Ilhan Omar's Victory Lap Over Earmarks For Squad Members' Districts Goes Over Like...
BLM Continues to Try to Destroy Free Speech Rights of Kyle Rittenhouse --...
Architect of 'Equity-Based Algebra' Accused of Fraud
Aaron Rupar Corrects Elon Musk Who Says MSNBC Won't Allow Even One Republican...
That Was Fast! Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Legislation to End so Called...
The Atlantic ‘Targets’ Student Who Says the Military Should Execute Joe Biden
David Hogg Gets Dragged... Again... For Crowing About the 'Office of Gun Violence...
Democrats Turn Trump’s ‘Bloodbath’ Into a Meme
RFK Presented His Competition a Gift Wrapped with a Giant Red Bow When...
Bigger Problems Than Just a Bridge: MASSIVE Police Shortages in Baltimore Lead to...
Gov. Kathy Hochul Tells Anti-Choice Extremists Not to Underestimate Women’s Rage
What Could Go Wrong? Israel Asked to Protect US Forces at Gaza Pier...
BREAKING: Family of Former Senator Joe Lieberman Shares Tragic News Per Politico (Watch)
Dr. Jill Biden: Before WWII, Berlin Was the Center of European LGBTQ Culture
'Really Ugly' Poll for Biden Hints That When It Comes to Dem Desperation...

'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