Mark Robinson thread | Sues CNN for Naked Africa reporting

[grimes70]

I figured sex with Mark Robinson would feel pretty damn awful

I hope you gave your cerebrum a good cleansing after that thought.

 

[Geisterfahrer]

Especially if he was the top.

Which of course has me wondering the last time Mark actually saw his own penis.

 

[CLT Heel]

Sorry, but all I think of now when I see Arby’s ads are Laura loomers recent roast beef comments .

 

[dukeman92]

At a “rally” in Wilkes county Robinson threatened to sue CNN

 

[JCTarheel82]

At a “rally” in Wilkes county Robinson threatened to sue CNN

Lol go for it, minisoldr.

 

[altmin]

I didn't go to Arby's but I picked up some deli roast beef and a bottle of Arby's barbecue sauce at the store yesterday. I just finished a pretty good roast beef sandwich.

going to go out on a limb and say it was better than anything you could get at Arbys.

and to keep this on topic. something about Robinson probably posting on Nude Africa about Horsey sauce....

 

[1moretimeagain]

Sorry, but all I think of now when I see Arby’s ads are Laura loomers recent roast beef comments .

Don’t only think about Laura Loomer. Remember she was describing Marjorie Taylor Greene.

 

[nycfan]

 

[Centerpiece]

They chowed down on Al Franken.

Thank you. And this is the exact example I was referring to, but there are others.

 

[nycfan]

 

[aGDevil2k]

I hope he does sue. Discovery would be FUN

 

[dsgb]

That guy is such a liar and hypocrite!

 

[nycfan]

Mar … the Robinson guy

 

[dsgb]

That guy is such a liar and hypocrite

Mar … the Robinson guy

Oops lol

 

[SnoopRob]

I'm actually surprised he hasn't already filed a lawsuit against CNN merely for PR purposes.

We're 6 weeks out from the election and, if he filed suit, nothing of substance would happen regarding the suit before the election. Filing a suit makes you appear to be an aggrieved party and shifts a bit of the spotlight away from whatever you are said to have done toward the party making the claim. And after the election (win or lose) he could quietly drop the lawsuit with very little in the way of repercussions.

 

[Calheel]

I'm actually surprised he hasn't already filed a lawsuit against CNN merely for PR purposes.

We're 6 weeks out from the election and, if he filed suit, nothing of substance would happen regarding the suit before the election. Filing a suit makes you appear to be an aggrieved party and shifts a bit of the spotlight away from whatever you are said to have done toward the party making the claim. And after the election (win or lose) he could quietly drop the lawsuit with very little in the way of repercussions.

Does North Carolina have an anti-SLAPP law? That could put him on the hook for CNN’s likely 7 figures attorneys fees. And Robinson apparently is low on funds. That could be a detriment to suing.

And in terms of finding the real culprit, that should be a fairly narrow circle of suspects for Robinson. If OJ were still alive, Robinson could have asked him how to go about finding the real killer.

 

[SnoopRob]

Does North Carolina have an anti-SLAPP law? That could put him on the hook for CNN’s likely 7 figures attorneys fees. And Robinson apparently is low on funds. That could be a detriment to suing.

According to Google, no.

But even with an anti-SLAPP law, how much would CNN actually do over the next 6 weeks to counter a suit by Robinson, especially if it were only for PR purposes and he slow-played any real legal actions? My hunch is that neither side would spend too much money, but that might be me misunderstanding how all of this works.

 

[superrific]

Again, I'm not understanding what they mean by "step aside." GS 163-113 is very clear: "A person who has been declared the nominee of a political party for a specified office . . . shall not be permitted to resign as a candidate unless, prior to the first day on which military and overseas absentee ballots are transmitted to voters under Article 21A of this Chapter, that [the] person submits to the board of elections which certified the nomination a written request that person be permitted to withdraw."

That did not happen. He won't be permitted to resign as a candidate, so he can't be replaced by anyone.

 

[Scientific Mapp]

I'm actually surprised he hasn't already filed a lawsuit against CNN merely for PR purposes.

We're 6 weeks out from the election and, if he filed suit, nothing of substance would happen regarding the suit before the election. Filing a suit makes you appear to be an aggrieved party and shifts a bit of the spotlight away from whatever you are said to have done toward the party making the claim. And after the election (win or lose) he could quietly drop the lawsuit with very little in the way of repercussions.

That would be the smart move if minisoldr still had a campaign staff, $ coming in, and a prayer of winning. But, now his campaign is cooked no matter what and he knows it. Why file a lawsuit and challenge the media to rehash one the most personally embarrassing stories ever? There's nothing to salvage, politically.

At this point, he's only yelling 'fake news' for the benefit of his wife, family, and friends and hoping to be semi-welcome at the next church dinner.

 

[Calheel]

Again, I'm not understanding what they mean by "step aside." GS 163-113 is very clear: "A person who has been declared the nominee of a political party for a specified office . . . shall not be permitted to resign as a candidate unless, prior to the first day on which military and overseas absentee ballots are transmitted to voters under Article 21A of this Chapter, that [the] person submits to the board of elections which certified the nomination a written request that person be permitted to withdraw."

That did not happen. He won't be permitted to resign as a candidate, so he can't be replaced by anyone.

I dunno. Maybe the NC Supreme Court will decide that the legislature intended an implied exception when the candidate has a Nazi problem. Or some similarly plausible theory. When the final court is nakedly partisan, it is probably a mistake to put too much reliance on the actual wording of the statutes.