Last Thursday, Townhall covered that President Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign vowed to sue CNN in wake of the Project Veritas' video rollout allegedly exposing CNN's bias. But, could President Trump's success count against him and prove CNN's so-called bias doesn't actually impact him negatively? A legal analyst broke down the scenario on Fox Nation this week.
Here's what Townhall reported last week:
Attorneys for President Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign sent CNN president Jeff Zucker and CNN executive vice president David Vigilante a four-page letter "to discuss an appropriate resolution of this matter" such as "a substantial payment of damages, as well as all other appropriate measures that are necessary to fully address the magnitude" of CNN's hidden anti-Trump bias. The legal letter cites specific examples from Project Veritas' investigation #ExposeCNN which shows company employees and contractors admitting that the company has a left-wing, anti-Trump bias despite publicly claiming otherwise.
Here is what Fox Nation contributor and attorney Emily Compagno told Fox Nation's David Webb:
"Basically, what the president's attorney was arguing was that it was false advertising on CNN's part and that they had deceived viewers, that they had broken their own code of ethics and their promise to viewers to... provide -- quote -- 'excellence in journalism,'" Compagno explained.
[...]
"For him to succeed on the merits of this lawsuit, he would have to prove that CNN was so off on their facts that [voters] essentially moved their vote from Trump to another candidate and that he... could prove to the court how he was injured," she said, "and that there was a causal link between what CNN put out there and his injury."
She also added that President Trump's fundraising haul could also be used evidence that he has not been harmed by any alleged bias.
"Unfortunately for the case, but fortunately for the president, he is succeeding... He has now raised over $300 million," Compagno said, adding that a successful libel and slander case must prove that the plaintiff has suffered damages.
"As for his campaign -- breaking all records in history. He is enjoying a successful presidency, and especially if he were to win this next campaign, there is no argument that he's actually been injured. In fact, one could argue that this has galvanized not only his base but those who are still deciding between following the president or tuning into CNN every day," she concluded.
Of course, the other argument could possibly be that hardly anybody watches CNN. In fact, you are more likely to know a prostitute than a CNN Primetime viewer. But, we'll leave the suit for President Trump's attorney, Charles Harder. Harder is no joke and led the case against Gawker, which bankrupted the website.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member