Nick Sandmann speaks at RNC and CNN analyst (and former Clinton press secretary) takes the bait

The Trump derangement syndrome pandemic continues to rage through the CNN staff, with a dangerous confirmed case popping up last night in the Twitter feed of Joe Lockhart, CNN analyst and former Bill Clinton press secretary.

Most AT readers are familiar with the fact that CNN settled a $250-million lawsuit that superlawyer Lin Wood brought against the network on Nick Sandmann's behalf, based on that network's libel of him following his encounter with left-wing activist Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial.  At the RNC last night, Nick delivered a 5-minute account of his experience, well worth your time if you did not happen to see it.

Nick made the point that he purchased a MAGA cap from a vendor because he appreciated President Trump's strong support for the pro-life cause that means so much to Nick.  He attributed the harassment he experienced to wearing it and averred that he will not be bullied into not wearing it, donning the cap at the end of his talk.


YouTube screen grab.

But his main point was that the pressure to cancel him that was the aim of the media that attacked him without checking the facts of the matter, including more complete video that put the lie to the charge that he was the aggressor.  He took on cancel culture as a whole, describing how he learned firsthand of it.

Joe Lockhart, Bill Clinton's former press secretary, now a CNN analyst, attacked Sandmann on Twitter, proudly stating that he would not watch the teen:


Twitter screen grab in case it is deleted.

The settlement between CNN and Sandmann is confidential — not just the amount involved, but the existence or non-existence of a non-disparagement clause, which is very common when defamation suits are settled.  If such a clause exists, CNN will be hearing from Lin Wood today.

Some of the comments on Lockhart's Twitter feed are hilarious.  If you take a look at Lockhart's other tweets last night, you see plenty of TDS-flavored mean-spiritedness:

If there was a non-disparagement clause in the CNN settlement, then the network should have cautioned its personnel over further attacks on Nick.  If they did not do so (and this should be discoverable if Lin Wood launches a suit), then that leaves them on the hook for whole new round of litigation.

Some on the left have stated a belief that Lin Wood settled for crumbs.  I doubt that, because CNN (and other targets) did not check the facts before attacking a minor child and altering his life forever.  With a Northern Kentucky jury hearing the case of a local boy victimized by the mainstream media (whose approval rate in polling is barely above Congress and below used car dealers), the possibility of a huge verdict against them had to weigh heavily on the minds of the CNN executives.  Seven or eight zeroes on the check they cut seems likely.

Lin Wood is renowned as a lawyer because he gets results.  Why would he have advised his client to settle for a token amount?  And why would he have let go of a non-disparagement clause in the settlement?

Also note that Nick Sandmann did not disparage CNN or any of the other targets of his litigation. 

The Trump derangement syndrome pandemic continues to rage through the CNN staff, with a dangerous confirmed case popping up last night in the Twitter feed of Joe Lockhart, CNN analyst and former Bill Clinton press secretary.

Most AT readers are familiar with the fact that CNN settled a $250-million lawsuit that superlawyer Lin Wood brought against the network on Nick Sandmann's behalf, based on that network's libel of him following his encounter with left-wing activist Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial.  At the RNC last night, Nick delivered a 5-minute account of his experience, well worth your time if you did not happen to see it.

Nick made the point that he purchased a MAGA cap from a vendor because he appreciated President Trump's strong support for the pro-life cause that means so much to Nick.  He attributed the harassment he experienced to wearing it and averred that he will not be bullied into not wearing it, donning the cap at the end of his talk.


YouTube screen grab.

But his main point was that the pressure to cancel him that was the aim of the media that attacked him without checking the facts of the matter, including more complete video that put the lie to the charge that he was the aggressor.  He took on cancel culture as a whole, describing how he learned firsthand of it.

Joe Lockhart, Bill Clinton's former press secretary, now a CNN analyst, attacked Sandmann on Twitter, proudly stating that he would not watch the teen:


Twitter screen grab in case it is deleted.

The settlement between CNN and Sandmann is confidential — not just the amount involved, but the existence or non-existence of a non-disparagement clause, which is very common when defamation suits are settled.  If such a clause exists, CNN will be hearing from Lin Wood today.

Some of the comments on Lockhart's Twitter feed are hilarious.  If you take a look at Lockhart's other tweets last night, you see plenty of TDS-flavored mean-spiritedness:

If there was a non-disparagement clause in the CNN settlement, then the network should have cautioned its personnel over further attacks on Nick.  If they did not do so (and this should be discoverable if Lin Wood launches a suit), then that leaves them on the hook for whole new round of litigation.

Some on the left have stated a belief that Lin Wood settled for crumbs.  I doubt that, because CNN (and other targets) did not check the facts before attacking a minor child and altering his life forever.  With a Northern Kentucky jury hearing the case of a local boy victimized by the mainstream media (whose approval rate in polling is barely above Congress and below used car dealers), the possibility of a huge verdict against them had to weigh heavily on the minds of the CNN executives.  Seven or eight zeroes on the check they cut seems likely.

Lin Wood is renowned as a lawyer because he gets results.  Why would he have advised his client to settle for a token amount?  And why would he have let go of a non-disparagement clause in the settlement?

Also note that Nick Sandmann did not disparage CNN or any of the other targets of his litigation.