Saturday, July 08, 2017

New York Times comes out hard for dismissal of Sarah Palin's frivolous defamation lawsuit.

Courtesy of the New York Law Journal: 

Lawyers for The New York Times came out swinging on July 7 in Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the paper over an editorial linking her to a mass shooting, arguing the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate could not show The Times acted with actual malice. 

Palin filed her suit against The Times last week, alleging that she was defamed by a June 14 editorial called "America's Lethal Politics," which she said ties her to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, that resulted in six deaths and a gunshot wound to the head of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who survived the attack. 

At the first conference for Palin's suit, David Schulz, a partner at Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, told Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff that his firm could file a motion to dismiss Palin's suit in one week. He also said there was no intent by The Times to put out misinformation. 

"The complaint mentions very clearly that a mistake was made," Schulz said, saying that The Times corrected the editorial in about 12 hours.

I am still not sure who convinced Palin that this was a good idea, but I really feel that the Times is going to squash this thing like a bug, and leave her looking like an idiot.

Not that such a thing would be new to her, but still you would think at some point you might want to try and regain a little dignity.

I'm sorry, did I say dignity?

I forgot who I was talking about.

72 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:46 AM

    I think they thunk this thing in church a couple sundays where they are trying to get rid of free press and opinionated Americans, and have us all thinking sheep.
    Good try.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:49 AM

    If we only had adored her as Queen Esther II that her Sybil brain told her she was, sent from God to cure what ails us and lead us to the Promised Land. We bad!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:52 AM

    $arah look like an idiot? On any given day ending with a "y!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:52 AM

    Is that a picture of Sarah Palin?

    Oh! How the mighty have fallen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:08 PM

      She looks like her wretched mum Sally.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:00 PM

      There's another one taken at the same time where she's giving the finger.

      Keeping it classy, as usual.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous12:11 PM

    Our Lady Of Perpetual Victimhood never met a perceived slight that she didn't pounce on. She must have missed that part in her Bible where it says, "turn the other cheek," especially if it will make her a fast buck or three.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:34 PM

      I doubt that Sarah Palin ever read anything from the New Testament.
      Beaglemom

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:52 PM

      I seriously doubt that she reads much. Other then what is scribbled on the back of her wrists. Probably forgets to read that also.
      Sarah is a twit!Also looks very masculine, maybe steroids for the gym workouts? Knock yourself put Sara! No really. Idiot.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous12:38 PM

    Do all the unemployed fishwives in Alaaaska act like she does?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:52 AM

      I'm still chuckling over that moniker, "unemployed fishwife".

      The hubbs really likes it! He was telling me of the negative historical connotation of the term "fishwife" from UK history. The wife of the fisherman was expected to yell and screech loudly about her hubb's catch of the day in the marketplace. She had to be the loudest one, or else her hubb's catch wouldn't sell and would ruin. The British fishwives of the past were ROUGH: smelly, loud, rude, coarse women who readily brawled, gossiped and spread lies about the competition. Sounds just like old stinky $ara.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous12:46 PM

    I can't remember what the Times wrote about her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither does anyone else, which is why she'll have a hell of a time demonstrating as a public figure that she was defamed or damaged.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:50 PM

      It's not so much what Times wrote. Sarah has to prove they did publish with malice.

      Palin has back up for what she is doing, or is being done in her name. She is defending herself (and right wing activist et al), so she maintains, against being wrongfully labeled regards her cross-hair message and the people who died in Tucson when the Congresswoman was shot in the head. Palin is not going to be labeled a lethal politician. Not that she is a politician, but in her mind set she is what she wants to be.
      Since recently a left wing nut with a gun shot at more Congress members it circles back to Tucson Congress person shooting that "coincidentally" Palin targeted. That's how Sarah Palin came up in this latest scenario. As I understand there was an apology from Times, because no one could come up to officially link crazy Palin to the deaths and shooting in Tucson.

      Here’s what the paper wrote, with the key lines in bold:
      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/15/what_the_new_york_times_missed_when_it_got_the_palin_giffords_story_so_wrong.html

      The case is meaningful to right wing propaganda. It is a discussion they prefer and Palin loves attention. They will get some media attention for how Palin was wronged and what a strong stand up person she likes to think she is.
      Sarah Palin and friends do not want to have any focus or attention on guns. They rather spend time, money and energy on a cause like protecting a so-called conservative activist.
      Fourteen Words

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

      Jul. 7, 2017
      http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-14-words-white-supremacy-neo-nazi-trump-2017-7

      Not many will care about this but it will give right wing plenty of fodder. That's what they want.

