We have previously discussed the lawsuit of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) against the New York Times, a lawsuit that could have far reaching implications for defamation law in the United States. The trial began with the introduction of evidence that the New York Times editorial board ignored internal objections to publishing the 2017 column linking Palin to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona in which then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz was seriously injured.
The trial concerns an editorial by the New York Times where it sought to paint Palin and other Republicans as inciting the earlier shooting. It stated that SarahPAC posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot. It was false but it was enough for the intended spin: “Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”
The editorial was grossly unfair. In its earlier ruling against the Times, the court put the theory of the case succinctly in its leading line: “Gov. Palin brings this action to hold James Bennet and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”
In its editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” the Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin‘s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” In reality, the posting used crosshairs over various congressional districts, which included Giffords district.
At the time, many objected to the column as a transparent effort to shift attention from the shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, of Illinois, 66, a liberal activist and Sanders supporter. The attack did not fit with a common narrative in the media on right-wing violence and the Times awkwardly sought to put the focus back on conservatives.
The Times later issued a correction, changing the offending sentence to say: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.”
The correction did not help much. The map was used long before the shooting during the 2010 congressional elections. Moreover, it was the districts, not the members, being targeted.
According to the Daily Mail, Palin’s counsel questioned Times’ reporter Elizabeth Williamson, who wrote the first draft of the article. Williamson was asked about a message from Jesse Wegman, a member of the NYT editorial board, who objected that the column seemed to ‘sneak in’ a link between Palin and the 2011 Giffords shooting. The objection was ignored.
That interaction is important because Palin must shoulder the higher burden placed on public figures in defamation cases.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, a litigant must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
Simply saying that something is your “opinion” does not automatically shield you from defamation actions if you are asserting facts rather than opinion. However, courts have been highly protective over the expression of opinion in the interests of free speech. This issue was addressed in Ollman v. Evans 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In that case, Novak and Evans wrote a scathing piece, including what Ollman stated were clear misrepresentations. The court acknowledges that “the most troublesome statement in the column . . . [is] an anonymous political science professor is quoted as saying: ‘Ollman has no status within the profession but is a pure and simple activist.’” Ollman sued but Judge Kenneth Starr wrote for the D.C. Circuit in finding no basis for defamation. This passage would seem relevant for secondary posters and activists using the article to criticize the family:
The reasonable reader who peruses an Evans and Novak column on the editorial or Op-Ed page is fully aware that the statements found there are not “hard” news like those printed on the front page or elsewhere in the news sections of the newspaper. Readers expect that columnists will make strong statements, sometimes phrased in a polemical manner that would hardly be considered balanced or fair elsewhere in the newspaper. National Rifle Association v. Dayton Newspaper, Inc., supra, 555 F.Supp. at 1309. That proposition is inherent in the very notion of an “Op-Ed page.” Because of obvious space limitations, it is also manifest that columnists or commentators will express themselves in condensed fashion without providing what might be considered the full picture. Columnists are, after all, writing a column, not a full-length scholarly article or a book. This broad understanding of the traditional function of a column like Evans and Novak will therefore predispose the average reader to regard what is found there to be opinion.
A reader of this particular Evans and Novak column would also have been influenced by the column’s express purpose. The columnists laid squarely before the reader their interest in ending what they deemed a “frivolous” debate among politicians over whether Mr. Ollman’s political beliefs should bar him from becoming head of the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. Instead, the authors plainly intimated in the column’s lead paragraph that they wanted to spark a more appropriate debate within academia over whether Mr. Ollman’s purpose in teaching was to indoctrinate his students. Later in the column, they openly questioned the measure or method of Professor Ollman’s scholarship. Evans and Novak made it clear that they were not purporting to set forth definitive conclusions, but instead meant to ventilate what in their view constituted the central questions raised by Mr. Ollman’s prospective appointment.
There is, however, a difference between stating fact and opinion and the Times blew away that distinction in the rush to shift attention on political violence to Republicans like Palin.
In its earlier rejection of the effort to dismiss the case, the court notably laid out the case for malice by Bennet, the key element under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. The court suggested that the later correction issued by the Times might be used by the jury to assume or discount malice. It is rare that such a correction would be raised as substantial evidence on intent:
The fact that Bennet and the Times were so quick to print a correction is, on the one hand, evidence that a jury might find corroborative of a lack of actual malice, as discussed later. But, on the other hand, a reasonable jury could conclude that Bennet’s reaction and the Times’ correction may also be probative of a prior intent to assert the existence of such a direct link, for why else the need to correct? Indeed, the correction itself concedes that Bennet’s initial draft incorrectly stated that there existed such a link. If, as Bennet now contends, it was all simply a misunderstanding, the result of a poor choice of words, it is reasonable to conclude that the ultimate correction would have reflected as much and simply clarified the Editorial’s intended meaning.
