Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) has been suing everyone who dares to insult him online. Whether it is Twitter users, his local newspaper or the Washington Post, Nunes has launched a slew of lawsuits alleging he was harmed by the mockery he's endured online.
Just in time for Christmas, federal district court Judge Amit P. Mehta in Washington, D.C. handed Nunes another lawsuit loss in his case against the Washington Post and writer Shane Harris, reported Law & Crime.
The Nunes legal team already had problems after the judge explained they failed to serve Shane Harris with the case documents, which is required by the court within the first 90 days.
The lawsuit was after Harris wrote an editorial citing a senior intelligence officer who told lawmakers that Russia wanted to see President Donald Trump reelected. The Post argued that the article was an editorial and prefaced as an opinion. Nunes was suing for $250 million in compensatory damages though he never revealed how he was so damaged by the accusation.
Judge Mehta said that the complaint "does not challenge the substantial truth of any statement in the Article."
"Rather, [Nunes] alleges that the defamatory gist of the Article is that [Nunes] lied to and deceived the President of the United States. Thus, [Nunes] contests not any assertion of fact contained in the Article but, rather, the meaning conveyed by those facts," the decision said.
"To establish defamation by implication, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that a defamatory inference can reasonably be drawn and (2) that the particular manner or language in which the true facts are conveyed supplies additional, affirmative evidence suggesting that the defendant intends or endorses the defamatory inference. Here, the Complaint alleges two defamatory implications stemming from statements in the Article, neither of which can rationally be considered reasonable or intended or endorsed," the Judge also ruled.
Read the full decision here and the report from Law&Crime.
