Via Instapundit: Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times should be tossed because the paper made “an honest mistake” when it said she incited a 2011 shooting that severely wounded Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six people, a lawyer for the Gray Lady said on Friday.
“There was an honest mistake in posting the editorial,” lawyer David Schultz told Manhattan federal Judge Jed Rakoff.
Last week, Palin sued the Times over a June 14th editorial that stated there was a “direct” link between one of Palin’s PAC ads and the shooting by Jared Lee Loughner.
But there’s no evidence he ever saw the ad, which placed Gifford’s district in stylized crosshairs. The Times issued a correction.
On Friday, Palin’s lawyers argued that the Times knew the story was false.
“It was literally acknowledged the same day in another story in their paper,” said Kenneth Turkel.
“There was an honest mistake in posting the editorial,” lawyer David Schultz told Manhattan federal Judge Jed Rakoff.
Last week, Palin sued the Times over a June 14th editorial that stated there was a “direct” link between one of Palin’s PAC ads and the shooting by Jared Lee Loughner.
But there’s no evidence he ever saw the ad, which placed Gifford’s district in stylized crosshairs. The Times issued a correction.
On Friday, Palin’s lawyers argued that the Times knew the story was false.
“It was literally acknowledged the same day in another story in their paper,” said Kenneth Turkel.
(Link to story)
26 comments:
Whose "honest mistake" was it? It just won't do to hide behind the masthead.
Isn't this tantamount to an admission of guilt?
They're trying to claim absence of malice, Lem.
So was Walter Duranty shilling for Uncle Joe.
Lem said...
Isn't this tantamount to an admission of guilt?
To ask the question is to answer it.
I guess that's what discovery is for.
Libel is very tough lawsuit for a plaintiff, particularly a public figure. Palin has to prove the NYT knew it was false and published it w/ reckless disregard. If Palin were a private citizen she would only have to prove negligence, not reckless disregard.
It's a slam dunk case. There is provable hatred and animus. There was clear disregard for if it was true or not, and it was obviously reckless. She would win easily if it was anywhere but a place as blue and anti-Palin as New York. The jury will likely be people who unthinkingly hate her as much as the NYT and will thus think it was fair just like the Times did.
A way to demonstrate malice would be to identify the individual most responsible for the decision to publish, track that individual's publishing record on Palin for the past 9 years, and show a record of malicious intent and reckless disregard over time. It would be particularly delicious if the perp were a well-known NYT Palin loather.
Bonus points if the palin-loather were a Trump-loather as well.
That tactic would help in the jury selection. NYT jurors may be biased, and they may not like someone going after their NYT in general, but if it's journalistic "celebrity", her chances might improve.
I'm just applying Alinsky tactics: personalize it!
Inevitably, chickens come home to roost, despite all those who'd prefer otherwise (please, folks here, recall that I did not, in fact, engage in gratuitous Sarah Palin bashing, ever, not once). Just as, also inevitably, people want to close the barn door after the cows (or horses, or ponies, or whatever) have fled already.
The canard is clear, actionable or not.
****
That said, this is not a singular situation.
Governor Palin was treated horribly at and from the outset, and make no mistake about it that I have always thought that. After all, at least one of you know that this is so, that always I did think that.
@rcommal: I, for one, knew that about you.
"That tactic would help in the jury selection. NYT jurors may be biased,"
I meant "NYC jurors" not "NYT jurors."
All of that said, I can be a Palin sympathizer, even a Palin defender, even a supporter in some key ways, AND also view President Trump with contempt. Oh. Yes. I. Can.
Anti-tribalism, here. Standing firm, alone or not. Period. Full stop.
@rcommal: Trump has goaded the media from the get-go. They have a much longer history than 2016. That is something for historians to argue and document.
Palin, a bit of a Cincinnatus figure, was tapped by McCain. She was really a national nobody in 2008, yet she was derided with seemingly decades-full of contempt. She does differ in that way from Trump. I will give you that.
It Was an Honest Mistake, by The Bravery
This is a favorite song. I'm a bit stunned that none of the kids interpreted it because it's slow enough for beginners and repeaty.
They're a bit goth. And yet they sound a bit western. And I like the way in the video the dominos turn into Rube Goldberg and Rube Goldberg turns into smashing lightbulbs with bowling balls and fires are lit and twirl dangerously until a flaming arrow is shot from a crossbow and misses the target entirely because it's an honest mistake.
Okay, who's Palin again?
Maybe that's why she's suing. Because NYT made an honest mistake in consciously and purposefully viciously smearing her all over the place up and down and blaming her for something they know she had absolutely nothing to do with. Gawl. Talk about goth.
I'm too busy having fun watching talent videos. People have outrageous talent. Especially Americans.
You know what? Today I stuck my head out in public for ten minutes and two people both front and back stopped me to tell me that my little garden looks great. And it's only just started. It hasn't even taken over yet. It's not fully showing. And I made a lot of honest mistakes.
A lot of them.
I planted things upside down and too deeply. I planted things underneath other things that obscure them and prevent them getting light. Elephant ear plants grew so fast and so large they pushed over trellises put there to shade them. Twice. Plants are combined poorly in pots. Some things get too much sun and other don't get enough. I haven't a clue what I'm doing.
Except for those few clues from previous mistake riddled seasons.
Also, out of six little lunch bags of caladium rhizomes that I gave away, five people who I don't even know stopped me to report their surprise plants are doing great. They'e well chuffed to have them and watch them grow. Surprised that a stranger would just give them something. That whole 'dump the extra caladium rhizome' worked out very well. Another rather stupid honest mistake.
If only "full stop" was a true statement.
Nick, I think one of Palin's arguments will be that she, for the most part, was out of the public discussion. I think there is a bit of truth to that as well. She came out a bit on the campaign trail, but otherwise has been virtually silent for 6 months. The only reason anyone is talking about her is because the NYT brought her up with a false allegation. And it is false, because even the NYT has a retraction from the time that acknowledged Jared Loughner was not influenced in anyway by Palin.
If only "full stop" was a true statement.
If only that most of what you have said over a long period of time could be useful
It. Ain't.
Interesting the intensity of some quirky emotions in the comments here.
Someone should write a short story.
About this eddy of survivors washed ashore after an althouse full tide of red death.
XRay said...Interesting the intensity of some quirky emotions in the comments here.
Someone should write a short story.
About this eddy of survivors washed ashore after an althouse full tide of red death.
"Why do we give up our hearts to the past?
And why must we grow up so fast?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IgZj3m4fn4
Right you are!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M_iHHC1n_o
Post a Comment