A
week
ago,
North
Carolina
Lt
Gov
Mark
Robinson
sued
CNN
and
a
former
porn
store
clerk
for
$50
million.
At
a
press
conference
with
his
MAGA
lawyer
Jesse
Binnall,
the
Republican
gubernatorial
candidate
vowed
to
clear
his
name
in
the
face
of
a
“high
tech
lynching.”
Perhaps
the
lawsuit
was
a
response
to
pressure
on
Robinson
from
fellow
Republicans
to
refute
the
allegations
of
a
sordid
online
history
or
step
aside.
But
the
complaint
seems
only
to
have
amplified
the
stories,
drawing
attention
to
a
music
video
posted
by
Louis
Love
Money,
a
former
porn
store
clerk
who
alleges
that
Robinson
was
a
regular
back
in
the
early
2000s.
It’s
a
banger.
The
complaint
itself
was
less
of
a
banger,
though.
It
was
extremely
hand-wavy
on
North
Carolina
law,
which
requires
“clear,
strong
and
convincing
evidence
that,
at
the
time
of
the
publication,
the
defendant
either
knew
the
statement
was
false
or
acted
with
reckless
disregard
of
whether
the
statement
was
false”
when
the
plaintiff
is
a
public
figure.
Instead
it
mumbled
about
“antipathy”
and
called
the
allegations
“unverifiable”
—
which
would
appear
to
concede
that
the
allegations
were
not
verifiably
false:
Defendant
CNN
acted
with
actual
malice
and
reckless
disregard
for
the
truth,
as
demonstrated
by
Defendant’s
antipathy,
ill-will,
and
desire
to
inflict
harm
on
Lt.
Gov.
Robinson,
CNN’s
actual
knowledge
of
the
dubious
nature
and
timing
of
the
allegations,
its
use
of
unverifiable
data
to
corroborate
its
reporting,
its
reckless
failure
to
investigate,
and
its
knowledge
of
exculpatory
information
and
alternative
explanations
that
it
deliberately
omitted
from
the
CNN
Article.
But
even
more
hilariously,
the
complaint
whiffed
on
North
Carolina’s
pleading
Rule
8(A)(2),
which
says:
In
all
negligence
actions,
and
in
all
claims
for
punitive
damages
in
any
civil
action,
wherein
the
matter
in
controversy
exceeds
the
sum
or
value
of
ten
thousand
dollars
($10,000),
the
pleading
shall
not
state
the
demand
for
monetary
relief,
but
shall
state
that
the
relief
demanded
is
for
damages
incurred
or
to
be
incurred
in
excess
of
ten
thousand
dollars
($10,000).
Money
immediately
moved
to
dismiss
and
for
sanctions,
noting
that
the
rule
was
enacted
to
“prevent
excess
demands
from
leaking
publicly
in
the
media
and
tainting
the
judicial
process.”
Or,
as
here,
being
trumpeted
on
national
television
as
a
sort
of
exclamation
point
under
Robinson’s
vociferous
denials.
But
Binnall,
former
president
Trump’s
lawyer,
was
not
deterred.
Yesterday
he
filed
a
mildly
amended
complaint,
with
the
ad
damnum
clause
tweaked
to
read
“an
amount
to
be
proven
at
trial,
in
excess
of
twenty-five
thousand
dollars
($25,000.00)”
rather
than
the
original
“amount
to
be
proven
at
trial,
but
no
less
than
fifty
million
dollars
($50,000,000.00).”
The
amended
complaint
still
confuses
“actual
malice”
with
“antipathy,”
but
…
baby
steps.
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.