Jury finds that Sarah Palin failed to prove her defamation case against the New York Times
Source: CNN
By Sonia Moghe, CNN
New York (CNN Business)The New York Times has prevailed in defending itself against a defamation lawsuit brought by Sarah Palin after jurors found she had not proven her case.
The jury of nine, which has been deliberating since Friday afternoon, found the New York Times not liable for Palin's defamation suit against the paper.
Unbeknownst to them, during deliberations, Rakoff ruled that Palin's attorneys did not prove a key element of their case, and that he would set aside the jury's verdict should it have found for Palin.
"The law here sets a very high standard (for actual malice)," Rakoff said Monday. "The court finds that that standard has not been met."
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/media/sarah-palin-new-york-times-verdict/index.html
Yes! Yes! Yes!
So now she lost not only on one decision, but she lost on two! Of course, she'll moan about how everything's rigged.
Clash City Rocker
(3,377 posts)ificandream
(9,192 posts)LoisB
(7,072 posts)nt
bucolic_frolic
(42,651 posts)What was he thinking? She lowered the bar and made TFG seem possible.
JohnnyRingo
(18,580 posts)They really thought it was going to be Hillary in 2008 and they needed a gentle face with a machine gun heart to keep from losing the woman vote. Indeed, it almost was Hillary that year, but Obama beat her out at the last minute leaving Steve Schmidt to work with what he had. He's resented it ever since.
It wasn't McCain, but the party that found her. I do recall hearing about he before that though.
[img][/img]
Mr.Bill
(24,103 posts)because she brought the Evangelical's money to the table.
wiggs
(7,788 posts)Rebl2
(13,301 posts)I am convinced his people in charge of his campaign did. I dont think he would have ever chosen her.
Haggard Celine
(16,820 posts)She was chosen for him. If I recall correctly, he said as much after the election was over.
JohnnyRingo
(18,580 posts)I doubt he'll admit to choosing her.
I know somebody's head was ready to roll after the clothes in the belly of the plane.
JI7
(89,172 posts)hope this can change things up.
moniss
(3,945 posts)in Wasilla there is going to be a drunken family brawl tonight.
Justice matters.
(6,873 posts)moniss
(3,945 posts)marvelous!!
NBachers
(16,998 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)this goes further to appeals court, and then SCOTUS, which surely it will, who is paying?
Thomas and Gorsuch must be salivating..considering they have already expressed interest in a revisit of NYT v Sullivan 1964..The judge in this case knows it will go to appeal..but wanted a jury verdict "will be useful"..
onetexan
(12,994 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,580 posts)...to raise more money she can waste on lawyers.
jmowreader
(50,447 posts)barbtries
(28,702 posts)i wonder how she's going to live without the $$$ she was counting on from this bogus lawsuit.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)I don't think that she or her team expected to win this trial, the intent was always to push it to the appellate courts and ultimately to the supremes, where the Conservatives on the court are salivating for a chance to overturn Sullivan.
nycbos
(6,032 posts)zuul
(14,615 posts)She's just another lying grifter.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)3catwoman3
(23,812 posts)and she didnt like it?
frogmarch
(12,144 posts)wrongly linked her to the shooting of Gabby Giffords and the other shooting victims who died, and that the NYT didn't deny doing it but said it was an honest mistake on their part, with no malice.
TomSlick
(11,032 posts)The judge is obviously correct that under the NY Times v. Sullivan standard, there is no way a case was made. It is really hard for a public figure to prove a defamation case.
The judge abused the jury in having them deliberate a case when a directed verdict was in order. On the upside, the jury decision makes the possibility of success for any appeal even more remote.