Mark Steyn recordsdata an evasive movement to summarize the judgment in Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit – Watts Up With That?
Stephen McIntyre’s Twitter thread
Mark Steyn filed an eviscerated and well-informed motion to summarize the verdict in the defamation lawsuit against Michael Mann. https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10973.pdf
with memorandum
2 / Steyn largely stayed out of the complicated SLAAP procedure and kept its fire for the summary judgment phase. I will not review or refine these documents, but I will cite a few sizzling early paragraphs.
3 / Steyn notes that the court previously determined whether Penn State “conducted an inadequate and ineffective investigation against its employees, including Sandusky and Mann”. Steyn: “It was decided thoroughly” and Mann’s mentor “goes to prison”.
4 / Rubbing salt into the open wound, says Brief: “While Mann claims he was defamed through Steyn’s connection with the Sandusky case, Mann thanks one of the convicted criminals in the Sandusky case in his recently published book The New Climate War. “Ouch.
5 / Steyn noted that Easterling took part in the committee of inquiry activities, despite claiming to be reusing them. Steyn left out the most important example: Easterling intervened to prevent the investigative committee from contacting Mann critics and victims
6 / some amazing revelations in the Steyn Memorandum from the discovery of Penn State’s behavior during the investigation. The committee of inquiry’s first view was that they “couldn’t prove that [Mann was] not guilty ”of the first three points and should therefore proceed to an investigation.
In the discovery, Foley said the investigative committee “could not find anything to prove Mann’s innocence” and that according to the plea, it did not “exonerate” Mann.
8 / Steyn says Foley “clandestinely” sent a draft of the Committee of Inquiry report to Penn State President Spanier (who is now a convicted criminal in connection with the Sandusky scandal) and that Spaniard has clandestinely replied to Foley with amendments to the report.
9 / Spanier then told Foley to be aware of the impact a “bad publicity” in the Mann case would have on Penn State. Needless to say, in Freeh’s account of the Sandusky case, the Spaniard’s concern about bad publicity also undermined Penn State’s handling of that case.
10 / The letter goes on and on, revealing in excruciating detail the flaws of the Penn State investigation and investigation.
Originally tweeted by Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) on Jan 24, 2021.
More tweets may have been added to this thread since this post was prepared.
Go to the thread on Twitter to see for yourself.
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.