Basically it's: "I see nothing, I know nothing!"
Posted on 08/10/2017 6:39:00 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Let’s just step back and admire this situation for a moment. One or more editorial writers at the NY Times, the folks who speak with the paper’s voice of authority on every subject you can imagine, will plead with a judge to believe they did not know the basic facts of a story they were writing about, including facts reported in their own paper! The Times’ defense is: We so dumb.
I find this indescribably delicious, especially given that it was Paul Krugman who used his perch at the NY Times to lead this false charge against Palin back in 2011. There were certainly many who echoed him at the time, but Krugman was the most high profile voice making this claim after the shooting. In fact, if the editorial writers are asked to explain where they got the dumb idea that Palin had been definitively linked to the Tucson shooting, the most likely explanation will be that they got the idea from Paul Krugman. There’s a certain justice to having the paper that mainstreamed this lie face the music over it, albeit belatedly.
Will the judge believe that NY Times editorial writers are ignorant rubes who don’t read their own paper? I won’t guess at the outcome, but I will say that the author(s) certainly wrote as if the facts were crystal clear. In case you’ve forgotten here’s the claim the author(s) of the editorial made:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Ignorance? Yeah, I’d say so. It’s a prerequisite at the NY hardTimes,
“New York Times Editorial Writer Will Proclaim Ignorance”
A brilliant, intellectual, Progressive genius proclaims ignorance in the face of his writing an article in which he proclaimed his brilliant, intellectual, clairvoyant genius in reporting on a brilliant intellectual theory that Sarah Palin was responsible for inciting a shooting in which she was not involved in the least.
(What blatant scu&baggery.)
IMHO
Dean Vernon Wormer: Here are your grade point avarages. Mr. Kroger: two C's, two D's and an F. That's a 1.2. Congratulations, Kroger. You're at the top of the Delta pledge class. Mr. Dorfman?
Flounder: [drunk] Hello!
Dean Vernon Wormer: 0.2... Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Mr. Hoover, president of Delta house? 1.6; four C's and an F. A fine example you set! Daniel Simpson Day... HAS no grade point average. All courses incomplete. Mr. Blu..
So you can’t make a reply post to a Hotair thread unless you’re using Facebook?
How completely stupid of Hotair. I never want to have anything to do with Fakebook and never will.
Lying, evil bastards undeserving of Constitutional protection
You’re not the “press”. You’re #FakeNews
Sure, ignorant people write the NYTimes, but ignorant people read the NYTimes...
Actual malice, or willful disregard for veracity. Either one is necessary to prove libel against a public figure.
If they published the piece in ignorance of the facts, that would be tantamount to an admission of wanton and willful disregard.
They really can’t win this. And they’ll just show even more of their bias if they try. Best to sell off all the assets and lock up the shop.
Basically it's: "I see nothing, I know nothing!"
Being ignorant is no legal excuse!
But "intent" is the word of the day.
I guess if they didn't "intend" to do it, it is fine.
Okay, but I (and I suspect a number of my friends) have been waiting fifty years for something like this to happen to 'Slime.
Ain't quite a head on a pike yet, but I'll take this version of payback.....let the bums just keep sniveling, digging the hole a bit deeper with every lame excuse and maybe even "twisting, twisting in the wind" a bit just for comedy relief.
I may lift a glass of the finest Scotch (or maybe Aquavit) to the lovely Mrs Palin for this....
Søren, jente, du gjør godt arbeid!
I hope her lawyers have a few things to say about that! It’s clearly liable! Of course, I’M no lawyer. LOL!
If the judge can’s see through this lie and arrest the reporter for perjury, then we have entered the reign of a banana republic.
Jeff Sessions, pick up the phone at the courtesy desk!
Just following Hillary’s lead when she talked to the FBI, name, rank, serial number and a terminal case of no recollection.
Probably. They are demonstrably ignorant rubes. And if they do read their own paper, they're in a very small minority in this country.
But it may not be quite so easy. The terms quoted in the story were quite unequivocal, and had to pass through at least one set of supervisory hands before they were printed, which individual is specifically charged with preventing this sort of "little accident". The actual writers may be ignorant, and frankly I'd find it very, very easy to believe, but the paper as an institution isn't, or is liable when it is.
Iron Jack, I keep saying it will be The Wallisa Times when this is done, but that’s just me ;-). I think she’s gotum by the hhortsairs.....
Our small church just hired an Assistant Pastor. He turned the official website to Facebook, and it’s the format where you have to log in to even read it. Most members won’t “go there”. And if non-members are looking for a church they can’t get info. The guy is young and trying to be cutting edge but he’s being counter productive.
“Being ignorant is no legal excuse!”
It seemed to work for Hillary back when her brain was Jell-o. “I’m sorry; I don’t recall.”
Yes, typical liberal play. Always the intellectual authority on ALL issues governing our lives, yet always claiming ignorance to laws they break.
Hopefully, even a NY Judge can see this irony and deal fairly and justly in dear Sarah’s favor.
We’ll savor this victory with her!
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.