James Bennet gained national attention after he was forced to resign after pushing the Cotton editorial headlined, “Send In the Troops.” The Times not only disgraced itself by abandoning its independence but promised to avoid such controversies in the future. Bennet, who is being sued for bias in this case, was forced out for allowing dissenting conservative views into the paper this year. There is an irony that Bennet’s alleged bias against Republicans in this controversy did not lead to a push for his removal but his merely publishing the view of a Republican led to his ouster.
Back to the internal message. The disregarding of the objection could show knowledge or reckless disregard on the part of the paper. This was an objection from within its own journalistic ranks.
The case may prove significant if appealed to the Supreme Court. Some justices have already raised concerns over the inclusion of public figures in the standard originally set out for public officials in New York Times v. Sullivan.
Jonathan: You think Palin v. NYT may prevail because “[s]ome justices have already raised concerns over inclusion of public figures in the standard originally set out for public officials in New York Times v. Sullivan”. Could one of the justices be Clarence Thomas? You betcha. In McKee v. Bill Cosby the Court ruled that a public figure had to show “actual malice”. Thomas joined the majority but launched into a critique of Sullivan saying the landmark libel ruling was a “policy driven” decision “masquerading as constitutional law”. So we know where Thomas stands. Anton Scalia had similar views. Trump has also expressed support to make it easier to sue for libel. That’s because Trump failed in all his attempt to silence and censor the press. NY times v. Sullivan is essential if we want to preserve press freedom–you know “free speech” you are always talking about. Jonathan Peters, professor of media law at the U of G, has said Sullivan “had the immediate impact of emboldening news organizations to cover the civil rights movement more forcefully–and later the Vietnam War and Watergate”. For decades the media has used Sullivan to expose fraud, abuse and illegal activities by public officials. In 1974 Nixon said Sullivan was a “virtual license to lie”. That was just before Nixon was forced to resign because of the Watergate scandal due to intrepid reporting by Woodward and Bernstein and other news organization that exposed Nixon’s illegal activities.
Do you really want to throw out the baby and the wash? Had Sullivan not been around Trump may well have been able to silence and intimidate the press and prevented them from exposing his corruption and illegality. The press may be sloppy sometimes in it’s coverage but we need them now more than ever because of the continuing threats to our Democracy by right-wing politicians. One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to shut down newspapers that refused to print only Nazi propaganda. Is this what you want in America?
Dennis McIntyre–
“we need them now more than ever because of the continuing threats to our Democracy by right-wing politicians”
I think you took aim at the wrong target. In the last five or six years, and especially in conjunction with the virus, virtually all of the attempts at censorship– many of them successful– have come from the left. As recently as today, the administration said that those who challenge its Ukraine strategy are simply repeating Russian talking points. Calling someone a Russian sympathizer obviously is intended to shut off dissent. There can be no argument about the censorship practiced by big tech, all of which is directed at conservatives. Dissenting voices simply are not allowed. And, the record is pretty clear that President Trump was correct in labeling much of the media to be fake news. How many fake stories did the media run to try and cripple the Trump administration? As to Hitler shutting down newspapers, first, the left does not have to shut down newspapers because they are the left, and second, Hitler’s most effective tool was endless propaganda, similar to the media’s endless trumpeting of the false Trump/ Russia story, among others. I agree that sloppy, even dishonest reporting is not a good argument to weaken the First Amendment. I do think Sullivan needs to be revisited.
honestlawyermostly,
I believe that your overgeneralizations are all false. But I’m open to changing my mind in response to good evidence rather than your personal opinion. How about you: are you open to changing your mind in response to good evidence rather than my personal opinion?
If your answer is “yes, I’m open to changing my mind in response to good evidence,” then pick one item from your list, and let’s look at the evidence together.
If your answer is “no, I’m not open to changing my mind in response to good evidence,” that would be truly unfortunate.
Signed: Your fellow RPCV
What country?
btw, RPCV status aside, your reply here to HLM is beyond annoying and assine.
signed: another fellow RPCV
*assinine
and yes, it is worth repeating, in your case
Panay Island, Philippines ’69-’71. Agriculture program to grow demonstration crops to help spread “Miracle Rice” due to famine.
Long statement Dennis McIntyre but it can be answered with a short answer. The press should not be able to say you are complicit in an attempted murder without offering any proof that you were involved. Dennis is perfectly happy with declaring someone guilty without the benefit of a trial. Like Hitler.
For decades the media has used Sullivan to expose fraud, abuse and illegal activities by public officials.
And now the media use Sullivan as a license to justify fraud, abuse, and illegal activities by public officials by lying about those officials’ victims.
Golly Irma, I can’t believes the NYT dun wrote about Cotton. Why we been pickers forr ever and those burrs are still in my hide. It sure do rub me, you-in knows whats I mean, doon yu. Ye Sir Jed I sure do, it rubs my rearend sometin terribly. I also hire they writ sometin about a lady name Sara, likes are dearest daughter sayin see want to do harm to some otter lady with a rifle. No, wy they do dat. Some say it about Politics but I thunk it about they don like her, she musta be ooful looking for dem to be writ some thin nasty. Maysbe they writen about our Sara, she not the pretist ever born, I mean I’s look in the mirror, an an I scare me some tin alful. I he-ed that this Sara lady want sue the NYT for calling her a bad lady. It could be lik the bible Samson and Delia or were dat dat David and Goliath, may-b she ha chance, but no matters what, hope she win.
Since 1964 the technological changes in the production of news are staggering. To put things in context, the Sullivan decision was handed down the same year the Beatles landed in America, the same year the Civil Rights Act was signed into law and sixteen years before CNN first went on the air. Then, basically there were three English language television networks which broadcast news programming once in the morning and once in the evening; newspapers were read by relatively few citizens compared to the country’s total population; and, of course. social media was non-existent. Because of changes in technology, tt is obvious that the impact of a defamatory statement today in the media is far greater than when Sullivan was decided. Today, the media audience is much different. The case of Nick Sandmann versus CNN illustrates the point. L. B. Sullivan allegedly was defamed by an ad placed in the New York Times. For the most part, the “audience” for the ad was limited to those who saw the ad. By contrast, the defamation of Sandmann was repeated, repeatedly, day after day, on both network and cable television as well as print media, including the Washington Post, and social media. It was an explosive, racially charged allegation which drew liberal commentators like flies to honey. After the fact, it was established that just a minimal bit of investigation would have shown the story to be false– in fact, just looking at the whole video tape proved that the actual aggressor was not Sandmann but the 64 year old native American and his friends. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court considers the impact of technology and its potential for wide-spread, immediate harm to the victim of defamation if Sullivan is to remain the rule of law.
Very thoughtful comment. It reminds me of the fourth amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic communications cases, which are anchored in precedent established when pen registers were at the pinnacle of technological sophistication. Both sets of precedent are grounded in a state of affairs as they existed when our grandparents were young adults. These precedents might make sense as a theoretical construct, but most Americans would agree that they allow for shockingly egregious conduct by both the government and the media.
Yet there are more than technological changes at play. Starting with fundamental changes in the media’s economics and business model. Most people are unaware that the NYT tells its investors that changes in Google’s advertising algorithms are one of the biggest threats to the NYTs business. It’s certainly not something that their news side calls a lot of attention to, and for good reason. Another factor is the fundamental shift in the media’s role to one of advocacy journalism, which in many cases renders the legacy media – the NYT included – as a de facto arm of the government and the Democrat party.
Yes, the first amendment jurisprudence of the Sullivan case is ripe for change. It will be interesting to watch the NYT and their ilk cling to the safe haven of the past.
Estovir says:
“Many of the leftist trolls on here are made of the same stuff that identify NYT staff: everything and anything outside of their bubble makes them censorial uncomfortable.”
Not unlike CRT which makes Trumpists whine.
A little OT food for thought for a Saturday.
What do Robert Byrd, Whoopi Goldberg, Ibram Kendi, Lyndon Johnson, Lester Maddox, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and George Wallace all have in common?
Epstein, all those people are being named by an aggressively stupid commenter who wants to suggest they’re all ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semitic’.
In reality this stupid commenter watches Tucker Carlson and subscribes to every Rothchild conspiracy.
Epstein,
All these people are being named by some creepy commenter on Jonathan Turley’s Blog.
Said commenter probably wants to imply that all these people are ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semetic’. But the commenter is really a cynical redneck who thinks he’s terribly funny.
Anonymous(es) – You (both) get an A for effort, but so far you’re 0-2. Care to take another swing?
