A federal judge has ruled while there is insufficient evidence to show the Post was negligent when it falsely reported Nunes advocated President Trump’s unfounded claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped, there was enough evidence of actual malice to proceed.
U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols in Washington DC concluded the case could proceed for defamation because the Post inaccurately reported last November that Nunes spread the wiretapping claims and went to the Trump White House late at night to find evidence to prove it. Neither claim was true.
“Taken as a whole, the article says (or at least a reasonable juror could understand the article to say) that Nunes had made baseless claims about spying on Trump Tower and then visited the White House to inspect documents that might support those baseless claims,” the judge wrote.
“And a reasonable juror could conclude that an elected official is ridiculous or unfit for office if he searched for evidence to support baseless claims,” he added.