Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge dismisses Palin defamation case against New York Times
The Hill ^ | 08/29/2017 | Jacqueline Thomsen

Posted on 08/29/2017 12:12:47 PM PDT by GIdget2004

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last
To: colorado tanker

Once they define you as a “celebrity” it is very hard to win.

Carol Burnett and Maureen O’Hara are the only famous people I can think of who won defamation suits against the media.


21 posted on 08/29/2017 12:32:45 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx

This was always going to be a hard mountain for Palin to climb. That said, I suspect that the fix was in to save the Times from Discovery.


22 posted on 08/29/2017 12:34:01 PM PDT by section9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Oh, jeez! What are his ties with John Podesta?


23 posted on 08/29/2017 12:34:52 PM PDT by TigersEye (0bama. The Legacy is a lie. The lie is the Legacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx

The Times report was despicable, repeating a libel exposed as false years ago.


24 posted on 08/29/2017 12:36:24 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

It gives his name, Jed Rakoff, and also says he was appointed by Clinton in 1996.


25 posted on 08/29/2017 12:42:20 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004; flaglady47; Maine Mariner; pax_et_bonum
Win or lose, I think Sarah got her point about media corruption through to the American public.

She has my appreciation and my thanks for pushing back.

Leni

26 posted on 08/29/2017 12:42:27 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaeVictis
Let me guess, the public wasn’t interested enough in the case? Was there no prosecutor willing to take the case?

It was a civil case and not a criminal case so there was no prosecutor. And the judges reason for tossing the case was basically absence of malice: "But if political journalism is to achieve its constitutionally endorsed role of challenging the powerful, legal redress by a public figure must be limited to those cases where the public figure has a plausible factual basis for complaining that the mistake was made maliciously, that is, with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard of its falsity. Here, plaintiff's complaint, even when supplemented by facts developed at an evidentiary hearing convened by the Court, fails to make that showing."

27 posted on 08/29/2017 12:45:08 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
It gives his name, Jed Rakoff, and also says he was appointed by Clinton in 1996.

The article is much longer than when I first opened it. Thanks for the info.

28 posted on 08/29/2017 12:46:16 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

You took my post seriously I see. It was more of a critique on the recent ludicrous rulings.... One on Hillary’s information not being released. The other on Hillary not being tried because Comey “knew” no prosecutor would do it.


29 posted on 08/29/2017 12:53:51 PM PDT by VaeVictis (~Woe to the Conquered~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Fomr the Wikipedia article on this idiot judge, who was appointed by Bill Clinton:

“Rolling Stone magazine Matt Taibbi wrote in 2011, “Federal judge Jed Rakoff, a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s office here in New York, is fast becoming a sort of legal hero of our time.”[19]”


30 posted on 08/29/2017 12:54:20 PM PDT by ZULU (DITCH MITCH!!! DUMP RYAN!! DROP DEAD MCCAIN!! KIM FATTY the THIRD = Kim Jung Un)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Obviously he is very wise and very important - you can tell from his expression.

A Judge is just a slip and fall attorney with political connections.

And this idiot’s connections are with the Democrats.


31 posted on 08/29/2017 12:55:41 PM PDT by ZULU (DITCH MITCH!!! DUMP RYAN!! DROP DEAD MCCAIN!! KIM FATTY the THIRD = Kim Jung Un)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

This will be reversed on appeal.


32 posted on 08/29/2017 12:55:58 PM PDT by Captain Jack Aubrey (There's not a moment to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lee martell

She was using Hogan’s Gawker team for this suit.

I hope she appeals and wins.


33 posted on 08/29/2017 12:57:39 PM PDT by Rubble Rouser (The Flint Hills of KS....an amazing place!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Judge Jed Rakoff


34 posted on 08/29/2017 12:58:47 PM PDT by Ray76 (Republicans are a Democrat party front group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
Not unexpected, given the location of the court.

However, the Times' defense (in effect, "we're not liable because we're too stupid and lazy to check through our our own files") is nonsensical.

Hopefully she'll appeal. Eventually to the Supreme Court if necessary.

35 posted on 08/29/2017 12:59:40 PM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Gun buybacks are one of the most ineffectual public policies that have ever been invented")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

Not only the justice system - the whole thing is falling apart.


36 posted on 08/29/2017 1:04:09 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

“Judge Jed Rakoff”

Rhymes with Jack—f.


37 posted on 08/29/2017 1:05:07 PM PDT by beelzepug (H,MN! WIAM? DMS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TTFlyer

Gay lips, lol.


38 posted on 08/29/2017 1:14:26 PM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

I agree. But what was it about my post you didn’t understand? With laws the way they’re written and interpreted and with judge-shopping part of our “legal” system, her chances of success were negligible from the beginning. IMO she met all the legal requirements for a defamation suit but liberal judges apparently don’t care about the law when conservatives are the damaged party.


39 posted on 08/29/2017 1:15:00 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Affected, effete little ethnic urbanite, who can’t quite decide if he’s trying to fake WASP or trying to fake Ernest Hemingway, but you can bet he’s insufferably arrogant in his attempts to pull it off while out in the Hamptons. Ahoy, Polloi!


40 posted on 08/29/2017 1:24:39 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson