Mark Robinson thread | Sues CNN for Naked Africa reporting

nycfan said:
Click to expand...

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.
 
SnoopRob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

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.
 
SnoopRob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Calheel said:
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 to much reliance on the actual wording of the statutes.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I suppose. This gets to the question we've debated so many times before: in MAGA world, do courts have any limits as to how far they will stoop, and if so, what are they (it might very well vary by court)?

I don't think we're going to get a test of this, though. What GOPer in their right mind would step into MRob's shoes here? He'd have to run with Robinson's name on the ballot. He'd be taking over a race where Stein is leading by 15-20 points. Stein doesn't have any obvious flaws as a candidate that would make a purely negative campaign viable (except in the sense that the DOP is always negative). He'd have no money and no campaign infrastructure. And how would they decide who to run?
 
superrific said:
Fair enough, I suppose. This gets to the question we've debated so many times before: in MAGA world, do courts have any limits as to how far they will stoop, and if so, what are they (it might very well vary by court)?

I don't think we're going to get a test of this, though. What GOPer in their right mind would step into MRob's shoes here? He'd have to run with Robinson's name on the ballot. He'd be taking over a race where Stein is leading by 15-20 points. Stein doesn't have any obvious flaws as a candidate that would make a purely negative campaign viable (except in the sense that the DOP is always negative). He'd have no money and no campaign infrastructure. And how would they decide who to run?
Click to expand...
I'd think the logic wouldn't be to win, but to avoid being a down-ticket and up-ticket drag. You could take any generic white Republican and put him in that slot.
 
Calheel said:
I'd think the logic wouldn't be to win, but to avoid being a down-ticket and up-ticket drag. You could take any generic white Republican and put him in that slot.
Click to expand...
Right. But what generic white Republican wants to eat such a shit sandwich taking it for the team?

And I'm just not sure it would matter, would it? Mark Robinson has name recognition. Voters know who he is, and will continue to be reminded of that fact over the next weeks. It will be his name on the ballot. The GOP candidate won't have enough money to get out the message that they have dumped Robinson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top