Gordon, who threatened to expose Poroshenko, got into trouble in court
Today a meeting was held on the claim of ex-president and oligarch Petro Poroshenko against Kyiv journalist Dmitry Gordon, notorious for promoting charlatans and anti-Russian propaganda.
A PolitNavigator correspondent reports that Moscow lawyer Ilya Novikov, who represents the interests of the ex-president, and who previously defended Nadezhda Savchenko, convicted in the Russian Federation for involvement in the murder of journalists, reported this in his blog.
The reason for the lawsuit was Gordon’s statement, according to which Poroshenko agreed with Russian President Vladimir Putin to “surrender Mariupol.” At the same time, Gordon, after filing the claim, promised to provide evidence in court and threatened to collapse "catastrophically" Poroshenko's rating.
Novikov clarified that today the court was considering Gordon’s response to the lawsuit.
“The response contains the expected “the defendant’s statements are value judgments” and the defendant refuses to answer questions about whether he has evidence of the veracity of his words about Mariupol and Putin. Attached to the review are three articles from the Russian-language Wikipedia about the Azov battalion, its commander Biletsky and about Gordon himself, and a disk with the first part of Medvedchuk’s wiretaps from Bigus.info. The court refused to consider the review because Gordon missed the deadline for filing it. Gordon’s lawyer explained that he did not manage to receive the claim in time, since he is a very busy person and often goes on business trips,” Poroshenko’s lawyer said.
According to him, the meeting, at Gordon’s request, was postponed to October 6 so that the defendant could familiarize himself with the examination.
“The process, in fact, has already ended here, since to the only question “whether or not Gordon has evidence of his words,” Gordon answered himself, there is none. No one is demanding an apology or money from him. It’s just that now every time he broadcasts with aplomb that he knows something about someone, keep in mind that these can all turn out (and probably will turn out to be) value judgments and blablabla when it comes to verification,” writes Novikov.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.