      “Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

      http://deadline.com/2017/06/sarah-palin-sues-new-york-times-editorial-gabby-giffords-1202121176/

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:01 PM

      They said that she was connected (or associated or something like that) to the shooting of Gabby Giffords. Which she was.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5:56 AM

      Little Christina Taylor Green, murdered that day Ms. Giffords was shot, would be the same age as palin's brat Piper. If Christina had lived, that is.

      My heart goes out to her parents!

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7:56 AM

      If i where Christina Greene's parents i would have sued the shit outta sara

      Delete
    6. Anonymous9:28 AM

      I know someone who can represent them. Free. Smirk.
      Hey Sarah! Still a whore?
      I mean a political assistant?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:08 AM

      Looking forward to the depositions and trail by jury, tee hee.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous12:58 PM

    Money getting TIGHT, Sarah? What, after that insane speech Trump watched you give before he sent you home to stew, (no invite to inauguration, even? LOL) you need some quick cash to pay for more bullets to shoot moose for your FREEZER? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:36 PM

    Dem some nice cleavage you got there grandma.... on your neck and double chin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:22 PM

      That photo is 4 years old, just imagine what she looks like now!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:26 PM

      Actually she's looking skinny and sickly. Too much humping to get where she got. STDs.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:59 AM

      I think the pic is from last winter when Taaawd was in hospital after he had his 'snowmachine accident', aka as the night he got his ass kicked by $ara & Curtis Menard Jr's son Track.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:48 AM

      5:59
      No, that picture was taken when Sarah was leaving a spa, back when she was claiming to be doing hot yoga - but she actually had just had a facial or a massage.
      Can you imagine her actually surviving a hot yoga class with all the drugs she does? When she saw she was getting photographed looking like she just had a facial, she gave the photog what she thought was a discreet FU

      Delete
  10. Anonymous2:22 PM

    Unless her old legal team is still working for the pittance that was their monthly stipend this might actually cost her the rest the double digit millions "fortune" that she acquired.

    I have a feeling that just like white trash everywhere that the Palin Klan has run through its money and is just digging in the couch cushions of legal wrangling to try to pad their dwindled bank accounts.

    Best of luck to the hag and her family ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmmmm. After reading these comments, I'm beginning to believe Sarah and her clan of drunks, thugs, girl-friend beaters, one-night stands, and purple-haired twits do not have a lot of supporters.


    Am I right, or, am I right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:59 AM

      *snicker*

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7:57 AM

      Finally.

      Delete
  12. Randall3:05 PM

    It would be pretty hard to defame Sarah Palin, I mean... come on...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:19 PM

      1. Sarah puts a gunsight on Gabby Giffords' congressional district.
      2. Gabby says stop it, you're putting me in danger.
      3. Sarah crows publicly about the success of her gunsights campaign.
      4. Gabby Giffords is shot in the head from a few inches away at her Congress on Your Corner event.
      5. Palin spokesmouth Lardass McMansour says the gunsights are now "surveyors marks", so stop saying Sarah Palin promotes and brags about the success of her violent imagery.
      6. In her lengthy Blood Libel video Palin says SHE is the rill victim here.
      7. Over to you, Your Honor. Was it an honest mistake, or was the NYT trying to take Palin down from her pedestal somewhere on the bottom of dead Lake Lucille?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:25 PM

      Bingo, 4:19 PM.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:00 AM

      You can also find the body of Jill Haddassah at the bottom of the dead lake.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous3:18 PM

    Strange. The woman knows she's lying and she KNOWS she will lose. Me think she wants FREE publicity and money thrown at her to "help" with her suit. I hope she gets counter sued.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:14 PM

      Heck yeah, she already publicized an account for people to contribute her defense of this 'atrocity.' Think it would ever come out of HER pocket??? Never.

      The only reason she opens her purse is when TAWD wants his balls back.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:44 PM

      I thought she got him neutered.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:02 AM

      @11:44.
      Yep. that's why $he had to repeatedly go outside her marriage to conceive her kids $he uses as shields and stage props.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous3:18 PM

    She looks terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous4:00 PM

    lil old-granny is looking pretty old and she's always been homely without makeup.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous4:07 PM

    Guess you'll have to get a real job now, eh asshole?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:41 PM

      I don't think she knows how to work.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:01 AM

      Her days of using her looks for sex money and imfamy are over. Ding dong the bitch is dead.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous8:20 PM

      A job doing what? Walmart greeter? She'd scare the customers. Dog washer? Who would trust her with their dog? Toilet scrubber? She lacks the skills required.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous4:10 PM

    Remember when Sarah Palin stole a photograph that was being used to raise funds for 9/11 first responders? She was sued.

