Devin Nunes is the ranking Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee. When he discovered that the Obama Administration and the NSA/FBI/DoJ was illegally spying on the Trump Campaign and continued that illegal spying into his administration Nunes went public.
Readers know how lies go. First the deny, then they obfuscate, then the move the goalpost and play semantics, then they justify it (all while attacking you personally), and then you win.
In this case not only did the Washington Post lie about the illegal spying, they morphed it into the Russian Collusion hoax in an effort to justify it after it went public that the spying was irrefutable. The effort to manufacture collusion evidence went on for three years and every indication shows that the Washington Post was in on it willingly.
In their effort to smear Nunes for investigating the illegal spying, the Washington Post showed malicious intent not only by contradicting its own previous reporting, but it applied one semantic doublespeak when smearing Nunes and then later using the exact opposite when the tables were turned.
[Editor’s Note – As any journalism school student can tell you, a cardinal rule in reporting is rereading your own previous reporting on said issue.]
Defamation lawsuits very rarely get passed a motion to dismiss as the defamation laws in the United States are weighted heavily for free speech, even if that speech is incorrect. Defamation has to be severe on its face to survive a motion to dismiss.
Famed Canadian lawyer Viva Frei has details: