Posted on 07/27/2017 10:03:00 AM PDT by ptsal
[snip] Sarah Palin has plans to subpoena almost two dozen staff from the New York Times as part of her defamation lawsuit against the outlet, according to court documents released Wednesday.
The editorial article, published by the Times on June 14, tied Palin's political action committee ads in 2011 to the mass shooting that killed six people and wounded former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D., Ariz.).
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
It is the serious charge that needs to be fully examined.
No more lawyers weaseling out this suit.
Good, she needs to make it very expensive for the NYT.
Would it be too much to hope Sarah Palin wins a huge settlement and ends up taking over “The Gray Lady”??
She is tasking not only current members, but past members. Some might have been terminated and not exactly happy with the management. This group of 23 might not give a positive spin to the Times position. I suspect that the Times will come in shortly and put real money on the table to end this episode.
I would bet there is some big money behind Sarah Palin.
It would be fun to see Hulk Hogan sitting next to Sarah at the deposition.
Wonder how many liars, er NYT reporters/editors will be fired by the Slimes before this is over.
CNN set a precedent with their firing of liars posing as reporters/editors.
Can’t be random. Court would never allow it so i assume they all were involved in stories about her in the past and since they’ve never given her a positive word they will have a hard time proving lack of intent.
——Would it be too much to hope Sarah Palin wins a huge settlement and ends up taking over “The Gray Lady”??——
Yes, it’s a billion dollar company
Seriously doubt any jury will award her billions in compensation.
Get’im girl.
Palin not only needs to prove the NYT is a pack of liars (trivial) but her lawyers need to show that their lying was malicious.
That is a very high standard difficult to reach, because human motivation is often complex. Many of the liars may have done so to further their careers with their sociopath bosses rather than to harm Palin.
Somewhat off topic but pertinent the fact they put that about her in the recent editorial isn’t that surprising. A year and more after the Tavon case i was correcting people as to what had actually happened there. The initial reports stayed in their minds and no matter what they read later, those initial wrong reports is what stayed in their minds.
When Gifford was shot they did try and put the blame on Palin initially. so thats what people, including Times writers remember.
I guess first impressions are the strongest. Also you can’t fix stupid.
Such love to Sarah.
While all of the above may be correct, you are being WAY too generous to them. They are supposed to be able to find and report the facts. They misreport intentionally.
“Make the NYT defend itself.”
Correction:
Make the propaganda arm of the DNC defend itself.
IMHO
That’s standard M.O. at the NY Times and their ilk - put forth a false/misleading story on the front page above the fold, put the retractions/qualifications/mitigating elements where nobody will see them.
Make the NYT and their staff spend money.
It’s good for the economy: Keep the paper industry humming turning out reams of paper for the endless legal briefs.
Tavon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.