Epstein,,,,,,All on that list of people were chosen as Time magazine’s 100 most influential people.
Cindy-
Wow. Just wow. I wrote a serious comment a few entries below about how free speech inspires us all in different ways. Your answer is incredible.
The Epstein Foundation’s Research Team 🙂 was just convened on an emergency basis to conduct further research the names on the list. Incredible. Because Time only started their Hot 100 list in 2004, the Research Team decided it wouldn’t be fair to exclude the early influencers, so they grandfathered entrants who made the cover of Time before then. Couldn’t find Al Sharpton, but he is listed as the author of the 2020 paean to Kendi, so the Epstein Foundation’s Fact Check team ruled that it is mostly true. Or do you know a list that we don’t?
Free speech has the power to change the world. Thanks for sharing. Have a great Sunday!
Epstein….. Thank you! First, I would like to thank the Academy………LOL…..Seriously, you’re very kind.
I am just a 75 yr old Texas housewife, and one time public school music teacher.
It’s only because of years of reading Agatha Christie, watching Murder She Wrote, and being married to a Sherlock Holmes devotee that I reached my conclusion, and it was fairly quick. Using simple deduction, I figured that the least known person on your list would have a shorter resume, allowing any sort of “universal” type accolade to “jump out at me”. Then I looked to see if Whoopi had the same achievement/accolade. She did! I stopped there, hoping my deduction was accurate. Did I really win a Chrysler Cordoba? LOL!!! Kidding! Thanks that was fun. You should have replaced Alex Trebek!
Btw, honestlawyermostly is my husband of 49 years, or as I like to say, ” the attorney with whom I am currently sleeping”.
Cindy-
You literally made my day. And probably many other readers too!
Take care,
Epstein
Hi Cindy!
I didn’t know you had reeled in honestlawyermostly.
I’ve been reading some of his post here & like them as you & he are among what everyone should still regard as normal decent Americans.
If it was a bass fishing tournament I’d say you one 1st Place, nice catch!
We’ve all family/friends & neighbors we’re concerned with, if you guys the time & think it’s worthy please pass this short video link along.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/international-criminal-grand-jury-investigation-claims-psychopathic-globalists-used-covid-to-commit-crimes-against-humanity/
Oky1……Yes, with honestlawyer, I decided against “catch and release”…LOL! He’ s a good’un.
I’ll try to watch this hearing soon. Thank you for the link.
Stay warm and safe!
Ep. 99: WHAT A WEEK! From Vaccine Mandates to Ottawa, & Other Law Stuffs – Viva & Barnes LIVE
17,676 views
Streamed live 2 hours ago
Oky1…….thank you……..hope you and your wife are doing well!
Thank you for the video……People are paying attention finally! Before too long the MSM will not be able to contain the fallout……… by next year?? Hopefully?
Cindy, it’s nice to see an actual married couple on the blog. I asked my wife if she wanted to join a while back but she wouldn’t. It’s always a good line when one tells others they are sleeping with their attorney 🙂
S. Meyer……good to hear from you. I hope you and your wife at some point got to take that Fall Foliage trip up that gorgeous river!
Watching you debase yourself like this is painful, Jon.
“If you (or someone you know) are affected by a free speech event…., here are some resources…
The resources in question are phone numbers and websites for the Dean of Students, Office of Equal Opportunity, CSU Health Network Counseling, Ombuds (for CSU employees), Multicultural Counseling, Employee Assistance Program, Vice President of Inclusive Excellence, Victim’s Assistance Hotline, Bias Reporting hotline, and several others.
Those last two provide means for aggrieved students to summon the campus authorities to investigate their alleged mistreatment. CSU’s bias reporting form asks that submissions include identifying details—including identification number, phone number, and residence hall—about the perpetrator so that school officials can track them down.”
https://cm.maxient.com/reportingform.php?ColoradoStateUniv&layout_id=13
Millions of Americans have been affected by by free speech events. Here are a few of Epstein’s examples.
Ronald Reagan, who rallied the American people with a positive message of American resilience. Tankman, standing tall against the Red Army tanks at the Tiananmen square protest. That unknown grandma in the viral video who humiliated the woke shoplifter. The Canadian truckers, whose protests against the progressive diktats show the power of ordinary people to drive social change. The thousands of people at sporting events spontaneously erupting in cheers of Let’s Go, Brandon!
Millions of free speech events. Millions of Americans. Inspired in untold millions of ways. What are yours? The apparatchiks at Colorado State have no idea what they are in for.
