Palin suing NYT for their BS claim that she caused the Giffords massacre YAY!

[tinydancer]

The bottom line is that the NYT was insane to make the false claim again. I hope Palin creams them in court.

It was a totally legit claim.

Really? So legit that the NYT offered a correction? WP exonerated her. Jake Tapper exonerated her. Everyone and their mother with the exception of left wing whackos knows the massacre had nothing to do with Palin.

 

[tinydancer]

Ben Dreyfuss, a senior editor with left-wing Mother Jones, called the editorial “stupid,” adding: “Palin didn’t make that loon shoot Gabby Giffords.”

“Unbelievable. The Times is still peddling this despicable lie,” said Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto. He added: “This is shockingly dishonest.”


NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory

 

[Camp]

Well, she was the one trying to incite violence talking about second amendment solutions and putting crosshairs on people. Ask Gabby Giffords and the families of the people killed in Arizona how they feel about caribou Barbie and her second amendment solutions.

Theres a pic of Palins map. It targets voting districts. Do you see peoples faces in the crosshairs?
The shooter had previous contact with Giffords which is why the news media trying to go after Palin is
politically motivated news and is why they are going to be sued and lose.


View attachment 136063

There are no faces, but there are names. Gabrielle Giffords is the fourth name on the list. So, your point is that because only her name was used and not her picture....what the heck is your point?

Jared was fixated on Giffords three years before that Super Pac map came out. And did you miss the NYT's correction? Obviously. The Times said there was no link.

Palin elevated the sense of doom and crisis with her hate speeches and no one really knows what effect those hate speeches may have had on the mentally ill nutjob who committed the massacre.

There's no link. He wasn't political. You need to stop lying.

Just because people disagree with your subjective opinion does not mean they are lying. It means they disagree with your subjective opinion.

 

[tinydancer]

Theres a pic of Palins map. It targets voting districts. Do you see peoples faces in the crosshairs?
The shooter had previous contact with Giffords which is why the news media trying to go after Palin is
politically motivated news and is why they are going to be sued and lose.


View attachment 136063

There are no faces, but there are names. Gabrielle Giffords is the fourth name on the list. So, your point is that because only her name was used and not her picture....what the heck is your point?

Jared was fixated on Giffords three years before that Super Pac map came out. And did you miss the NYT's correction? Obviously. The Times said there was no link.

Palin elevated the sense of doom and crisis with her hate speeches and no one really knows what effect those hate speeches may have had on the mentally ill nutjob who committed the massacre.

There's no link. He wasn't political. You need to stop lying.

Just because people disagree with your subjective opinion does not mean they are lying. It means they disagree with your subjective opinion.

No link has ever been found. That's a fact. Not an opinion. And to continue to repeat a lie that Palin was to blame Palin for the massacre is in itself an act of lying. Now you can hate her all you want, you can hate her politics but to repeatedly accuse an innocent person with no connection to 6 murders and 13 injured in a mass shooting is despicable.

 

[hadit]

This is how the white trash hill billy is trying to make money now

Sarah Palin’s political brand has been reduced to a clickbait farm

These brief declarations have been accompanied by links to sarahpalin.com, where visitors to the homepage are greeted by a full-screen black-and-white photo of the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate. The banner reads, “Sarah Palin Building America’s Future,”

piece of white trash garbage

I think her being pissed off at being blamed once again for the deaths of 6 people is cause enough for the lawsuit.

Well, she was the one trying to incite violence talking about second amendment solutions and putting crosshairs on people. Ask Gabby Giffords and the families of the people killed in Arizona how they feel about caribou Barbie and her second amendment solutions.

I don't give a flying rats ass about how Giffords feels about the 2nd. Palin had nothing nada to do with those deaths in Arizona. Flat out lies and I for one am glad that she's going for the throat now to end this bullshit.



Even in their pathetic correction the New York Times said that no connection whatsoever . Go argue with them that this was Palin's fault.

“An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords,” the note reads in its entirety.

“In fact, no such link was established.”

NYT issues correction to editorial linking Giffords shooting to Palin

Seems like a pretty obvious link. She roused her rabble, painted targets on her opponents, and one of her demented followers took her up on it. Maybe you don't see it that way, but if someone went around talking about murder and circulated pictures of me or my family in crosshairs, I'd take it as a death threat.

Except that the shooter didn't see anything Palin posted. You do know that, right?

Tell you what, post evidence that the shooter was "one of her demented followers" or admit you're just making it all up. Go on, we'll wait.

 

[hadit]

Palin should have been sued for defaming Obamacare with her lies about death panels.

What's stopping you?

 

[hadit]

Who should sue all the RWnut posters here who said that the left incited the shooting of Scalise?

What's stopping you?

 

[hadit]

Politifact Truth-O-Meter is wrong. The hateful, ugly, degenerate, speeches made by Pailin added to and incited the atmosphere that influenced an assassin to commit murder for the Tea Party and now trump ideologies and perverted anti-American ideas. The evil drunken witch Palin was responsible for that massacre.

Wow, you say that like you actually believe it. Impossible, I know, but you're very convincing.

 

[hadit]

This is how the white trash hill billy is trying to make money now

Sarah Palin’s political brand has been reduced to a clickbait farm

These brief declarations have been accompanied by links to sarahpalin.com, where visitors to the homepage are greeted by a full-screen black-and-white photo of the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate. The banner reads, “Sarah Palin Building America’s Future,”

piece of white trash garbage

I think her being pissed off at being blamed once again for the deaths of 6 people is cause enough for the lawsuit.

Well, she was the one trying to incite violence talking about second amendment solutions and putting crosshairs on people. Ask Gabby Giffords and the families of the people killed in Arizona how they feel about caribou Barbie and her second amendment solutions.

