,
25 tweets,
10 min read
Read on Twitter
You can tell from the first sentence that Nunes has somehow arranged to pay his lawyers per adjective. /1 
I apologize, he is also compensated per adverb.
This writing is terribly bad, horribly redundant, and repeats itself ad nauseum over and over again. /2
This writing is terribly bad, horribly redundant, and repeats itself ad nauseum over and over again. /2
I love the use of bold italics and a latin phrase (in haec verba) that is both totally unnecessary (we've placed the statements below) but could also easily replaced with the more common "verbatim."
A dumb way to try to look smart. /3
A dumb way to try to look smart. /3
Steven Biss, the lawyer who wrote this masterpiece, does not have a sterling reputation as a lawyer. /4
A correction. Those badboys are bold underlined italics. The legal equivalent of wearing a white dress to someone else's wedding, and then insisting on holding sparklers during the ceremony. /5
Moving on the meat of the complaint, it appears that the newspaper falsely reported that Nunes owned a winery that had been involved with prostitutes and cocaine on a yacht!
Oh wait, actually, that was totally accurate. /6
Oh wait, actually, that was totally accurate. /6
Sure there are no ACTUAL false statements of fact in the article, but the GIST is defamatory. It wasn't a fundraiser, it was CHARITY. And it was unfair for the newspaper to point out that Nunes, a famous person, owned a winery that was involved with drugs and prostitutes.
/7
/7
Okay, I'm a few paragraphs into the facts now and I am beginning to worry that Biss has invented a vexatious new legal theory: "you can't mention embarrassing stuff about my client if it implies other embarrassing stuff." /8
Another new Biss rule. You've got to take a politician's word for something and say you are SURE he is telling the truth. Doubting Nunes' word is defamatory alll by itself. /9
Okay, now we're at an actually false statement of fact. Nunes sold wine to Russians long before Trump was President.
Which the newspaper corrected almost immediately. But one of the edits was a *stealth* edit, which apparently means the newspaper abandoned all integrity.
/10
Which the newspaper corrected almost immediately. But one of the edits was a *stealth* edit, which apparently means the newspaper abandoned all integrity.
/10
Nunes also says it was defamatory for someone from the Fresno Bee to be paraphrased as having said that he has never issued a retraction for Nunes coverage. /11
Y'all. It was not enough to just bold the 87,000. I think they went up like three font sizes. /12
The hook to get this case to Virginia, where Nunes won't end up having to pay the Bee's attorney's fees immediately, is the claim that this is a "conspiracy" with @LizMair.
/12
/12
Mair is not just a political operative. She is, apparently, a "digital terrorist for hire," a phrase that I cannot even write without wanting to gasp and drop my monocle into my champagne flute. /13
So, Nunes is proving the conspiracy that is the sole basis for this vexatious lawsuit by pointing out that Mair hates him, and so do the writers of the Fresno Bee. And she keeps retweeting mean things about him. So a conspiracy must be afoot.
/14
/14
Ahh, so we're finally at most shocking and terrible and DEFAMATORY thing that Mair has ever said. Can't wait to get to the section where they point out how it's false.
....
No, it's not false. Apparently, just mean.
/15
....
No, it's not false. Apparently, just mean.
/15
God. Nunes' theory for jurisdiction appears to be that Mair is behind all the misfortune in his life, and therefore, no matter who he's suing, he can always rope her in as the mastermind.
/16
/16
Nunes claims, insanely, that public officials should get more protection from having mean things said about them then us ordinary citizens because they are the "best" of us. I'm sure no one will be able to dig up any mean things Nunes has said about anyone else. /17
"These true facts make my client sound bad when you put them altogether in one paragraph and so are defamatory." /18
So. in Nunes world, you can prove actual malice by showing that a newspaper doesn't like your client, even if it expresses that dislike through a bunch of unflattering true statements. /19
For which Nunes is entitled to a hundred and fifty million dollars.
Last bit, Nunes' lawyer may have deleted the complaint from Scribd. Hat tip to @gabrielmalor for telling me. Here's a good link.
scribd.com/document/40551…
/f
Last bit, Nunes' lawyer may have deleted the complaint from Scribd. Hat tip to @gabrielmalor for telling me. Here's a good link.
scribd.com/document/40551…
/f
Also worthy of suit, according to Nunes, is accurately reporting that an ethics complaint has been filed against you without also saying that it's a "sham." /20