After a few attacks like this on the blog host, one knows your opinion. To continue in such a way demonstrates the type of repugnant individual you are.
Meyer, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is repugnance. I don’t consider Bug to be a “repugnant individual.” That describes you much better than it describes him.
The word repugnant was directed to you, ATS, not to EB. You are blind to everything, but your own “wants”. You do not have sufficient intellect to protect a personality as repugnant as yours. Keep trying. I like watching you dribble.
No, Meyer, you said it to Bug, who posted the 12:10 PM comment. You can’t tell people apart.
“you said it to Bug”
The word, repugnant, was to you, Anonymous the Stupid. Your first logical error was, how can you tell who wrote the nine-word response if you say, I can’t tell who posted the nine-word sentence? Your second logical error was that you are a liar who always blames another for his own mistakes. How do I know that you engage in this type of lie? Because in the past, you have lied about these types of things that were already solidly linked together.
There are more failures of logic, but two is enough to prove you inadequate along with being repugnant.
Allan, you responded to me. I wrote the comment you were answering…, but like Anonymous points out, you’re awful at distinguishing the cues that define one voice from another.
Elvis
A nine-word sentence is indeed challenging to pick out of a pond full of sh1t, but knowing ATS and you to be proven liars, your word isn’t worth very much here. If anyone wishes to maintain credibility, they are forced to use a unique alias. I have been right almost all of the time, so where no absolute proof is available, one doesn’t accept the word of two liars.
It seems reasonably and objectively certain based upon Allan’s longstanding track record in not being able to identify various signatures in written response that he likely resides on the autism spectrum. It does generate sympathy in me for him…, once able to separate from his aggressively negative manner in which he attempts discourse.
In the past, I’ve attempted to come back at him with a dose of his own medicine and, unfortunately may have been unintendedly cruel consequently speaking.
Elvis
It’s possible that he’s on the autism spectrum, Bug, but I personally doubt it, based on the rest of the content of his comments.
I think he’s just invested a huge amount of mental/emotional energy in the false story he made up about all the various people he addresses as “ATS” being a single person with sock accounts, and it’s too challenging for him to accept that he’s wrong.
Anonymous the Stupid, you lose credibility when you lie and distort as much as you do. I am sure I have been mistaken a very few times, but I have proven myself correct in very high proportion. One Anonymous the Stupid exists, along with his pretend friends that also carry the generic alias. The numbers increase when one counts the other various names and icons you use.
Occasionally one can act so that he might mistakenly be labeled ATS, but that is rare and well-deserved. Anyone refusing to obtain a specific identity has to run the risk of sounding Stupid like you. It’s hard to do that, which helps my accuracy.
He is staggeringly clueless in this respect, isn’t he?
Elvis
Deceitful infowarfare weakens a democracy’s ability to make sound public policy decisions. Torts is the best vehicle for deterring it, albeit requiring specialized rapid-response Torts Courts which recognize the value of timeliness in correcting misinformation.
pbinca: This is an excellent comment and good food for thought (although unlikely to happen anytime soon.) Thank you.
Pbinca says:
“Deceitful infowarfare weakens a democracy’s ability to make sound public policy decisions. Torts is the best vehicle for deterring it, albeit requiring specialized rapid-response Torts Courts which recognize the value of timeliness in correcting misinformation.”
A fine idea! At the beginning of every talk show and newscast, the host should raise their hand and affirm to tell the truth subject to perjury. Lying should be treated in the court of public opinion as it is in a court of law.
When society REALLY wants to get to the truth of a matter in a court of law, punishing lying is indispensable. Why is the truth not as important in the court of public opinion?
I interpreted pbinca as expressing concern for the present way of addressing the current prospect of false/defamatory information having to go through protracted litigation that ends up being adjudicated two+ years down the road, along with all other tort cases, and after all the harm is done. I also believe that was part of the thinking behind the exclusive jurisdiction of patent/trademark appeals to the CAFC. (pbinca, please correct me if I misconstrued your concern/comment).
The New York Times: All the need that’s fit to print! Or itShay!
Y’all know what “itShay” means in piglatin don’t ya?
New You work is old fork.
Put another log on the fire.
Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
Read me all that apCray from the times!
Darn my socks and wash my old blue jeans.
Come on Palin!
Sue New York Times into ground!
Put em where that rag needs to be!
Put that turd on the fire.
And come and tell the readers what they see!
