Former CNN Host Sued For Calling Nick Sandmann's Face 'Punchable' In Now-Deleted Tweet

[Pogo]

Yep, Pogo the Clown IS quite dim. The brainwashing he's received from our biased media has done wonders for him. Poor fella.........

He's an argumentative and a stubborn SOB. Lol! Sometimes he's okay though. Only SOMETIMES.

You'll notice the mental midget you're responding to has posted a grand total of nothing on the topic here. Zero.
That's why he's on my Ignore. He wastes our time.

His thread is perfectly valid. Maybe he had some important things to do, more important than Pogo. Can you believe that? Yes, people have lives that they must attend to and maybe consider that a bit more important than having an argument about . . . well nothing . . . with Pogo. No offence of course.

Let us proceed to sum up all of Boozman's points in this thread. Here's what I got.

THat's one more point than you've made.

Then what have you been arguing with? Carrot skins?

 

[bluzman61]

I'm actually old enough to get that reference. Wanna play shuffleboard?

Actually the point is that the OP, who lied about his title, left us with an unsourced and unlikely story that nobody can corroborate, suggesting an opinion can be sued. There will always be opinions with which any of us disagree. That doesn't mean we get to fine the opinionated. That's absurd.

Actually, it is not a lie. It says "FORMER CNN host" which he was. Lol.

Okay. PROVE that.
The OP can't do it. He ran away.
I can't do it either. I Googled the guy. He's a writer and religion scholar, but he's not a TV host. I could find no evidence he's ever been employed by CNN in *ANY* capacity.

I would say this was a lot more serious (especially considering it was a 16-year-old boy) than "opinionated." Most people who have children would agree, unless they are completely heartless bastards. He had death threats against him. He is a 16-year-old boy. The leftists really need to get a grip on themselves and stop attacking children for smiling and wearing hats.

*****WHO***** made those death threats? CNN? WaPo? NBC?

****WHO**** made those "attacks"? And where are they? Links? Videos? Quotes?

You can't really be this . . . obtuse? Oh wait, it's Pogo.

Yep, Pogo the Clown IS quite dim. The brainwashing he's received from our biased media has done wonders for him. Poor fella.........

He's an argumentative and a stubborn SOB. Lol! Sometimes he's okay though. Only SOMETIMES.

He's NEVER OK in my opinion, he's too damned brainwashed to even realize HOW dumb he appears to be. Like in this thread, he's actually defending the behavior of those at CNN. Just insane.

 

[ChrisL]

As usual, nobody did.

You've already been proven wrong with the CNN settlement. I know you're butthurt and all that, but admit defeat and move on to your next losing proposition.

Some peeps just don't know when to quit. Anyways, regardless of what Pogo claims, the lawsuits are moving forward. CNN has settled and paid up. Great news.

Link?

Are you for real or just practicing your satire or something? Really??? The links have already been posted. Like I said, educate yourself. Actually READ the links that have been posted. Then you will be more up to date on what is going on around you.

All I saw was that the case was settled with no terms disclosed. Nowhere did anyone suggest CNN "paid up" jack squat. And I was here before you were so I saw them all.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

They settled out of court, which means (since THEY were the defendants in this case), they paid up. It must have been a pretty penny because they accepted it. Common sense, get some.

 

[ChrisL]

He's an argumentative and a stubborn SOB. Lol! Sometimes he's okay though. Only SOMETIMES.

You'll notice the mental midget you're responding to has posted a grand total of nothing on the topic here. Zero.
That's why he's on my Ignore. He wastes our time.

His thread is perfectly valid. Maybe he had some important things to do, more important than Pogo. Can you believe that? Yes, people have lives that they must attend to and maybe consider that a bit more important than having an argument about . . . well nothing . . . with Pogo. No offence of course.

Let us proceed to sum up all of Boozman's points in this thread. Here's what I got.

THat's one more point than you've made.

Then what have you been arguing with? Carrot skins?

You are carrot skins? Okay. If you insist, carrot skins.

 

[Crixus]

Honestly, he should sue the Indian guy to. He lied just as much as the media did. Sue tho old bastard and take his Indian check.

 

[Pogo]

You've already been proven wrong with the CNN settlement. I know you're butthurt and all that, but admit defeat and move on to your next losing proposition.

Some peeps just don't know when to quit. Anyways, regardless of what Pogo claims, the lawsuits are moving forward. CNN has settled and paid up. Great news.

Link?

Are you for real or just practicing your satire or something? Really??? The links have already been posted. Like I said, educate yourself. Actually READ the links that have been posted. Then you will be more up to date on what is going on around you.

