Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't see Baxter because he is on my ignore but tell him he MISSED the main point-CNN is LYING and minimizing what the settlement was... and it was not for peanuts. Nobody knows how much but it was in the millions. I bet you $5 bucks.
I can't see Baxter because he is on my ignore but tell him he MISSED the main point-CNN is LYING and minimizing what the settlement was... and it was not for peanuts. Nobody knows how much but it was in the millions. I bet you $5 bucks.
Hilarious, "nobody knows how much it was but it's millions"
I can't see Baxter because he is on my ignore but tell him he MISSED the main point-CNN is LYING and minimizing what the settlement was... and it was not for peanuts. Nobody knows how much but it was in the millions. I bet you $5 bucks.
oh, and I'm on his ignore list???
Why is Wanna trying to stifle my voice?!?! MUH FREEDOMS!!!
Lin Wood, attorney for Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann, has warned CNN’s Brian Stelter that he could lose his job for allegedly breaking a confidentiality agreement.
Sandmann agreed to terms with CNN in a multi-million dollar settlement in January, after various entities at the network portrayed him as an aggressive, Trump-supporting racist when he was involved in a viral interaction with a Native American man.
But here is where it gets sticky:
Wood believes a retweet by Stelter insinuating that CNN paid a minor amount over the lawsuit is a violation of confidentiality.
Stelter shared a tweet by attorney Mark Zaid which claimed “[Sandmann] was undoubtedly paid nuisance value settlement [and] nothing more.” This is a LIE. That kid got a MULTI MILLION DOLLAR settlement and Stelter could lose his job for violation the CA. (confidential agreement)
If there is a confidentiality agreement in place, how do we know it was a "multi-million dollar settlement"?
Wood believes a retweet by Stelter insinuating that CNN paid a minor amount over the lawsuit is a violation of confidentiality.
No offense, but the logic is a bit Trumpian, here. Breach of confidentiality is when you leak information that you have agreed not to disclose, correct? Logically, it doesn't work too well to argue - at the same time - that "the kid got MILLIONS" and "you are breaching confidentiality by leaking that the kid only got $50K", or whatever the speculated sum is. I mean - one or the other, right?
I'll save you the trouble and point out that it's probably a non-disparagement clause that Wood is hanging his ambulance-chaser hat on.
If the lawyer decide that it was a breach of contract then he should have some consequences, everyone here arguing about it really is just sort talking out of their rears , unless they are that type of lawyer and have read the exact wording in the case. Speculation is fine, I guess, but no ones really knows but the parties involved.
That all said I'd like to see that fat bald turd take it in the shorts. Guy is a lying sack of you know what.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle Chit Chat
Stelter is a man? That must have come after her surgery.
What?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, unless they are that type of lawyer and have read the exact wording in the case. Speculation is fine, I guess, but no ones really knows but the parties involved.