    Remember all those times she has had her free lawyer write threatening letters? She never sued anybody because chickenshit Sarah always chose very soft targets.

    Now she gets to fuck up in a completely new way. She is going to be made to look like the attention whore she is. She won't get a penny, she has no job to lose, she has no good reputation to lose, she in fact stands to gain from the free publicity of the real media putting her name in the news.

    But she won't get a cent of free money, and that's the only thing she's after- Other People's Money so that the lazy band of slugs she calls her family won't have to get off of their spreading butts and work for a living like the New York Times people have to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:33 PM

      She won't get the media attention she wants either, excepting maybe those gawd awful tabloid shows.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:56 PM

      She knows those are the only type of people who buy in to her pathetic ramblings and whining. The type who would actually buy the Enquirer at the Walmart checkout. NE knows what their readers like so it's easy to throw her some attention and a earn a few bucks with palin/heath crapola.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous4:19 PM

    Can't wait till she, Trump and Putin are just bad memories. I'd like to continue my happy go luck life before this past election. I haven't been the same since. Shit can and will happen. Go away shit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous5:03 PM

    Palin convinced herself it was a good idea. ANY thing to get her name in the news. Anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:43 PM

      You know if this doesnt work, then she will go after Putin and Tramp.
      Go for the jugular Sarah!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7:45 PM

      Preferably her own.

      Delete
  20. Anonymous5:42 PM

    However this goes it will be great for the "fake news" industry. When Trump gives Palin her cabinet position he can lose his dependence on Putin.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous6:35 PM

    ...The Times retained Levine Sullivan for the case on the day before the conference, Schulz said. He appeared with associate Jeremy Kutner. Palin has retained Kenneth Turkel and Shane Vogt of the Tampa, Florida-based Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, who were part of the legal team that represented Hulk Hogan in his successful invasion of privacy suit against Gawker, which resulted in the demise of the publication.
    Rakoff asked Turkel if he thinks his client's complaint is sufficient because the misinformation contained in The Times piece was a so "out of whack" that no one could have made that "mistake by accident."
    "Yes, judge, that's one way to put it," Turkel said. He declined to answer reporters' questions following the conference.
    Rakoff scheduled oral arguments for the motion to dismiss for July 31.
    The Times' editorial at question in the case was released the day that a gunman opened fire on practice session preceding a charity baseball game in Virginia featuring members of Congress and former and current congressional staffers.
    U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, was seriously wounded during the incident. James Hodgkinson, the shooter, died in a gun battle with police.
    The original version of the editorial linked the latest attack to Giffords' shooting and to a map distributed by Palin's political action committee prior to the Arizona shooting showing congressional districts under crosshairs.
    The Times corrected the piece to state that there was no connection between the two shootings, then corrected it a second time to state that the map distributed before the Arizona shooting portrayed congressional districts under crosshairs, not Democratic lawmakers themselves.
    Palin said The Times should have apologized and retracted the piece.
    Public figures like Palin are required to show actual malice to bring libel suits against defendants like The Times—that The Times knowingly published false information or that it showed disregard for the truth.

    http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202792505571/Times-Lawyers-Say-Theyll-Seek-Early-Dismissal-of-Palins-Defamation-Claim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:12 PM

      Don't forget discovery. By forcing Palin to prove actual malice, the door is open for Palin to depose everyone involved and to delve into all of their public and private statements throughout the years. That Facebook post back in 2011? Tweets from 2015? Any public statement insulting Palin? All proof of a pre-existing bias that helps prove actual malice. Palin's lawyers get to run wild to discover the actual bias of the NY Times Editorial Board. This is potentially huge.

      John Galt

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:52 PM

      Time for someone to ask, "Who is John Galt?"

      Delete
    3. Anonymous11:48 PM

      Who cares!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous6:14 AM

      Listen up Ayn Rand lover @8:12, the legal definition of malice is very very difficult to prove in a court of law.
      $he's relegated to boo-hooing "they don't like me!" , which is NO legal defense.
      Umm you know that ole stinky greasy headed Ayn(born Alysa Rosenbaum, hmm...sounds Jewish) died poor after blowing all her money, and she was on social welfare after a life-time of decrying the poor who relied on welfare to live. Where did all her money go? Hmmm.
      Plus, the unwashed adulterous bitch was a Russian immigrant.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous9:37 AM

      614 sounds like you need to share more of your emotions.
      I mean spit it out already.
      Sarah snagged "whose" money?