All I saw was that the case was settled with no terms disclosed. Nowhere did anyone suggest CNN "paid up" jack squat. And I was here before you were so I saw them all.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

They settled out of court, which means (since THEY were the defendants in this case), they paid up. It must have been a pretty penny because they accepted it. Common sense, get some.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means part of the agreement is that neither side discusses it.

As posted before I suspect that CNN threatened to countersue on the same basis of defamation and the deal was that both sides drop and walk away. That would make sense.

CNN "paying up" would make sense only if there was evidence against it. As I've said for a frickin' year ---- where is it?
Where indeed. Yes Virginia, the perception that something took place and the reality of it taking place, are two different things. FACT: James Kirk never did say "beam me up Scotty".

 

[Pogo]

You'll notice the mental midget you're responding to has posted a grand total of nothing on the topic here. Zero.
That's why he's on my Ignore. He wastes our time.

His thread is perfectly valid. Maybe he had some important things to do, more important than Pogo. Can you believe that? Yes, people have lives that they must attend to and maybe consider that a bit more important than having an argument about . . . well nothing . . . with Pogo. No offence of course.

Let us proceed to sum up all of Boozman's points in this thread. Here's what I got.

THat's one more point than you've made.

Then what have you been arguing with? Carrot skins?

You are carrot skins? Okay. If you insist, carrot skins.

Unlike carrot skins, I actually exist.

 

[Crixus]

Some peeps just don't know when to quit. Anyways, regardless of what Pogo claims, the lawsuits are moving forward. CNN has settled and paid up. Great news.

Link?

Are you for real or just practicing your satire or something? Really??? The links have already been posted. Like I said, educate yourself. Actually READ the links that have been posted. Then you will be more up to date on what is going on around you.

All I saw was that the case was settled with no terms disclosed. Nowhere did anyone suggest CNN "paid up" jack squat. And I was here before you were so I saw them all.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

They settled out of court, which means (since THEY were the defendants in this case), they paid up. It must have been a pretty penny because they accepted it. Common sense, get some.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means part of the agreement is that neither side discusses it.

As posted before I suspect that CNN threatened to countersue on the same basis of defamation and the deal was that both sides drop and walk away. That would make sense.

CNN "paying up" would make sense only if there was evidence against it. As I've said for a frickin' year ---- where is it?
Where indeed. Yes Virginia, the perception that something took place and the reality of it taking place, are two different things. FACT: James Kirk never did say "beam me up Scotty".

CNN payed up. There wouldent be an NDA if they diddnt. And on what grounds would CNN counter sue?

 

[ChrisL]

The child said he would still like to talk to the old man who was beating the drum too. He said he should have just walked away, but he didn't because he felt like that would be disrespectful and he didn't really know how to react, so he just stood there and smiled. Then he gets reamed out by the alternet crazy leftist "media." Poor kid. The old man was beating the drum right next to his head for goodness sakes, only inches away. If anyone was starting trouble, it was the old man. He, being the adult in the situation, should have had more self control and not going up to children and banging drums in their ears.

However, the boy did absolutely NOTHING wrong. The leftists hate him because he was wearing a MAGA hat. That is all it takes to make them hate. A hat. They are all gone totally insane.

 

[ChrisL]

His thread is perfectly valid. Maybe he had some important things to do, more important than Pogo. Can you believe that? Yes, people have lives that they must attend to and maybe consider that a bit more important than having an argument about . . . well nothing . . . with Pogo. No offence of course.

Let us proceed to sum up all of Boozman's points in this thread. Here's what I got.

THat's one more point than you've made.

Then what have you been arguing with? Carrot skins?

You are carrot skins? Okay. If you insist, carrot skins.

Unlike carrot skins, I actually exist.

Ahh, so you avoided clicking the link I posted on carrot skins too. Lol. Not surprising. You just want to argue. That's sad. I feel sorry for you, honestly.

 

[ChrisL]

Nick actually stated that he had "respect" for the old man and would like to talk to him. He is a GOOD kid.

 

[Pogo]

Link?

Are you for real or just practicing your satire or something? Really??? The links have already been posted. Like I said, educate yourself. Actually READ the links that have been posted. Then you will be more up to date on what is going on around you.

All I saw was that the case was settled with no terms disclosed. Nowhere did anyone suggest CNN "paid up" jack squat. And I was here before you were so I saw them all.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

They settled out of court, which means (since THEY were the defendants in this case), they paid up. It must have been a pretty penny because they accepted it. Common sense, get some.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means part of the agreement is that neither side discusses it.

