Judge throws out Palin libel case against New York Times

They say time heals all wounds.

But not this one. And not this unhealed wound.

She should thank God every day for Donald Trump. Without him, she'd be the biggest dipshit ever on a national ticket.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...uling-00008719

Judge throws out Palin libel case against New York Times
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.

By JOSH GERSTEIN

02/14/2022 03:22 PM EST

A judge has ruled that a libel lawsuit former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times over a 2017 editorial should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly towards indications it was false.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable.

“Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable.”

Yeah, just like it said in the story.

But he ruled to throw out the suit because they couldn't prove libel.

Well, I am sure that this is good as dead. He was nice to allow it to go to jury.

... Asked for a jury trial... Not really nice at all.
The Judge was afraid that the jury might rule in her favour.

#### Salty

... Asked for a jury trial... Not really nice at all.
The Judge was afraid that the jury might rule in her favour.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

I truly hope none of these self-appointed Constitutional Law scholars get indicted for a crime and everyone concludes they are guilty ... so just lock them up. On the other hand they may get a little pissy if someone unloads on them and a judge decides he/she deserved it and dismisses the assault case against the alleged perpetrator.

The future of the minorities in this country is dim considering the abandonment of the protections created within and attached to the United States Constitution. Abandonment of those RIGHTS for one group necessarily requires ABANDONMENT for ALL OTHERS.

... Asked for a jury trial... Not really nice at all.
The Judge was afraid that the jury might rule in her favour.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

I truly hope none of these self-appointed Constitutional Law scholars get indicted for a crime and everyone concludes they are guilty ... so just lock them up. On the other hand they may get a little pissy if someone unloads on them and a judge decides he/she deserved it and dismisses the assault case against the alleged perpetrator.

The future of the minorities in this country is dim considering the abandonment of the protections created within and attached to the United States Constitution. Abandonment of those RIGHTS for one group necessarily requires ABANDONMENT for ALL OTHERS. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It’s clear that Both of you just type and hope it makes sentences. Neither of you make any sense whatsoever.

The judge dismissed the case on the law. Happens all the time, usually on a motion for summary judgment, or could be a motion to dismiss orally made at the close of the plaintiffs case or a directed verdict where the judge determines there’s insufficient evidence to support a jury verdict.

I’ve not read his decision but it’s clear he determined the evidence was lacking on some element Palin needed to prevail. Even allowing the jury to come to a decision was “nice” of him as he’s already decided the case. Since Palin will appeal the judges ruling, his allowing the jury to deliberate actually has a benefit. If he’s overturned and an appeals court decides he was wrong there’s no need for another trial, they will just go with what the jury comes back with. Also, if the jury came to same conclusion as the judge and found in favor of the NYT, then the case is doubly over.

All this other nonsense y’all posted is just stupid for stupid sake. .

... YOU admit you've NOT read the Judge's decision,
as you tell us "he dismissed the case on the law"...

You're embarrassing yourself! ... You do that constantly.

#### Salty

Can you prove otherwise, or point to anything posted anywhere that suggests the case had merit?

Otherwise yinz are just barking down the wrong mine shaft.

Yinz are embarrassing yourself. Yinz do that constantly, matey.

See how that works.

To most sensible people, when a major News Outlet prints and out right lie proclaiming it to be fact, , they should be held accountable.

But since we are now living in “Bizzarro World”, where everything is turned ass backwards, they can get away with pretty much anything.

... Asked for a jury trial... Not really nice at all.
The Judge was afraid that the jury might rule in her favour.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Jury unanimously rejects Palin’s libel claim vs NYT

Stupid twat done RTM'd the wrong motherfuckers!




Sarah Palin’s Libel Claim Against The Times Is Rejected by a Jury
The verdict came a day after the judge said that he planned to dismiss the case, ruling that Ms. Palin’s legal team had failed to prove that the newspaper defamed her.

By Jeremy W. Peters
Feb. 15, 2022
Updated 2:46 p.m. ET

A jury returned a verdict against Sarah Palin in her libel suit against The New York Times on Tuesday, finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the newspaper had defamed her in a 2017 editorial that erroneously linked her political rhetoric to a mass shooting.

The decision was the second time this week that Ms. Palin’s case was dealt a significant setback. On Monday, the presiding judge in federal court in Lower Manhattan, Jed S. Rakoff, said that he would dismiss the case if the jury found in her favor.

Ms. Palin is expected to appeal.

The case is a major test of First Amendment law and the extremely high legal bar that the Supreme Court has set for proving a defamation claim against journalists. Lawyers for Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, have argued that the longstanding legal protections in place to shield journalists from liability for making inadvertent errors are outdated and overly broad. A public figure like Ms. Palin has to prove that a news organization acted with “actual malice” in publishing false information, meaning it displayed a reckless disregard for the truth or knew the information was false.

The Times has not lost a libel case in an American courtroom in at least 50 years.

Ms. Palin’s suit alleged that The Times defamed her with an editorial that incorrectly asserted a link between her political rhetoric and a mass shooting near Tucson, Ariz., in 2011 that left six people dead and 14 wounded, including Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic member of Congress. Ms. Giffords’ district had been one of 20 singled out on a map circulated by Ms. Palin’s political action committee underneath digitized crosshairs. There was no evidence the shooter had seen or was motivated by the map.

The editorial was published on June 14, 2017, the same day that a gunman opened fire at a baseball field in Virginia where Republican congressmen were practicing, injuring several people, including Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana. The headline was “America’s Lethal Politics,” and the editorial asked whether the Virginia shooting was evidence of how vicious American politics had become. The Times corrected the editorial the morning after it was published after readers pointed out the mistake.

On the witness stand, the former Times editor who inserted the erroneous wording into the article, James Bennet, testified that the incident left him racked with guilt and that he had thought about it almost every day since. “It was just a terrible mistake,” he said.

Ms. Palin and her lawyers attempted to convince the jury that Mr. Bennet had acted out of animus toward her and, regardless of any contrition he later showed, was reckless in rushing to judgment about her.

Judge Rakoff rejected those claims in his ruling on Monday, saying that Ms. Palin had not produced evidence to support the idea that Mr. Bennet disregarded the truth either willfully or through his own recklessness. The ruling came in response to a routine procedural motion by Times lawyers to rule in its favor, which defendants have a right to do after the plaintiff has presented all of its evidence to the jury.

... Asked for a jury trial... Not really nice at all.
The Judge was afraid that the jury might rule in her favour.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

It didn't.

... YOU admit you've NOT read the Judge's decision,
as you tell us "he dismissed the case on the law"...

You're embarrassing yourself! ... You do that constantly.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

You’re not very smart. I don’t have to have read his decision to understand WHY he made the decision he did. Dismissing a case by the judge is exactly that - a dismissal based on the law.

Nonetheless, the jury didn’t find her case to have merit either.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...BKw?li=BBnb7Kz