Judge: Writers of NYT Palin Editorial Must Testify in Defamation Case

Facebook

by TONY LEE10 Aug 2017120

A New York federal court judge on Thursday ordered the writers(s) of the New York Times editorial that falsely linked former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the assassination attempt on then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) to testify next Wednesday in an evidentiary hearing that legal experts have described as an unusual move that may benefit Palin.
On Thursday evening, David McCraw, deputy general counsel for the Times, “said the witness would be James Bennet, The Times’s editorial page editor,” according to a Times report.


After House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and three others were shot while practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game by James Hodgkinson—the shooter who had expressed support for Bernie Sanders and hatred for conservatives and President Donald Trump—the Times promptly published an editorial that falsely accused Palin of creating an atmosphere of “political incitement” that led to Giffords’ assassination attempt. The Times said Palin was part of a “sickeningly familiar pattern” of political violence before accusing her of inciting Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Giffords. It turned out that Lougner was apolitical and even the Timesacknowledged in a 2011 article that “no direct or clear link between political rhetoric and Loughner’s actions could be claimed.”

After being smeared by the Times, Palin sued for defamation, alleging that the Times “violated the law and its own policies” because “at the time of publication, The Times knew and had published pieces acknowledging that there was no connection between Mrs. Palin and Loughner’s 2011 shooting.”

The Times is seeking to get the lawsuit dismissed before Palin’s legal team can question “twenty-three non-party current and former Timesreporters, editors and other employees” and demand internal communications. Palin’s team, as Breitbart News has reported, is reportedly seeking “documents that might reveal, among other things, their ‘negative feelings’ toward her.
”

Judge Jed Rakoff wrote in the order that “one close question presented by the motion is whether the Complaint contains sufficient allegations of actual malice, an essential element of the claim. To a large extent, determination of that issue may turn on what inferences favorable to the plaintiff are reasonable given the circumstances alleged in the complaint.” He also pointed out that the complaint “alleges that the allegedly false statements of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them.”



The Times‘ lawyers will be able to question the writer(s) for no more than 30 minutes. Palin’s lawyers will have a chance to examine the writer(s) for no more than 45 minutes, and the defense will then get no more than 15 minutes of redirect.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...in-editorial-must-testify-in-defamation-case/ The New York Times is a biased liberal rag. They intended to malign and defame Sarah Palin with their editorial. Sarah was right to sue them. Cornhusker4Palin hopes that she will run for office again one day.

 

Sarah Palin's campaign behavior included getting onstage with a gun and making inflammatory statements. This behavior, as well as that of other Republican candidates during that time period, helped to create a violent atmosphere which could easily have indirectly influenced Gifford's shooter--and Gifford had even warned of this sort of thing prior to herself being shot.

At the least, Palin is guilty of generally inciting to riot. She has a nerve bringing this to court. Gifford should have been able to collect damages from her--and now that Palin is making an issue of it, maybe some of that shooter's victims will come forward and sue her for damages. If so, she deserves it.

 

I dunno.. I like that the NYT is being sued for this simply because it was obvious their intent and it had nothing to do with journalism. I'm hoping this helps our media and so called journalists wake the fk up and just start providing unbiased or at least balanced stories and facts if they are claiming to be journalists and not entertainment. All of em.

They crossed the line and now are getting a little heat. Good.

 

Yet which side is showing all the violence? I guess words mean more than actions for the left.

 

It didn't, had nothing to do with it. The fake bullseye map.

Not even close to it.

Gifford's had no such case to bring it was a phony assertion. And Palin has every right to defend herself against such baseless slander in a court of law and I hope she collects millions from the NYT.

 

You of course have every right to your opinions. I intend to stick to mine as well. IMO Palin's campaign behavior was reprehensible, and she should pay for it.

 

Man, you've been asleep in here if you think I'm a lefty. This has nothing to do with partisanship on my part. We just shouldn't have candidates getting onstage with guns and making inflammatory statements. Mentally ill people absorb such influences unconsciously if they are in the general environment; there does not have to be a solid cause-and -effect influence chain for them to act out what they pick up on.

 

That's not opinion it is fact.

No evidence Sarah Palin’s PAC incited shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords

What we know about the Giffords shooters’ motivations
According to news reports, Loughner became fixated on Giffords several years before his Jan. 8, 2011, shooting rampage that killed six and injured 14, including the Arizona congresswoman.

Loughner first met Giffords in 2007 at a community event where he asked her a question and was "unsatisfied with her answer," CNN reported. It was at this point he developed a fixation for the lawmaker.

Several years elapsed between the time Loughner first met Giffords and when Palin posted a note to Facebook that linked to her political action committee. The
PAC circulated a map of House Democrats' districts (not individual members) the GOP would seek to recapture.

According to the Washington Post, there is no evidence Loughner was aware of Palin's maps. And according to an interview with one of Loughner's high school friends, the gunman did not watch the news. His rampage was akin to "shooting at the world," said Loughner’s friend Zach Osler.

Loughner was ultimately sentenced to serve seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years, without the possibility of parole.

New York Times’ correction
The uncorrected editorial appeared in today’s print version of the newspaper, and was available online between roughly 9 p.m. June 14 and 10 a.m. June 15, a spokesperson said.

At some point before 11 a.m. this morning, staffers removed the language about the clear link between political incitement and Giffords’ shooting, and issued the following correction:

"An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords," the correction reads. "In fact, no such link was established."

The New York Times’ Opinion twitter account also issued a pair of mea culpas.

"We got an important fact wrong, incorrectly linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords. No link was ever established," read the first tweet from the NYT Opinion account.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...dence-sarah-palins-pac-incited-shooting-rep-/

So stop trying to fallaciously smear and blame people you hate and oppose politically and you want to "pay for it" because you oppose them. I won't say of whom that reminds me.

 

Sarah Palin has been badly treated by the lamestream media since she was picked as McCains running mate. They did this to take attention away from the Sanders fan who shot up a Republican baseball practice field.

 

Palin incited. Whether or not it actually caused some to act out is not the point. It could have. The point is that she acted irresponsibly, in callous disregard for the safety of others, and so far has had no legal consequences for it.