As posted before I suspect that CNN threatened to countersue on the same basis of defamation and the deal was that both sides drop and walk away. That would make sense.

CNN "paying up" would make sense only if there was evidence against it. As I've said for a frickin' year ---- where is it?
Where indeed. Yes Virginia, the perception that something took place and the reality of it taking place, are two different things. FACT: James Kirk never did say "beam me up Scotty".

CNN payed up. There wouldent be an NDA if they diddnt. And on what grounds would CNN counter sue?

Defamation. Implying through publicity that CNN had engaged in libel.

NDA is standard with an out-of-court settlement. It tells us nothing about who paid what or if anyone did.
There's also the tactic, albeit unethical, of vexatious litigation. The defendant sometimes figures it's cheaper to settle for some vastly reduced amount rather than tie itself up in litigating the action to its conclusion. Like playing 'let's make a deal'' in traffic court. And in NO way does it mean the accused admits anything.

Again, if there were any actual evidence anyone could come up with, the possibility that CNN paid anything would be viable. That's why I put the challenge out here a year ago. Still waiting for the first one from anywhere.

 

[Pogo]

Let us proceed to sum up all of Boozman's points in this thread. Here's what I got.

THat's one more point than you've made.

Then what have you been arguing with? Carrot skins?

You are carrot skins? Okay. If you insist, carrot skins.

Unlike carrot skins, I actually exist.

Ahh, so you avoided clicking the link I posted on carrot skins too. Lol. Not surprising. You just want to argue. That's sad. I feel sorry for you, honestly.

Ahh, so you never did give me an actual picture of a carrot skin as I asked.

Again --- easy job, posing questions I already know can't be answered.
Ya see --- I have actual carrots right here.

 

[ChrisL]

THat's one more point than you've made.

Then what have you been arguing with? Carrot skins?

You are carrot skins? Okay. If you insist, carrot skins.

Unlike carrot skins, I actually exist.

Ahh, so you avoided clicking the link I posted on carrot skins too. Lol. Not surprising. You just want to argue. That's sad. I feel sorry for you, honestly.

Ahh, so you never did give me an actual picture of a carrot skin as I asked.

Again --- easy job, posing questions I already know can't be answered.

Do you need a picture? Really? Have you never peeled a carrot? Deerrrrr.

carrot skin picture - Google Search

 

[Pogo]

Then what have you been arguing with? Carrot skins?

You are carrot skins? Okay. If you insist, carrot skins.

Unlike carrot skins, I actually exist.

Ahh, so you avoided clicking the link I posted on carrot skins too. Lol. Not surprising. You just want to argue. That's sad. I feel sorry for you, honestly.

Ahh, so you never did give me an actual picture of a carrot skin as I asked.

Again --- easy job, posing questions I already know can't be answered.

Do you need a picture? Really? Have you never peeled a carrot? Deerrrrr.

carrot skin picture - Google Search

The world will note that your search page leads only to pictures of people with Rumpian-orange skin, and some whole carrots.

That's because carrots don't have skins.

And no I've never peeled a carrot. No one has. I prefer to not do things that are impossible --- it just saves time.

 

[ChrisL]

You are carrot skins? Okay. If you insist, carrot skins.

Unlike carrot skins, I actually exist.

Ahh, so you avoided clicking the link I posted on carrot skins too. Lol. Not surprising. You just want to argue. That's sad. I feel sorry for you, honestly.

Ahh, so you never did give me an actual picture of a carrot skin as I asked.

Again --- easy job, posing questions I already know can't be answered.

Do you need a picture? Really? Have you never peeled a carrot? Deerrrrr.

carrot skin picture - Google Search

The world will note that your search page leads only to pictures of people with Rumpian-orange skin, and some whole carrots.

That's because carrots don't have skins.

Read the bolded part out loud to yourself. Then maybe you will understand. Now, stop trying to change the subject. If you have nothing left to say on the topic of the thread, that is fine. Your concession is accepted.

Should Carrots Be Peeled or Are They More Nutritious With the Peel Left On? | Livestrong.com

Tip
Although many people choose to peel their carrots before cutting them into carrot sticks or cooking them, you don't have to peel your carrots. In fact, carrots are more nutritious when the skin is left on.

 

[Muhammed]

I have no idea what "Jimmy's World" refers to but as already noted the WaPo suit was dismissed, for lack of evidence. But if you have a link, let's see it. It's only been a frickin' YEAR.