Interesting, let’s see if JT brings us updates on this revelation that evidence was withheld from the Trump impeachment defense team.
In an email kept from public view for more than five years, a top U.S. State Department official in Kiev wrote to Washington superiors at the end of the Obama-Biden administration that Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine “undercut” U.S. efforts to fight corruption in the former Soviet republic.
The email, obtained by Just the News, was written on Nov. 22, 2016 by former U.S. embassy official George Kent, one of the Democrats’ star witnesses in their first effort to impeach former President Donald Trump.
It was classified “confidential,” the lowest level of secrecy, by then-U.S. Ambassador to Kiev Marie Yovanovitch, another of the Democrats’ impeachment witnesses, and was not produced as evidence to House lawmakers during impeachment. Contrary to federal law, the State Department failed to acknowledge the existence of the document to the court or to Just the News in its multiple Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the State Department seeking records on Hunter and Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/classified-state-department-email-declared-hunter-biden
Trump’s defense had access to Kent’s testimony under oath in his deposition.
Kent discussed this in his deposition:
“when I was on a call with somebody on the Vice President’s staff and I cannot recall who it was, just briefing on what was happening into Ukraine, I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company [Burisma] owned by somebody [Zlochevsky] that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of miltions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest.”
The deposition was released to the public on 11/7/2019, and this was reported at the time, for example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-diplomat-george-kent-said-about-rudy-giuliani-and-hunter-biden
Just what do you think this email adds to his statement about it under oath?
Do you think that the Republicans on the committee did a bad job questioning him about it?
Again, Anonymous is deflecting and intentionally creating a lie. The left drowned Trump with leftist misinformation and was supported by Obama/Biden and the usual suspects, the DOJ, the deep state, the intelligence community, MSM, academia and Hollywood. Trump was fighting with a wooden gun against tanks, missiles and jets. That he got as far as he did proves the left to be dysfunctional.
We are not watching the left using all that power to support Biden, and all we see is a diminished nation, a faltering economy and wars looming for the future. This is our present vision, and all those armaments of the left, including the jets and missiles, can’t prop up a failed President.
One need not be brilliant to know the left is a failure, but whoever accused leftists of being intelligent, much less brilliant.
Again, Anonymous is deflecting and intentionally creating a lie.
He’s not worthy of reading, let alone responding to. Hell, he’s so predictable, I could write his posts. Reminds me of that line in As Good As It Gets, where Jack Nicholson was asked how he writes women so well. In Anonymous’ case: How do you write Leftist’s so well? I think of a conservative, and I take away reason and accountability.
Olly, I posted a civil, on-topic reply to your comment about Kent’s email.
You’re apparently unwilling to address relevant questions and prefer to cede the point:
Just what do you think this email adds to Kent’s statement about it under oath?
Do you think that the Republicans on the committee did a bad job questioning Kent about it?
ATS, you posted cr-p. Anyone can deflect and add extraneous details that create a fog to lose the truth. That makes you a liar. Kent’s contemporaneous comments done in writing tell us another story. You are not credible and have to rely on contentless insults.
Olly flails, not realizing he’s just labeled himsel ‘predictable’.
A deluded character froths at the mouth. Sort of like in the Exorcist.
Olly, Such an inconvenient Truth. That Harpoon struck home. The scope and scale of the great “Biden Haul$$” is dwarfed by the efforts to erase and muzzle all revelatory truths and utterances related to same. What will our detractors herein have to say when Durham is done with Hillary’s anesthetic free root canal and the Federal Investigation of Hunter reveals all for what we know it to be?
Bennet, who is being sued for bias in this case, was forced out for allowing dissenting conservative views into the paper this year
You are being charitable. Matt Taibbi was not
The American Press Is Destroying Itself
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself
In the case of Cotton, Times staffers protested on the grounds that “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.” Bennet’s editorial decision was not merely ill-considered, but literally life-threatening (note pundits in the space of a few weeks have told us that protesting during lockdowns and not protesting during lockdowns are both literally lethal). The Times first attempted to rectify the situation by apologizing, adding a long Editor’s note to Cotton’s piece that read, as so many recent “apologies” have, like a note written by a hostage.
Editors begged forgiveness for not being more involved, for not thinking to urge Cotton to sound less like Cotton (“Editors should have offered suggestions”), and for allowing rhetoric that was “needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate.” That last line is sadly funny, in the context of an episode in which reporters were seeking to pre-empt a debate rather than have one at all; of course, no one got the joke, since a primary characteristic of the current political climate is a total absence of a sense of humor in any direction.
