Jamaal Bowman Pulls the Alarm: The NFL is 'Afraid' of Shedeur Sanders Because...
'Been Owed This for 5 Years'! Scott Jennings Calls Out Randi Weingarten's Lies...
Up Next for Dem Sen. Chris Van Hollen: Margaritas With Judge Dugan?
Massive Explosion Rocks Iranian Port of Bandar Abbas Causing Widespread Damage, Injuries (...
'This Is a Crime'! CNN Legal Analyst Throws a Wrench In Dems' Narrative...
Milwaukee Democrat Rep Encourages People to Obstruct ICE from Arresting Criminal Illegal A...
Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panelists on Why an Activist Judge’s Arrest Had to...
FOIA Revelation: Biden White House Labeled Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers...
Ken Dilanian Loved Going After Trump but Thinks Arresting Judges Who Break the...
As More Activist Judges Get Arrested Let’s Remind Democrats that ‘No One Is...
Writer and Pop Culture Expert Says Draft Overlooking Shedeur Sanders is Like Whipping...
Epstein Accuser and Abuse Survivor Virginia Giuffre Found Dead by Suicide
Jamie Raskin is OUTRAGED that a Judge Could Face Justice for Allegedly Helping...
Kash Patel's 'No One Is Above the Law' Judicial Perp Walk Pic Is...
Guy Benson Questions 'Dill'-emma: Friend Ousted from Pickleball League Over Politics

'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