andriy Derkach. He has refused to show the contents of the package to other members of the intelligence community. He has refused to hand it over to the FBI which is what you should do if you get something from somebody who is sanctioned by the U.S. as a Russian agent.

Statement Three: “Still, the Republicans have kept Mr. Nunes on as the top Republican on the intelligence committee. How does that stand? How does that stay a thing?” …



Exclusive: Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832 –




Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832

#Today #Supreme #Court #History #January

1/26/1832: Justice George Shiras Jr.’s birthday.

Justice George Shiras Jr.

The post Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832 appeared first on

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Liberals Are Mad That McCarthy Named MAGA Republicans to Subcommittees on COVID and Government Weaponization – Good –




Liberals Are Mad That McCarthy Named MAGA Republicans to Subcommittees on COVID and Government Weaponization – Good

#Liberals #Mad #McCarthy #Named #MAGA #Republicans #Subcommittees #COVID #Government #Weaponization #Good

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced members named to two select subcommittees – one investigating the origins of COVID and another looking into the weaponization of the federal government – and Democrats are livid over the addition of certain MAGA lawmakers.

“The government has a responsibility to serve the American people, not go after them,” McCarthy said in a statement.

“The Members selected to serve on these subcommittees will work to stop the weaponization of the federal government and will also finally get answers to the Covid origins and the federal government’s gain of function research that contributed to the pandemic,” he added.

McCarthy notes that the weaponization subcommittee is necessary because congressional Democrats and the Biden administration engaged in a “dangerous pattern of the government being used to target political opponents while they neglected their most basic responsibilities.”

RELATED: Conservative Victory: Dan Crenshaw Loses Race To Chair Homeland Security Committee to Freedom Caucus Member Green

MAGA Members Named to House Select Subcommittees

A couple of names that showed up on the House select subcommittees raised the ire of Democrats, particularly those associated with the MAGA movement.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) continued reaping the fruits of a kinship with McCarthy that would make Frank Luntz blush, being named to the COVID-19 subcommittee.

Greene celebrated the appointment, stating her intention to investigate the role of gain-of-function research, the Democrat “authoritarian” lockdowns, the ineffective vaccines forced on the American people, and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s role.

Greene will also be sitting on the House Homeland Security and Oversight Committees.

Also named to the COVID subcommittee is former White House physician Ronny Jackson (R-TX), who has consistently challenged President Biden to undergo a mental fitness evaluation.

Jim Jordan (R-OH) will chair the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government after being rejected by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve on the January 6th panel.

RELATED: White House Terrified of MAGA Republicans Being Named to Committees Investigating Biden Administration

Liberals Aren’t Happy

Liberals on social media responded with outrage over MAGA Republicans representing their constituents on the select subcommittees.

Because see, it would be better to have completely partisan sham committees like the January 6th debacle.


Democratic Congressman Don Beyer dismissed both panels as “devoted to conspiracy theories.”

This is fine by us, since these days “conspiracy theories” mostly just means “the media hasn’t admitted it yet.”

House Judiciary Democrats lambasted McCarthy for having “sold out our democracy to empower MAGA extremists.”

Richard Stengel, a former Obama administration official, also took the dismissive ‘conspiracy theory’ path.

The ‘Weaponization’ subcommittee, Stengel claims, is “a body that creates rather than investigates conspiracy theories and which will eventually undermine itself.”

We literally just watched the January 6th sham create highly directed and produced filmography rather than evidence, doctored actual evidence, created conspiracy theories, and admitted they wanted to tell people what they should believe.

If Democrats are mad about MAGA Republicans serving on committees to provide a counterpoint to Democrat and media lies, then McCarthy is most definitely doing the right thing.


Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Why older mass shooters like the California gunmen are so rare –




Why older mass shooters like the California gunmen are so rare

#older #mass #shooters #California #gunmen #rare

The gunmen in both of the recent shootings in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay, California, had an unusual profile compared to most perpetrators of violent crime: They were both senior citizens.

The Monterey Park gunman, who killed 11 and injured nine before fatally shooting himself, was 72. The Half Moon Bay gunman, who killed seven people before he was arrested in what police have characterized as an act of workplace violence, is 66.

Mass shooters of that age are rare, especially those with no prior criminal record, as was the case with the Half Moon Bay gunman. (The Monterey Park gunman had one arrest in 1990 for illegal possession of a firearm.) According to data from the National Institute of Justice, mass shooters between 1966 and 2021 were on average 34 years old, and those over the age of 60 accounted for a little over 3 percent of all mass shootings, which are defined as shootings in which four or more people are killed.

The notion that people “age out of crime” is one of the most well-documented phenomena in the field of criminology. The California shootings should be seen as exceptions to that principle, not as nullifying examples, according to Ashley Nellis, co-director of research for the Sentencing Project, which advocates for criminal justice reform.

“The predictability of age is probably the most reliable point of data that we have about people who commit violent crime. Young people are just substantially more likely, and by extension, older people are substantially unlikely, to commit crime,” Nellis said. “It’s certainly a cautionary note to anybody who would be jumping to make policy based on these two events.”

Research has repeatedly shown that criminal activity increases throughout teen years, reaches its highest point at age 17, the oldest that someone can be charged with a juvenile crime, and subsides thereafter throughout life. Property crime peaks at a slightly younger age than violent crime. But even chronic offenders would be statistically likely to stop committing crime by around the age of 40, Nellis said.

There are a lot of theories as to why that might be. Typical milestones associated with getting older, like graduating or getting married, may put people on a trajectory that veers away from criminality. Brain development isn’t complete until the mid-20s, hindering decision-making that might lead to crime and risky behavior. Young people have less financial security, and people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. Some crimes might be physically demanding, and older people just might not have the strength to carry them out.

But both gunmen in the California shootings buck the archetype of a violent criminal, and their motives still aren’t entirely clear. Investigators have said that the Monterey Park shooter frequented the dance studio where he killed his victims and that the Half Moon Bay gunman, who lived and worked as a forklift driver at a mushroom farm, was angry at the coworkers he shot. Previously, there have been mass shooters as old as 70, including a gunman who opened fire at a church in Vestavia Hills, Alabama, and killed three people last June.

Though age can sometimes factor into the decision to impose a less harsh sentence on young offenders, the Half Moon Bay shooter’s advanced age won’t have any bearing on the length of his sentence, as is standard practice in the US.


He will be charged with seven counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, with a special circumstance allegation of multiple murder and sentencing enhancements for each count because of his use of a firearm, the San Mateo County district attorney announced Wednesday. If convicted on those charges, he could be facing up to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (He won’t face the death penalty, given that California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, placed a moratorium on executions in the state in 2019.)

Life sentences without parole have become increasingly common in the US over the last few decades. But Nellis argues the age of older offenders like the Half Moon Bay shooter should be considered a mitigating factor when making sentencing decisions — especially given that the use of executive clemency to release them early has become nonexistent, as she writes in a 2022 report.

“Regardless of age, somebody who does commit an act of violence like this is likely to be rehabilitated, be reformed, be ready to return to society within 10 years,” she said.

Recidivism is unlikely among older people, according to data from the US Sentencing Commission, and keeping them in prison comes at a high taxpayer cost, which includes health care bills that balloon at the end of life. It’s difficult to say how much those who’ll decide the fate of the Half Moon Bay suspect will take that data into account; his initial arraignment is Wednesday.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.