      Delete
  22. Anonymous6:56 PM

    Remember a time when this would have been headline news? She does.

    It's like that old movie Sunset Boulevard and there is old Sarah waiting for her closeup. I bet she reads her C4P fan mail endlessly and shows it to Todd so he can never forget who was the real breadwinner in the Palin household.

    She ought to be thankful that she rode the fame train for as long as she did.There is a whole new batch of crazy Sarah your OLD news.You are no longer asked to speak anywhere and your looks can't get you a job anymore. Your act is tired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:38 AM

      Yeah no chit right!

      Delete
  23. Anonymous7:26 PM

    In the court of public opinion Sarah Palin targeted Democrats and that toxic atmospere created violence in a crazy man. No one could connect the shooter in Tucson to Sarah Palin's graphics in a court of law or an official way.
    Sarah Palin is forever connected to the shooting of Gabby Giffords. However, The Times made a mistake and retracted and apoligized. Now Hulk Hogan's Gawker lawyers see red meat and are saying The Times was acting to defame Sarah Palin with bad intent.
    For Sarah Palin in 2011 it was blood libel. At least that is how she tried to explain herself, the poor victim, she says she did nothing wrong, she is not lethal. Her hate and vile rhetoric, when she campaigned for veep, were not lethal. Candidate/winner Obama had more threats and needed more Secret Service protected than anyone before. According to Sarah Palin it was not her hate or those like what's his name Uncle Ted and the like.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/12/sarahpalin-arizona-shooting-blood-libel
    Blood libel
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_blood_libel
    Hogan's lawyers (venture capital investor Peter Thiel had been secretly footing Hogan’s legal bills against Gawker)
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/05/30/peter-thiel-hulk-hogan-lawyers-charles-harder/#3feda864167c
    Palin’s Florida lawyers helped win a $140 million jury verdict against Gawker, plunging the website and its founder into bankruptcy
    http://www.thewrap.com/sarah-palin-hired-gawker-slayer-lawyers-to-sue-new-york-times-exclusive/

    Sarah Palin has big dreams. She would not only be in for the money with a win, she would be a folk hero. It would be the ultimate revenge. Can she take down The Gray Lady?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not in this life. Anything to stay relevant, but they'll eat her lunch

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:50 PM

      Who the hell is Great Lady?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:15 AM

      Isn't blood libel a Morman thing?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous9:40 AM

      Aw how is Mittens today?
      May be he's a Russian. Cough.

      Delete
  24. Anonymous7:28 PM

    https://www.facebook.com/lockhimupnow/photos/a.1738535416459883.1073741828.1738529666460458/1817725775207513/?type=3

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous7:29 PM

    She reaped what she sowed but early on the Palins raked in the cash in spite of her lack of preparation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:16 AM

      And like the terminally stupid they are, they blew all that money.

      Delete
  26. Anonymous7:34 PM

    https://www.facebook.com/TheEverlastingGopStoppers/photos/a.362561537129714.96045.360781383974396/1541847862534403/?type=3&theater

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous7:38 PM

    https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19732290_1541847862534403_6295194058365532149_n.jpg?oh=faa630f8862c10e1576bd89575de2ded&oe=5A0E6677

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous9:54 PM

    You can be sure a right-wing sugar daddy, such as Peter Thiel, who paid for the Hulk Hogan lawsuit, is behind this. Sarah won't have to pay a penny.
    But it's a very tenuous libel -- if libel it was -- and corrected immediately. And Sarah has no reputation that can be damaged by now. An editorial is different from a news story. If they dredge up Times's editors views, they will depose Sarah and all her rantings and ravings, Facebook, tv appearances, tweets, speeches. She can't win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:21 AM

      They could except Sarah Palin is merely a waste of time. This suit will be dismissed and forgotten quicker than her TriG pregnancy lasted.

      Delete
  29. Crystal Sage8:12 AM

    Much as I personally can't stand Bill Maher, he nailed it in his tweet about Sarah's lawsuit against The Times:

    Sarah Palin is suing the New York Times? Wow, somebody tell Katie Couric, she finally named a newspaper!

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.