Devin Nunes is suing CNN for defamation and his legal brief is SO BAD.

[DetlefK]

The guy in the video, Leonard French, is a copyright-lawyer.



Here are all the ways Devin Nunes fucked up:

* He didn't format it according it to the court-guidelines, which is automatically going to annoy the judge because it makes the text harder to read. (Don't annoy the judge.)

* He presents his conclusions as fact without citing sources for his claims.

* He thinks that when one news-report contradicts another news-report, he gets to pick and choose which one is correct.

* In this legal brief he wrongly uses terms that have one meaning in everyday-language and another meaning in legal language. "Hearsay" is not always "hearsay".

* He thinks that when CNN reports what Lev Parnas said, that is somehow evidence of a conspiracy between CNN and Lev Parnas.

* Instead of presenting his case and laying out what CNN has said and how he was damaged, he spent a major part of his brief rehashing the whole Ukraine-saga.

* He presumes that he suffered damages from the alleged defamation... which you are not allowed to do. Only actual provable damages count in a defamation-case.

* He cites emotional damages and distress... which don't count as damages for the purposes of a defamation-lawsuit.

* He claims that his damages are worth $430,000,000... without explaining how he came up with that number.

* He demands $350,000 of punitive damages for CNN... without explaining how he came up with that number.




The lawyer above assumes that Devin Nunes filed this as a publicity-stunt and will quietly withdraw his lawsuit before the case proceeds to the discovery-phase.

"Discovery" is when both sides can demand the other side to show certain documents. Can you imagine what happens when CNN demands to see Nunes' plane-tickets and visa-stamps? Withholding evidence during the discovery-phase is a big No-No and would get Nunes into major legal trouble.