Dude, among the fake news media industry, Jimmy's World is what made WaPo the PREMIRE fake news media outlet in the USA, if not the world! They surpassed the formidable Pravda as the fakiest news fer crissakes. It got them the Pulitzer prize. That's what put them on the map in the moonbatosphere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...s-world/605f237a-7330-4a69-8433-b6da4c519120/


Oh and BTW, all of Sandmann's cases against WaPo have not been dismissed, you stupid jackass party of slavery supporter/moron.

You are a stupid feeble-minded easily brainwashed TDS afflicted idiot.

 

[ChrisL]

I have no idea what "Jimmy's World" refers to but as already noted the WaPo suit was dismissed, for lack of evidence. But if you have a link, let's see it. It's only been a frickin' YEAR.

Dude, among the fake news media industry, Jimmy's World is what made WaPo the PREMIRE fake news media outlet in the USA, if not the world! It got them the Pulitzer prize.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...s-world/605f237a-7330-4a69-8433-b6da4c519120/

Oh and BTW, all of Sandmanns casesa against WaPo have not been dismissed, you stupid jackass party of slavery supporter.

You are a stupid feeble-minded easily brainwashed TDS afflicted idiot.

That story is SUPER disturbing. What kind of a sick mind would make up something like that?

 

[Crixus]

Are you for real or just practicing your satire or something? Really??? The links have already been posted. Like I said, educate yourself. Actually READ the links that have been posted. Then you will be more up to date on what is going on around you.

All I saw was that the case was settled with no terms disclosed. Nowhere did anyone suggest CNN "paid up" jack squat. And I was here before you were so I saw them all.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

They settled out of court, which means (since THEY were the defendants in this case), they paid up. It must have been a pretty penny because they accepted it. Common sense, get some.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means part of the agreement is that neither side discusses it.

As posted before I suspect that CNN threatened to countersue on the same basis of defamation and the deal was that both sides drop and walk away. That would make sense.

CNN "paying up" would make sense only if there was evidence against it. As I've said for a frickin' year ---- where is it?
Where indeed. Yes Virginia, the perception that something took place and the reality of it taking place, are two different things. FACT: James Kirk never did say "beam me up Scotty".

CNN payed up. There wouldent be an NDA if they diddnt. And on what grounds would CNN counter sue?

Defamation. Implying through publicity that CNN had engaged in libel.

NDA is standard with an out-of-court settlement. It tells us nothing about who paid what or if anyone did.
There's also the tactic, albeit unethical, of vexatious litigation. The defendant sometimes figures it's cheaper to settle for some vastly reduced amount rather than tie itself up in litigating the action to its conclusion. Like playing 'let's make a deal'' in traffic court. And in NO way does it mean the accused admits anything.

Again, if there were any actual evidence anyone could come up with, the possibility that CNN paid anything would be viable. That's why I put the challenge out here a year ago. Still waiting for the first one from anywhere.

CNN did enguage in libel.

libel

li·bel | \ ˈlī-bəl \
Definition of libel
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
barchaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b(1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt
(2): defamation of a person by written or representational means
(3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures
(4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel


That's why they settled the way they did. They don't have to admit to bullying a teenage kid. You are trying to be clever beyond your ability. CNN is a failing brand. It has about 5 years max BEFOR it changes ownership, or the cast is replaced. They have shareholders and such that post Trump, has to remain valuable which is getting tough for them. Also, notice the lady don't work there anymore? Why? They payed up. I'll agree, it was likely not $200+ million, but they payed a hefty amount. Hopefully Nick Sandman has good folks around him and uses the money wisely. Far as the cleverness gos, "you are waiting for evidence they payed anything", well, that's covered in the NDA I'm pretty sure. Ask Stormy Daniels how all that works.

 

[Pogo]

I have no idea what "Jimmy's World" refers to but as already noted the WaPo suit was dismissed, for lack of evidence. But if you have a link, let's see it. It's only been a frickin' YEAR.

Dude, among the fake news media industry, Jimmy's World is what made WaPo the PREMIRE fake news media outlet in the USA, if not the world! They surpassed the formidable Pravda as the fakiest news fer crissakes. It got them the Pulitzer prize. That's what put them on the map in the moonbatosphere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...s-world/605f237a-7330-4a69-8433-b6da4c519120/

Yeah sorry, never heard of it until you brought it up here, and I'm not clicking on a paywall. For all I know you're making this shit up.

Oh and BTW, all of Sandmann's cases against WaPo have not been dismissed, you stupid jackass party of slavery supporter/moron.

Linkie?

You are a stupid feeble-minded easily brainwashed TDS afflicted idiot.

Again --- linkie?