quote:

While Judge Orinda Evans didn’t all out declare that CNN was peddling in falsehoods, she did take aim at the network in an initial judgment in favor of a former hospital CEO who sued CNN accusing them of purposely skewing statistics to reflect poorly on a West Palm Beach hospital. Judge Evans didn’t mince words in her 18-page order allowing the case to move forward, and dismissing CNN’s attempt to get it thrown out of court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

And speaking of fake news:

quote:

While Judge Orinda Evans didn’t all out declare that CNN was peddling in falsehoods, she did take aim at the network in an initial judgment in favor of a former hospital CEO who sued CNN accusing them of purposely skewing statistics to reflect poorly on a West Palm Beach hospital. Judge Evans didn’t mince words in her 18-page order allowing the case to move forward, and dismissing CNN’s attempt to get it thrown out of court.

The case hasn't even been argued yet and Trump's butt buddy Alex Jones is already declaring it over because they proved malicious intent-- as if someone who is in all likelihood responsible for the deaths of infants deserves everyone's sympathy.

I wonder why the conspiracy nut is doing this now? Could it be because he sucks Trump's cock and is trying desperately to normalize his insanity?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

While Judge Orinda Evans didn’t all out declare that CNN was peddling in falsehoods, she did take aim at the network in an initial judgment in favor of a former hospital CEO who sued CNN accusing them of purposely skewing statistics to reflect poorly on a West Palm Beach hospital. Judge Evans didn’t mince words in her 18-page order allowing the case to move forward, and dismissing CNN’s attempt to get it thrown out of court.

quote:

CNN's motion to strike or alternatively to dismiss is denied

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

While Judge Orinda Evans didn’t all out declare that CNN was peddling in falsehoods, she did take aim at the network in an initial judgment in favor of a former hospital CEO who sued CNN accusing them of purposely skewing statistics to reflect poorly on a West Palm Beach hospital. Judge Evans didn’t mince words in her 18-page order allowing the case to move forward, and dismissing CNN’s attempt to get it thrown out of court.

The initial judgment is whether or not the case should be thrown out in court. Your RWNJ sources are manipulating you into believing that CNN has already lost the entire case and is guilty of peddling fake news.

Here's the original document:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3467031-Carbone.html

quote:

CNN's motion to strike or alternatively to dismiss is denied

That's the initial ruling.

The reason nobody ever sues, say, INFOWARS is because only fucking idiots actually believe that shit and it's supposed to be entertainment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Never been to court?

When a motion to dismiss is defeated it means that the case has a 'genuine issue in fact', that it is triable, I dont need to read it to know that. The judge pointed out the facts used to make that decision. You can accuse the ole big mouth flap trap of sensationalizing it but thats about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

but he didnt say cnn was guilty, wher?

He said:

Judge Orinda Evans didn’t all out declare that CNN was peddling in falsehoods,

the court recognized it as a material fact, therefore a legitimate cause of action. lol

quote:

The court did not examine the overall practices of CNN outside Carbone’ complaint or say (or even hint) that the network deals in “fake news.” The ruling did not even constitute a final judgement in favor of the plaintiff; it simply established that Carbone had sufficiently proved grounds to proceed with the suit against CNN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
in order for the court to rule on a motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the judge in this case must decide if there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute upon which relief can be granted. sorry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
snopes 2 asshole couch potatoes? I'd take AJ over them any day, at least AJ gets the people involved on taped interviews. I have seen the snopes stooges get shit wrong all the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

While Judge Orinda Evans didn’t all out declare that CNN was peddling in falsehoods, she did take aim at the network in an initial judgment in favor of a former hospital CEO who sued CNN accusing them of purposely skewing statistics to reflect poorly on a West Palm Beach hospital. Judge Evans didn’t mince words in her 18-page order allowing the case to move forward, and dismissing CNN’s attempt to get it thrown out of court.

The initial judgment is whether or not the case should be thrown out in court. Your RWNJ sources are manipulating you into believing that CNN has already lost the entire case and is guilty of peddling fake news.

Here's the original document:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3467031-Carbone.html

quote:

CNN's motion to strike or alternatively to dismiss is denied

That's the initial ruling.

The reason nobody ever sues, say, INFOWARS is because only fucking idiots actually believe that shit and it's supposed to be entertainment.

Never been to court?

When a motion to dismiss is defeated it means that the case has a 'genuine issue in fact', that it is triable, I dont need to read it to know that. The judge pointed out the facts used to make that decision. You can accuse the ole big mouth flap trap of sensationalizing it but thats about it.

if thats federal and I presume it is, look up rule 12(b)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you cant have a legal dispute without a fact.

if that was the case it would have been dismissed.