Theres a pic of Palins map. It targets voting districts. Do you see peoples faces in the crosshairs?
The shooter had previous contact with Giffords which is why the news media trying to go after Palin is
politically motivated news and is why they are going to be sued and lose.


View attachment 136063

There are no faces, but there are names. Gabrielle Giffords is the fourth name on the list. So, your point is that because only her name was used and not her picture....what the heck is your point?

That Palin was in no way responsible for Giffords' shooting, obviously.

 

[hadit]

I think her being pissed off at being blamed once again for the deaths of 6 people is cause enough for the lawsuit.

Well, she was the one trying to incite violence talking about second amendment solutions and putting crosshairs on people. Ask Gabby Giffords and the families of the people killed in Arizona how they feel about caribou Barbie and her second amendment solutions.

Theres a pic of Palins map. It targets voting districts. Do you see peoples faces in the crosshairs?
The shooter had previous contact with Giffords which is why the news media trying to go after Palin is
politically motivated news and is why they are going to be sued and lose.


View attachment 136063

There are no faces, but there are names. Gabrielle Giffords is the fourth name on the list. So, your point is that because only her name was used and not her picture....what the heck is your point?

Jared was fixated on Giffords three years before that Super Pac map came out. And did you miss the NYT's correction? Obviously. The Times said there was no link.

Palin elevated the sense of doom and crisis with her hate speeches and no one really knows what effect those hate speeches may have had on the mentally ill nutjob who committed the massacre.

The same could be said about popular entertainment, since "no one really knows what effect" anything had.

 

[jillian]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

the psycho has no case.

See: Sullivan v NY Times.

nice try though. poor baby doesn't like being called out for the psycho she is?

 

[hadit]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

the psycho has no case.

See: Sullivan v NY Times.

nice try though. poor baby doesn't like being called out for the psycho she is?

You do know they flat out lied about her, right?

 

[tinydancer]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

the psycho has no case.

See: Sullivan v NY Times.

nice try though. poor baby doesn't like being called out for the psycho she is?

This was a lie that they have perpetrated before and the "absence of malice" can't possibly be used because it wasn't a one time "error". They're in deep shit. When even an editor over at Mother Jones calls it a flat out lie, Tapper, Fact finder at the Washington Post and many others have all branded it a lie.

"The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. "

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia

ETA: the NYT's corrected their own piece. No link.

 

[jillian]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

the psycho has no case.

See: Sullivan v NY Times.

nice try though. poor baby doesn't like being called out for the psycho she is?

This was a lie that they have perpetrated before and the "absence of malice" can't possibly be used because it wasn't a one time "error". They're in deep shit. When even an editor over at Mother Jones calls it a flat out lie, Tapper, Fact finder at the Washington Post and many others have all branded it a lie.

"The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. "

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia

ETA: the NYT's corrected their own piece. No link.

again, see Sullivan v New York times.

it would be really nice if you knew anything about what you're talking about.

 

[tinydancer]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

the psycho has no case.

See: Sullivan v NY Times.

nice try though. poor baby doesn't like being called out for the psycho she is?

This was a lie that they have perpetrated before and the "absence of malice" can't possibly be used because it wasn't a one time "error". They're in deep shit. When even an editor over at Mother Jones calls it a flat out lie, Tapper, Fact finder at the Washington Post and many others have all branded it a lie.

"The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. "

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia

ETA: the NYT's corrected their own piece. No link.

again, see Sullivan v New York times.

it would be really nice if you knew anything about what you're talking about.

And you should check out Milkovich vs Lorain Journal Co.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

Link to where the NYT stated $arah "caused the Giffords massacre",

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I think she's spitting into the wind. I can't see the courts suppressing written opinion.

I suspect you're right.

Her lawyer must not think much of her case either cuz he/she is going for only $75K.

She's pretty much washed up. She blew off her last chance to ride on trump's coat tails when she kept appearing at his rallies drunk, rambling, slurring her words.

And her web site is a goner, as is any chance at another loser reality show.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[my2¢]

I think she's spitting into the wind. I can't see the courts suppressing written opinion.

NYT stated it as fact that Palin was to blame for the murders. Did you read the hit piece? Or the NYT correction?

No, I didn't read the NYT. My opinion is based on the realization that editorial (otherwise known as opinion) pages throughout the country are full of hit pieces.

 

[hadit]

I think she's spitting into the wind. I can't see the courts suppressing written opinion.

I suspect you're right.

Her lawyer must not think much of her case either cuz he/she is going for only $75K.

She's pretty much washed up. She blew off her last chance to ride on trump's coat tails when she kept appearing at his rallies drunk, rambling, slurring her words.

And her web site is a goner, as is any chance at another loser reality show.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Which is totally irrelevant to the case at hand.

 

[tinydancer]

It's about time these SOB's in the media that lie get ***** slapped into another galaxy. You go Sarah!

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

Link to where the NYT stated $arah "caused the Giffords massacre",

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Here you go. The words used are quite specific.

"Two key statements of the New York Times form the cornerstone of Palin’s suit against them: first, the Times claim that Palin’s actions had a “clear” and “direct” “incitement” of Loughner’s shooting of public officials in Arizona;

and second, that Palin’s actions consisted of her political action committee circulating an image “that put Ms. Giffords…under stylized cross hairs.”

The first statement will be the harder, but not impossible, one for Palin to prove as libel.

The second statement should, legally, reach a jury verdict. The problem for the New York Times is it was widely known Palin had no connection to the Loughner shooting, by articles the Times itself had run in the past. Worse, there never was any “stylized cross hairs over Giffords”; there was only cross hairs over a bunch of congressional districts “targeted” for winning.

More at link:

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times? You Betcha