[vikingd00d]

Judge is a Trump nominee.

From wikipedia:
“On January 11, 2018, his nomination was confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 92–0.”

Any judge that gets support from the Socialists is suspect.

[Wilderness Conservative]

Then sue in a different jurisdiction.

[vigilante2]

Do what the rats do and go judge shopping

[mrsmith]

About impossible to show CNN has a “disregard for the truth”, much less that it was “reckless”.

CNN hasn’t ANY relation to the truth. None.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

"Judge" Michael Brown:

 

[Gay State Conservative]

I thought that the courts have ruled that it's difficult to “defame” or “slander” a public figure.And the President is certainly a public figure.

[Maudeen]

Just another one exposed . . . . .this country is full of evil. The demons are in a frenzy. . . they know their days are numbered . . .they know even more than church goers who have not bothered to check out what the Bible says about end times. Everything has been fulfilled before God’s giving Jesus the high sign to come for His church (Rapture). No one should want to be left behind . . .no date or hour being set by me but we are to watch for the signs. https://www.patburt.com/

[a fool in paradise]

Sounds like the judge is a tosser

[SierraWasp]

I’m getting a little suspicious of Forbes, Steve Forbes (former presidential candidate) as being a “Never Trumper.” And now I’m wondering about the author of this article Joe Walsh. Wasn’t he the Joe Walsh that tried to be a conservative radio talk show host, but failed miserably?

[mikey_hates_everything]

It would seem that pursuing libel damages incurred by a public entity would be more difficult than going after illegal in-kind Dem contributions. I hope I worded that correctly... That’s what CNN has been doing bigly for years.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Federal “judges” make Toobin’s Zoom episode look normal. What a bunch of Bozos.

[daniel1212]

the campaign could not demonstrate that CNN published any inaccurate information intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, a high standard known as “actual malice” that is required for defamation cases waged by public figures in the United States.

Meaning it unintentionally published inaccurate information, which presumes a judge must either know the heart of the publisher or see material that shows that they know that what they published was not true. Thus it seems like such a statement as, "according to an anonymous source, in college Trump was a secret member of a UFO cult " could be published unless there is evidence that he was not, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood. That makes a possible for the media to say just about anything that is false.

the Warren Court held that: The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice#:~:text=Actual%20malice%20in%20United%20States%20law%20is%20a,they%20file%20suit%20for%20libel%20%28defamatory%20printed%20communications%29.]