As many guessed, the “apology” was not enough, and Bennet was whacked a day later in a terse announcement.
His replacement, Kathleen Kingsbury, issued a staff directive essentially telling employees they now had a veto over anything that made them uncomfortable: “Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”
Many of the leftist trolls on here are made of the same stuff that identify NYT staff: everything and anything outside of their bubble makes them
censorialuncomfortable.In that column, Taibbi also says “Our president, Donald Trump, is a clown who makes a great reality-show villain but is uniquely toolless as the leader of a superpower nation. Watching him try to think through two society-imperiling crises is like waiting for a gerbil to solve Fermat’s theorem.”
Thanks for the chuckle. You’ve said that you loathe Trump, but many of your fellow conservatives here don’t share your loathing.
Bennet admitted that he hadn’t even read the column before publishing it. I’d think you’d relish this opportunity to point out his incompetence. Apparently not.
Senator Cotton is an honorable man who posted an opinion that didn’t send up alerts from others. Read the opinion piece instead of trying to slam Turley. You will find that Cotton’s op-ed stated what Cotton believes. Cotton is a Senator, so his views should be welcome and valuable.
Elsewhere another questioned if you were on the left or a libertarian. This should clear up TIT’s mind about what you are. There is nothing libertarian about you. You are a pure far-left ideologue that will change his stripes in a moment if it benefits your position in the short term.
There is never a rational reason to read anything by a commenter who is
Anonymousa Coward. For that we have you to go after him as the blog’s secret weapon. Otherwise, the free exchange of thoughts and arguments are welcomed by men and women who evince principles. Being a coward is not one of them.Thank you, Estovir. Anonymous’ point of view is echoed by many folks walking the streets. Those folk only follow the headlines and entertainment without in-depth thought. Anonymous is a very intense ideologue of the left who doesn’t care about the truth or the well-being of the masses. One cannot debate with such a dishonest person. But it is good to let others know what type of garbage he is spouting. With that knowledge, they can walk away and perhaps not want to be looked at with the same scorn of dishonesty.
The Jesuits in high school made us recite from memory Rudyard Kipling’s poem, entitled “If”. In my culture, being a man, a real man, meant something. My profile name means just that
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling
Well done E! You are the Man! The Night Soil Bucket has hit it’s mark!
Excellent poem!
Meyer is the most prolific anonymous commenter on this blog. No doubt you also consider his anonymous comments to be cowardly, right Estovir? Or maybe you have double standards and don’t.
You, too, sometimes post anonymous comments Estovir, especially the many homophobic ones that you address to the person who used to post under the name Seth. Should we consider your anonymous comments cowardly? Personally, I mostly consider them homophobic. I think the content of the comments is more important than the name under which they’re posted.
“Meyer is the most prolific anonymous commenter on this blog. No doubt you also consider his anonymous comments to be cowardly, right Estovir? Or maybe you have double standards and don’t.”
Anonymous the Stupid, my anonymous postings are recognition that such replies to a disreputable person like yourself need not be read by intelligent folk. They already know you are disreputable and cannot be trusted. I am letting people know that such anonymous posting should not exist on a blog of this nature. You are a Troll, and your Trolling is like a virus. It is sick.
Am confounded by the widespread interpretation that there were “crosshairs” on the map released by SarahPAC.
Typically, to show a location on a map requires the use of “surveyor marks”. Not crosshairs. The usage of surveyor marks on maps is as old as maps themselves.
Estovir, you wrote “Many of the leftist trolls on here are made of the same stuff that identify NYT staff: everything and anything outside of their bubble makes them censorial uncomfortable”. They shall be consumed by teeth far sharper than those that they gnash in their own heads and that which once tasted sweet shall present with a sudden and shocking bitterness. Mao’s initial Red Guard’s where themselves overtaken by those where ever more virulent and then by others more virulent still. “Breathe deep the gathering Gloom, watch Lights fade from every room”.
Mark Rustad —- Your apt ending quotation is from ?
“everything and anything outside of their bubble makes them censorial uncomfortable.”
Someone is not very good at introspection.
The error in this column or article was a missing letter ‘n’ I assume the Professor meant never but it clearly states ‘ever.’ Too clever by far and one wonders if the’editors’ are still getting away with bias at the Professor and Palin’s expense.
“Bennet, who is being sued for bias in this case, was forced out for allowing dissenting conservative views into the paper this year.”
No, Bennet resigned because he didn’t do his job: he printed Cotton’s op-ed without having read it.
We know this because Bennet admitted it: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.html
I would have hoped that you’d understand that an editor actually needs to read content prior to publication.
Perhaps if you had an editor, that person would have pointed out to you that your claim is false and the actual reason for Bennet’s resignation.
In trying to slam Turley, so that Anonymous can feel better about himself, Anonymous exposes the NYT as a rag.
If one reads further in the article, one is told that the NYT only publishes opinions that they agree with. Mr. Bennet was fired because the NYT is a left-wing arm of the Democrat Party. It only provides one point of view and the information supporting it. All other information opposed to the views of the NYT is limited, and differences of opinion, intentionally, are not supposed to exist. Therefore the NYT is a worthless source of information though frequently quoted by the left.
In this case, Mr. Bennet was acting as a newspaperman and was fired for doing so. As usual, the NYT was not.
—
“Mr. Bennet had also defended publishing the Op-Ed early on Thursday, saying in an article published on the Times website that he disagreed with Mr. Cotton’s opinion but believed that it was important to publish views that ran counter to his own.
“It would undermine the integrity and independence of The New York Times if we only published views that editors like me agreed with, and it would betray what I think of as our fundamental purpose — not to tell you what to think, but to help you think for yourself.”
The Cotton editorial was slammed because of who wrote it. Nobody would debate the content. The content that became fashionable when a Democrat was in the White House
In its editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” the Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear.
Bari Weiss, a lesbian, Jewish, liberal writer, had choice words to her former employer, NYT Publisher A. G. Sulzberger, about the documented history of in-house lethal politics and libel. It would be fortuitous if Bari’s letter of resignation were part of the downfall of the NYT, ending in a ceremonial hara-kiri.
…a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space.
Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
Leftist are always predicting conservatives are violent, sexaul predators,grifters, etc. But we always end up Steve Scalise, Rand Paul , Governor Cumo, and Hunter Biden.
It’s not all that hard to see some malice in the NYT actions. Since it appears that much of the national media has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for a particular political agenda, right or left, maybe the Courts need to tweak the Sullivan criteria
If this sort of statement by the Times is actionable, I would think pretty much every one of Hannity’s or Tucker’s shows would be actionable. I mean, they take things liberals do and that connect them to something bad – even if there is no real connection or a very tenuous one. That is pretty much all they do, every show, all the time. It is true of most of the right wing media today, but those highly-watched “opinion” shows on Fox especially.
You don’t seem to understand the issue. And it turns out the media is lucky b/c the NYT’s does seem to have published a story it knew to be false within the “actual malice” definition. They will be found liable, but the issue of whether Sullivan should be altered to permit liability due to, e.g., gross negligence will be avoided. The Times should pay any judgment & move on.
Listen more carefully.
Monument says:
“We call it TDS, but the Lefty dislike extends to all conservatives (prominent and unknown deplorable).”
And I know you love me and all Leftists. It’s not like you call us “Ugly people.” Only a hater would do that.
Lefties have been on a crusade against conservatives for several years.
This column was written at the height of the frenzy.
We call it TDS, but the Lefty dislike extends to all conservatives (prominent and unknown deplorable).
CNN is a prime example of the changing world.
They keep to the old playbook of lies and half truths while most of their audience has moved on to more balanced sources. CNN’s declining viewership illustrates the change.
Be interesting to see what a 2022 jury thinks of a 2017 column.
In its editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” the Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear.
The leftist stenographers have a play book, Its just not very thick.
political incitement of violence….I feel like I’ve heard that recently
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/27/project-veritas-sues-cnn-in-latest-media-defamation-lawsuit/
Interesting. Let’s hope Turley brings us updates on the two billion dollar defamation lawsuits against his network for endorsing and spreading Trump’s Big Lie. He has only reported upon these defamation lawsuits against Fox ONCE which he buried at the end of an article about a defamation lawsuit brought by Project Veritas!
Pathetic.
jeffsilberman – the one trick pony speaks.
But you can’t contradict my statement.
Your statement has been contradicted many times, but you are unable to parry.
Once again we have dunked the fool.
If you were alive in the 1900’s, you surely would have been hospitalized with ‘monomania.’
TDS is real-seek help.
I am. I’ve made great progress. I was much worse a year ago.
Jeff, had to reply to your Feb 5 5:12 comment at 7:43 this morning. Under ” lockdowns” heading
Jeff, I don’t know what is happening. Had to respond to your last reply under ” lockdowns” Feb 3. 3 :56 pm