Devin Nunes slapped CNN with this lawsuit that could bankrupt the network for good

CNN’s hobby of running fake news to smear Republicans is about to bite them big time.

This time fake news CNN got caught running a story so blatantly false that there is no getting around the consequences.

And that’s because Devin Nunes slapped CNN with this lawsuit that could bankrupt the network for good.

Fake news CNN recently published a story claiming Devin Nunes traveled to Vienna and Ukraine to meet with Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin to gather up political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

Not only did Nunes denounce the story as false, but he filed a $435 million defamation lawsuit against CNN to hold the network accountable for running purposefully fake news.

The Washington Times reports:

“Devin Nunes did not go to Vienna or anywhere else in Austria in 2018,” declares the lawsuit seeking $435 million in damages. He said he visited two countries: Libya and Malta on a congressional delegation, or “codel.”

The CNN story said Mr. Nunes supposedly met with former Ukrainian chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

“Devin Nunes has never met Viktor Shokin,” says the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond. “This meeting never took place. Viktor Shokin doesn’t know and hasn’t even heard of Devin Nunes.”

CNN also reported that Mr. Nunes began communicating with Lev Parnas around the time. He is a Soviet-born U.S. citizen and Florida businessman who became a source for Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney. Mr. Giuliani was investigating Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election.

CNN spent the last three years smearing Donald Trump and his supporters with lies and fake news.

Devin Nunes has had enough.

And now the California Congressman is fighting back.

Loading...

You may also like...

104 Responses

  1. One Demo-Rat Lies, and the rest swear to it!
    Trump’s Sham Impeachment, is the Prime example.

    Why would any American with half a Brain, want open borders, and to pay for health care for illegals, a 32 trillion dollar Sanders, Warren debt, over a 10 year period?

  2. LittleShoe says:

    It should be $ billions not $ millions! Soros or the dem-0-rats ( dem-zero-rats 0= do nothing! ) can pay $ millions off easy. We need to get tough on them. They really should be put OUT of business.
    I love Devin and He deserves better!!!

  3. Culper Ring says:

    The rights mentioned in the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninths amendments are no more or less inalienable than the right mentioned in the second amendment. Legislatures have the power to ratify statutes specifying the range of sentences that judges in the courts of law can render to persons convicted of crimes. These statutes give judiciaries the license to order, on a case-by-case basis, the deprivation of life, liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness, of the convict.

    The right of a person of a person to worship god or be a theologian is liberty. The right of a person to preach at a podium or upon the streets is liberty. The right of a person to publish praise/criticism/conjecture of taxes, government, army, navy, militia, police, school or anything tax-funded is liberty. The right of a person to petition the government for redress of grievances is liberty. The right of a person to lead or partake in a peaceable assembly is liberty. The right of a person to own a house and exert control over who may enter is liberty. The right of a person to manufacture, test, assemble, own, transport, inherit, give, receive, sell, buy, keep and bear arms is liberty. The right of a person to assemble a militia of those so willing to partake it is liberty. The right of a person to be secure in his/her own body, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures is liberty.

    The “revocation” of an inalienable right is equivalent with the violation of an unalienable right. The circumstances by which any government in the United States can violate a anybody’s rights with impunity are to be severely limited and subject to the review of the citizenry of the qualified jurisdiction.

    The Supreme Court has historically taken weak stances regarding the second amendment (private militias and armed citizens outside the employ of a government) largely out of cowardice.

  4. Culper Ring says:

    They may wind up being destroyed altogether in a devastating “civil” war, which itself will likely lead to the rewriting of the Constitution into a form no constitutionalist would recognize, along with world war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: