WATCH: The New Naked Gun Trailer Drops With the PERFECT O.J. Simpson Joke
Flashback: Here's Nancy Pelosi Singing a (D)ifferent Tune on China, Trade Deficits, and...
‘Hmmm’: Adam Kinzinger Suspicious There Are No Tariffs on Russia
What a Peach! Watch Unhinged Leftist Crow About 'No FEMA' for Tornado-Impacted Red...
Tim Walz's Magical Media Tour Continues! He Tells MSNBC Voters Regret Electing Trump...
Not Even CLOSE, Bud! The Hill Wants Us to Believe the Pendulum Is...
Only 19% of Baltimore Kids Are Proficient in Math, So the District Spends...
Jamie Raskin Calls Fed. Employees Patriots, Claims They Pass Up MANY Rich Jobs...
U.S. Bans Romantic Relationships Between Gov Workers and Chinese Citizens, Eric Swalwell H...
EPIC Post from GenZ'r Explaining Why He's NOT Worried About His 401K DECIMATES...
Now That the Border Is Secure It's Safe for Dems to Go (Tom...
NBC News Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel to Get a Nurse's Opinion...
CNN's Abby Phillip Gets Fact Checked to Her Face!
HORSES**T! Stephanie Ruhle Tries Lecturing MAGA About What THEY Voted for but Dean...
Chuck Schumer Triggered By Elon Musk's Spot-On 1-Word Post About Dems Suing to...

'Amazing'! NY Times' presents mock-tastic argument for dismissal of Sarah Palin's lawsuit

As we’ve reported previously, Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times following a now “corrected” editorial in which the editorial board tied Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The paper published similar claims previously, but the Times’ is reportedly facing this laughable challenge:

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/895747729544163328

Wait, come again…

Apparently that’s something that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to happen:

Here’s what that section of the judge’s ruling says:

For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statement of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them.

So the NYT now has prove to the court that their editors don’t always read the NYT? Classic.

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/895760489459978241
https://twitter.com/Imusually/status/895754247224033280


https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/895749858799366146

Also, the Times’ argument for dismissal of the case doesn’t appear to be going well:

Editor’s note: This post has been updated to more accurately reflect the details of this story.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement