Over the years, I have written repeatedly (here, here, here, here, and here) about the interesting defamation case brought by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, against the New York Times. The judge in the case U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff was previously reversed and proceeded to issue novel and deeply flawed rulings before dismissing her case. He has now been reversed again and Palin will have a new opportunity to sue the newspaper. Given Judge Rakoff’s dismal record in this case, it is concerning that he will be allowed to preside in any new trial.
In the opinion below, the three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a 2022 jury verdict in favor of the New York Times due to the errors of Judge Rakoff.
The case involves an editorial that suggested Palin inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). It was outrageously and demonstrably untrue. The editorial was published in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other GOP members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, of Illinois, 66, a liberal activist and campaign supporter of Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). It appears The Times wanted to shift the narrative back to right-wing violence; it stated that SarahPAC, Palin’s political action committee, had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot, described it as direct incitement of violence and opined that while not as guilty as Palin, “liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”
In reality, the map SarahPAC distributed put targets on various districts that were viewed as possible flip districts by Republicans, and the map was published long before the shooting.
Previously, Rakoff insisted that he was “not at all happy to make this decision” but that he was, again, forced to dismiss the case because the Supreme Court established “a very high standard for actual malice” for public figures in seeking recovery for defamation. He was referring to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard requiring a showing that a false statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
The Times helped create this standard as the victim of a bias campaign. The status is far less obvious today. For many, the Palin controversy exposed the “advocacy journalism” now in vogue in the media. The hit piece on Palin was all-too-familiar for conservatives and Republicans routinely targeted by the newspaper. In that sense, the Times has become the very thing that the original decision sought to combat: a threat to free speech. The Times, they argue, often uses this protection to shield false attacks on political opponents.
Decades ago, The Times was being targeted by segregationists who wanted to deter media from publishing accounts of segregationists opposing the civil rights movement. This effort was creating such a threat that media had to choose between a type of self-censorship or insolvency. In his concurrence in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice Hugo Black said that “state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials.”
After he was reversed in dismissing the case, Rakoff proceeded to again dismiss the case after the jury was sent to reach a verdict. He declared that Palin had failed to offer evidence that would satisfy the minimum of the actual malice standard. I criticized that ruling as legally flawed. There was clearly sufficient evidence to allow a jury to render a verdict.
The Second Circuit agreed and reversed Rakoff in finding that Palin did cite sufficient evidence on actual malice.
However, it was the handling of the case by Judge Rakoff that added additional reversible errors. Rakoff had not sequestered the jury and his dismissal was reported widely. The jury learned of the decision and ruled against Palin. While some jurors said that the news did not impact their decision, the Second Circuit correctly rejected the claim. The appellate panel ruled that “[w]e think a jury’s verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge’s already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry.”
To make matters worse, Rakoff instructed the jury not to speak to the media after the case, an abusive demand that worked to protect his own errors. Jurors are free to discuss cases after a dismissal or verdict.
Palin was already under a great disadvantage as a leading Republican being tried before a New York jury. Rakoff added to that burden with a series of flawed decisions. Even after being previously reversed, Rakoff appeared intent on dismissing the case.
I previously wrote about the case because it highlighted a concern about the extension of New York Times v. Sullivan from public officials to public figures.
As I wrote previously, Justice William Brennan wrote arguably his most eloquent and profound decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.
News outfits were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches. The court correctly saw civil liability as creating a chilling effect on the free press either by draining the publications of funds or inducing a type of self-censorship. Imposing a high standard for proof of defamation, Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.
The court believed that public officials have ample means to rebut false statements, but that it’s essential for democracy for voters and reporters to be able to challenge government officials. To achieve that breathing space, the court required that public officials had to prove “actual malice,” where the defendant had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
Two justices have indicated that they might be open to the idea of revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Clarence Thomas has been a long critic of the standard as unsupported in either the text or the history of the Constitution. Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch objected last year to the denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, in which author Guy Lawson published a book detailing the “true story” of three Miami youngsters who allegedly became international arms dealers.
It was a success and landed a movie deal. A central figure in the story was Shkelzen Berisha, the son of Albania’s former prime minister. He sued Lawson alleging defamation and claimed that he was not, as portrayed, an associate of the Albanian mafia and that Lawson used unreliable sources for his account.
Berisha is a public figure rather than a public official. The problem is that there is one missing element to imposing a higher burden on public figures like Berisha: furthering the democratic process. In teaching defamation, the actual malice standard rests convincingly on a democratic rationale that a free people and a free press must have breathing space to criticize the government and their leaders. It helps protect and perfect democracy.
For 30 years, I have struggled in class to offer the same compelling rationale for applying the standard to anyone who is considered a public figure. It takes very little to qualify as a public figure, or a “limited-purpose public figure.” However, why should private success alone expose someone like the Kardashians to a higher burden of proof for defamation? Writing about hot-dog-eating champion Michelle Lesco does not protect core democratic principles or even support core journalistic principles. To succeed, a Kardashian would still have to prove that a statement was false and unreasonable to print. Moreover, publications are protected in most states by retraction statutes limiting or blocking damages for corrected stories. Finally, opinion is already protected from defamation actions.
These are difficult questions that warrant serious discussion not only on the court but also in society. For example, there may be a more credible basis for imposing a higher standard on public figures on subjects of great public interest. However, what constitutes a legitimate public matter, particularly when that matter is based on a false account?
Take Nicholas Sandmann, who was pulled into a vortex of coverage due to the false claim that he abused an elderly Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Sandmann has secured settlements for the biased and false reporting of major media outlets. Defamation still protects opinion without the reliance on a higher constitutional standard for figures like Sandmann.
Clearly, the public figure standard is an obvious benefit to the media. However, without a compelling argument for a constitutional standard for public figures, it seems more like a judicially maintained subsidy or shield. The purpose of Times v. Sullivan was not to simply prop up the press. The Palin case and other cases could present a new opportunity for the court to review the doctrine.
Palin, however, must now go back before Judge Rakoff and a New York jury, something that has proven a deadly combination. If her case ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, it may allow for a reconsideration of the extension of New York Times v. Sullivan to public figures.
Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times
I’m glad to see a case developing that could lead to revisiting Sullivan. That well-intended decision to give big media “breathing room” has resulted in turning off a great many persons of leadership accomplishment from seeking public office. Sullivan established character assassination as an unfair burden placed upon those of character seeking public service through elected office. Sullivan unintentionally narrowed the leadership pipeline, shifting it in the direction of psychopathic-spectrum types — individuals who aren’t phased the slightest by the disapproval of others.
The 14th Amendment is clear: all citizens have equal rights to protection under the law — that would include the right to deter and counter reputational damage. Show me any law which defines “public persons” as having eclipsed Constitutional rights.
Revisiting Sullivan could force a new level of sobriety and responsibility onto journalists, and open the pathway to better leadership choices. The pathetic choices for President this year illustrate my point.
* What about comedians and artists?
After bungling the case twice, Rakoff should have been disqualified. Second Circuit protected him from such justified action.
Not a fan of hers, not a fan of the ‘Tea Party’, that is to say, I loathed them, I really did, but the way she has been treated is and has been pretty reprehensible. The Republican party at the time of the particular election was not a thing I could support. She is the perfect example of someone I greatly dislike but can support her right to exist and be treated fairly. The modern left is no longer capable of this. Good on her, and even though I pretty much hate her with the fury of a thousand suns, she did not deserve all that happened to her. Wake the eff up, old-school liberals. 🙄
And the RNC has changed in ways the dems wish they could. Bill O’Reilly and Mitch McConnell or even Ann Coulter represent the awful past. Modern dems represent the past too, in the form of the USSR for every living person on earth, controlled by people that just happen to have more money and better connections than you. It’s generational wealth, they did nothing to earn it. Do not be swayed by these idiots. They have spines like wet noodles, and all it takes is you saying, ‘No.’, and then saying no again. Pfft. Gone. Do not be swayed.
Contrere … they did not lose the wealth and perhaps it multiplied.
No sane middler republican right winger or alt right can believe in the courts anymore.
The veil is torn and there is no going back.
@Shakdi
No doubt. And the dems will pack it with sycophants as fast as they can if they retain power. Nobody with a shred of education or intelligence does not see what is happening here – we just don’t know what to do. Vote, for EVERYTHING, and demand accountability. At the moment, elections still have a pretense of authenticity.
Move to Russia.
With Progressives in power, we are already there.
Nicholas Sandmann disagrees. Kyle Rittenhouse disagrees. Courts are places where lies go to die, liars go to be discredited, and juries of 12 Americans render judgment.
It’s a very evolved system which balances individual rights with those of the surrounding society. It’s not perfect, but consider that you’ll never hear about the 1000s of verdicts every day that you would agree with. You only hear about the ones that your cable news channel knows will rile you up. You’ve been opinion-shaped by a news format called sensationalistic alarmism.
No they don’t. They went through the ringer for nothing. The process is the punishment. Thousands of J6’rs and endless Tea Party 501c3s and literally millions of Americans and all the Trumpers know better.
Well It’s encouraging to see the Ms Palin will get another chance to make her case. I am not optimistic. It seems of late though that the state of New York has a real problem in their judicial system in accepting the overturning of their decisions. I found it also remarkable that the same judge was given another chance to F—k up the case after 2 reversals. If he gets reversed again does that mean he has to leave the bench, sort of like a strikeout. I mean 3 reversals (potentially in 1 case) should suggest this judge may be beyond redemption. I suppose they will insist on impeachment. Too bad. Criminals had in the past been put away for extended periods after 3 felony convictions. Can’t we ask for the same (sort of ) rule for Judges. KKK (that means 3 strikeouts).
Hopefully we may see some loosening of the straight jacket the Sullivan decision has caused.
It might even dampen the enthusiasm for activist journalism. Big checks to people you have harmed can have an effect on your psyche and direction.
The foxes guard the other foxes and judge the other foxes and every move “reflects back upon them” and also “endangers their crazy decisions” and thus themselves.
It is exactly like bank robbers not charging themselves for the crime they committed.
The higher up bank robbers might take a second look since they robbed the competition bank.
Clearly we need the towering intellect of Eileen Cannon, lol.
Thank you so much, comrade!
New York judges and New York juries — evolutionary mistakes.
Referees who cannot remain impartial commit flagrant and egregious treason against the law and the governed and deserve the maximum penalty society can contrive.
The law and developed rulings address the case of media that knowingly publish false defamatory stories. My question is what about the other case where media knowingly publish false laudatory stories? Here the object of the story may not be harmed but the public is. Has there been such a case?
Your mere question implicates the entire journalistic enterprise. Puff pieces flow daily to construct undeserved credibility of candidates and sitting politicians. These are opinion upon which the public relies to inform its voting decisions. When policy or individual conduct of the candidate or representative goes bad, the public has no recourse, even when it can be shown that “journalism” conveyed false confidence repeatedly and consistently. Behold, for example, Kamala Harris.
You mean those Nobel peace prizes?
NYT v Sullivan must be eliminated
I see a parallel between how a fairly narrow ruling governing public officials was broadened into an almost indefinable range of “public figures,” and the way Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act, intended to let internet platforms policy child pornography, has been interpreted as a blanket authorization to do almost anything to their users.
Speaking of fraud: “After engineer and data scientist Kim Brooks worked on cleaning the voter rolls in Georgia for a year, she realized she was on a stationary bicycle. She’d clear a name for various reasons, dead, felon, stolen ID, living at a seasonal campground for twenty years, duplicate, moved out of state, 200 years old, etc., and back it would come within a month. At that juncture she realized that a program within the Georgia voter registration database was methodically adding back fake names.”
https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/the-2024-cheat-and-whats-being-done
* how did the program get into the system? Texas has purged 1 million.
Automatic Voter Registration is the ‘how’.
From the link: “She looked deeper. For new registrants, the culprit was principally Driver’s Services creating new registrations and in this case, the manufacturer was a person, or persons. Within the government office, someone was stealing names and duplicating, even tripling that person’s vote and then forging their signature. Sometimes it was someone who just died, or a teacher who had no voting record. In the case of a nurse who died in 2022 with three registrations, she was registered to vote in two counties, and all three of her voted in the 2022 election and the 2024 primary. Each signature was slightly different, the last three letters spelled, ly, ley, and lley
“This operation works under AVR, or automatic voter registration, and is being used to register migrants. They will not vote, but their names have been entered into the Voter Registration database when they apply for a driver’s license and their vote will be voted for them. I imagine that this is repeating something everyone knows, but the borders are open for precisely this reason, so the Democrat/RINO machine can steal their votes. By the way, the process for advancing permanent residency has been cut from 11 months to two.”
“In 2020, twenty states used operation AVR. Of those, Trump lost 18.”
…and initials instead of middle names
No, Texas has not. But feel free to fabricate whatever BS you want to believe.
* yeah
While the case will be re-tried, I doubt it will be the springboard to a Supreme Court case that will eventually challenge NYT vs Sullivan. Turley hopes it will be, but it’s highly unlikely. The times did correct the article Palin claims was defamatory. If they corrected the article she will still have a hard time proving actual malice.
“If they corrected the article she will still have a hard time proving actual malice.”
Bwahahahahahahahaha
Spastic idiot
You do know you’re signing your anonymous posts with the name Spastic Idiot, right? ‘Course you do. I applaud your self awareness for once.
(Your are a) Spastic idiot ^^^^
There is that clear enough for you, spastic idiot?
Trump’s bunghole is clearly distorting your thinking.
(Your are a) Spastic idiot ^^^^
There you go again, with more fantasies of naked Trump.
You ARE consistent.
^^^^^^spastic booger
He’s pointing at his own name!!!
An obviously biased judge tries to hide behind New York Times v. Sullivan in making a obviously bad ruling, then tires to hide behind ordering the jury not to discuss the case after the ruling.
The facts do not do well for him either.
Thanks to Turls for linking to the opinion. I’ll read it as soon I’m done laughing maniacally at him, once again, for pitching on advocacy journalism…, while practicing advocacy journalism.
And to more pressing matters than whether Palin gets to put bullseyes over people in public communications and then skate on any accountability when that person gets shot (and Turley’s support of Palin in that respect)…, well let’s hear about the superseding charges on the gimp!! That’d be awesome!!!
It should be noted that some months back I said on this blog that’s exactly what was going to happen as the cackling trumpist cockriders here were saying Jack Smith would just pack up and go away when the SCOTUS proved yet again they’re in the tank for an orange skid mark.
When I see anonymous, that says more than your opinion.
Oh snap!! Nice one!!!
Funny thing is, when I see names here I know they’re most likely fake. If you’re using your real name here in this slime pit I wonder about you.
There’s an elitism here about screen names.
+100
They’re not superceding charges, little Smith cockrider. They are the same charges. Idiot.
What I remember from some months back was how orange felon skidmark god would be in a Georgia prison by now. Are you looking forward to Fani’s trial? Should be a good one.
When you’re done cornholing your nephew, and finish that second bottle of cooking sherry, come back and tell us how those boogers taste.
No, they are literally superseding charges. The indictment was rewritten even if the specific statute violations remain the same. Smith had to rewrite them by taking out the Justice dept. Component around Clarke due to the SCOTUS being in the tank for trump.
Keep up. Be bold enough to venture out from the alt right from time to time…, it’ll keep you from making the foolish statements you so often make.
Fani’s trial? Aren’t you missing the component of her actually being charged for something?
And wow…, someone has to say it…, are you actually not aware that your nephew cornholing fetish you speak so often of makes us…, really worry about the safety and well being of your nephew?
The cooking sherry fetish you also rail on about? On your own with that one. I trust you’re only drinking the best cooking sherry? If not, I will pray for your dreams to manifest….
Not about your nephew though.
LITERALLY the same charges, booger boy.
Your nephew wants to know why you won’t call him since the condom breaking incident. He said his test came back negative, so you didn’t pass the syphilis to him.
Have another sip, drunktard.
With a superseding indictment. Brand new grand jury. Rewritten indictment.
I’ve seen you claim to have legal knowledge on this blog…, and then you keep making these rookie mistakes. Thing is, you’re too clueless to recognize your idiocy, so there’s basically no hope for you and your disingenuous lies.
Tom: i, for one, would really like to see intellectual back-and-forth on the issues people raise on this blog without the childisn, homophobic, STD and incestuous insults. None of this adds anything substantive to the discussion.
And 98% of the people on this blog have made it clear they’d like for you to go fvck yourself, Gigenius. So what?
You have been told time and again that your useless, baseless, piss ant rants about Trump add NOTHING to the discussion.
Take a look at Booger Boy’s first post today. There’s your answer. Now, GFY.
Here is a sampling of Gigi’s “intellectual back-and-forth on the issues” that she “would really like to see. (you know, the more “anything substantive” that she likes. (“”substantive” being a new big word she recently picked up from one of our commenters). And these samples are just from the last 48 hours or so.
These are GIgi’s “intellectual” contributions:
“The opinion of Trump disciples like you don’t (sic) count.”
“It’s disgusting that you believe a bloated pathological liar.”
“Where the hell does someone like you who is so delusional as to fall for the MAGA lie machine come off talking down to anyone?”
“Told ya he was nuts.”
(In addition to her regular name-calling and insults like “Magats,” “sheep,” “cult-followers,” “fat-bloated pig,” “orange god,” etc.)
gigi also told someone to “go F-off” or “F” themselves, can’t remember her exact word.
Women can have 15 or more babies.
How many does Gigenious have?
Did she do her womanly duty for her country?
I notice a great deal more anger from the TDS riddled trolls recently.
Must mean that Trump is doing something right!
Trump is just a gigantic f up machine. Might be time for to, finally, catch on.
Anon at 11:07, working hard to prove anon at 10:31 right.
Bwahahahahahaha.
Its gonna be a long 12 years for Lawn Boy.
Twelve years of what?
“Given Judge Rakoff’s dismal record in this case, it is concerning that he will be allowed to remain the same in any new trial.”
Kind of like Aileen Cannon in Florida.
I don’t think you understood the article
I understood the article completely. I selected the specific quote to call attention to Turley’s hypocrisy in not calling out a higher profile case where a judge was reversed twice by higher courts for an utter lack of understanding of the law and later dismissed the case because she was allowed to stay on it. Turley dare not offend the Trump base or his Fox employers by taking a stance not aligned with the horde.
So you hate women, Latinas especially, and you wish they were barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen.
How did that work out for your first (divorced) wife?
Judge Aileen Cannon has known adversity in a way you never tasted. Poco hombre
Wow! My first wife and I get along fine, we have children and grandchildren in common, see each other at family events a half dozen times a year. She and her husband of several years are doing well (I get along with him too). What is the point you were trying to make, spell it out, you must be so proud of yourself.
She told me otherwise last night.
enigmainblackcom, you seem to having a mental breakdown. Nothiung you write is relevant or makes sense. Democrat?
You’re gonna need to get in line behingd the other spastics, Gigi, Dennis, George, and Lawn Boy if you want to repeat that same tired nonsense.
Excuse me, it’s just Turleys’s opinion. No need to lose it. Breathe deeply, let it out. Refocus.
Trump base, Fox employer? Good lord man, you are deranged. The article is about Palen not Trump or Turley.
Wasn’t talking to you, moron. Get a grip
I missed the part about being an invited guest makes it ok to make a campaign in a National Cemetery. Could you point me to that exemption?
I missed the part about being declared a “campaign” as determined by an authoritative entity, -not the agenda-driven media.
I take no sides in this incident, only to opine that, even arguendo, if there were private error in family members inviting Trump to their loved one’s site (dispositively evidenced) and then participating in family photos memorializing it, –how did it immediately end up being plastered all over agenda-driven MSM media, who demonized Trump and milked the incident like a blue-ribbon cow at a state fair.
As I said yesterday, considering other IMPORTANT events of the day/week, a big nothingburger.
Further, considering the role that politically-driven media/social media play in influencing voters, I DO hope this standard is revisited.
everytime I visit the cemetery to place flowers on graves of my parents, I take photos with my loved ones. And then we cut jokes, drink cuban coffee at the cemetery, laugh and yes, believe our parents would be laughing with us.
Kamala Harris is responsible for the deaths of US service men/women in Afghanistan. That’s the real story. That and Tim Walz is a coward like all Democrats
Estorvir,
“ everytime I visit the cemetery to place flowers on graves of my parents, I take photos with my loved ones.”
Obviously that is not at section 60 in Arlington. It’s not allowed to campaign or use footage from that site even if the family “agreed” to it.
The men and women employed at Arlington and the dignity is strict. Perhaps the employees weren’t told of the visit and photos commemorating it.
Mr. Cheung said the employee was mentally deranged. No doubt Mr. Cheung will be seeking employment elsewhere.
campaign or use footage from that site even if the family “agreed” to it. But! It was a campaign event. No one said so, just the employee at the cemetery said so.
There are no special laws for “Section 60”, you imbecile.
You leftists keep making things up. At Arlington, “there aren’t any strict rules.” Presidential pictures have been taken for years.
Of course when leftists go, they jump on gravestones and leave a mess behind.
Trump isn’t the President–he is campaigning, and his reason for going to Arlington was to enhance his campaign and to try to repair the damage he did by his “suckers and losers” comment and not wanting maimed service members in his presence. That, in and of itself, is wrong, but what makes it worse is the fact that he bears responsibility for creating the situation that lead to the deaths of the service members who were killed by failing to get people out before drawing down troops from 14,000 to 2,500, failing to negotiate for a land or air base, turning loose 5,000 Taliban and failing to involve our Afghan allies in negotiations, so they just gave up. There are just some lines you don’t cross, and politicking at Arlington is one of them. I am outraged on behalf of my aunt and uncle, both WW II veterans, who are buried there.
Gigenius hates it because Trump was invited and Biden/Harris were not.
Milley told Biden to keep the 2500 there and hold Bagram. Stop repeating that lie, you spastic pathological LIAR.
Invited by WHOM? Families of service members have no authority to abrogate the rule prohibiting political activity at ANS. Trump’s campaign staff actually shoved the ANS official who told them that posing for political advertisements aren’t allowed. And what’s with smiling and giving a thumbs up while standing behind the headstone of a fallen soldier? Does that sound like respect for someone who gave their life for their country?
Let the dead bury the dead, you spastic idiot.
Dont pretend you have a clue about honor and respect.
He wasnt there for the dead guy, moron. He was there for the families. Go have a look at what THEY had to say about him being there.
Who was in that picture that WASN’T smiling you fvcking imbecile? He was there to uplift those people, not to remind them how Biden ruined all of their lives.
“I am outraged on behalf of my aunt and uncle, both WW II veterans, who are buried there.”
Stop repeating that outrageous LIE.
You LIED about being a nurse.
You LIED about being an attorney.
And you are LYING about that as well.
What did they do to qualify for burial there??
Hint dumbass: Being a “WW II veteran” is not one of the qualifications.
I HAVE the qualifications to be buried there and YOU are a POS LIAR.
—Waters, Capt, USN, Ret.
Lin,
Great comment.
The facts about recent emails showing how the Biden admin was trying to gaslight the nation that their withdraw from Afghanistan was a success, and how Biden and Harris issued paper “statements,” on the third anniversary speaks to their character or lack there of.
Before or after the ceremony, the families, who invited Trump, took some pictures with Trump, smiling and giving thumbs up.
They were both career military— uncle was a Marine. Aunt was a nurse, as I am.
You are a LIAR Gigenius.
Being “career military” is not a qualification for internment at Arlington.
LIAR. So disgusting that you would lie about that.
Why did you lie about being an attorney? Shall I post the link to that lie as well? I still remember exactly when you said it.
Right
Trump attended the event at the invitation of family members of the soldiers who were killed in the Kabul bombing.
“We are deeply grateful to the president for taking the time to honor our children and for standing alongside us in our grief, offering his unwavering support during such a difficult time,” five of the family members wrote after the event. “His compassion and respect meant more than words can express.”
And here’s the kicker. Not once did President Trump look at his wristwatch during the ceremony. Not once. I still remember that other time. What a difference a day makes?
J
Trump posting video of the event on his campaign site pretty much makes it a campaign issue. He was taking advantage of the “invite” to show up Biden in a section of Arlington where campaign photo ops labeled “ceremonious event” are illegal.
Not the intent of the law, you idiot. Its about disrupting a service or ceremony.
There were cameras all over the place.
Get a grip and some reading comprehension.
Oh thats right, you didnt read the law you attempted to refer to. You just asked Jimmy Kimmel what he thinks.
“Get a grip and some reading comprehension.”
You are asking George for something impossible.
@seanmdav
“Media/Democrats cannot allow anyone to ever have an unfiltered view of Trump.
It’s why they refuse to show his rallies, lie about his transcripts, censored iconic post-assassination photos, doctor videos, melt down about his CNN town hall, and why they demand debate moderators be able to control his speech and interrupt him at will. Even after the debate that ended Joe Biden’s career, they immediately claimed Trump lost and Biden was sharp and focused and not at all dementia-addled.
They want to entirely eliminate your ability to see or hear from him without an overlay of their deranged screeching. In this instance, the Biden-Harris regime (which won’t even acknowledge the existence of the families of the Abbey Gate 13) tried to ban Trump from even visiting Arlington Cemetery, despite him being invited by the families.
When that failed, they did what they always do: they fabricated a vicious lie designed to invert reality because reality cannot be allowed if it makes Trump look human. They don’t want you to know that the families wanted Trump there, nor do they want you to be reminded that Biden and Harris got their loved ones killed and to this day refuse to talk to any of them.
Guess which picture regime media are trying to pretend is the real scandal?”
Image [Joe Biden lounging on the beach]
Image [President Trump placing a wreath]
Aug 29, 2024
Biden clearly won the debate last night
—–Svelaz-George, June 28, 2024
The only time Svelaz George gets something write is when Svelaz George is wrong.
“If you think the bigger scandal is Trump taking photos in front of military tombstones, and not that Biden’s incompetence got thirteen Marines killed and he proceeded to be rude to their grieving families, please get your head examined.”
“Propaganda press, which is running Kamala’s campaign, is invested in the lie that Trump doesn’t love troops and that Democrats do. When facts and reality obliterate that false narrative, they freak out. Hence, this news cycle.”
You know what? I’m OK with Trump posting the video. What the FJB and FKH do besides f up the Afghanistan pullout? They know it and they are ashamed(maybe).
I can’t wait till they’re pulled out of US, tired of getting f’d
You fvcking idiots keep talking about “section 60” like it has special rules.
It doesn’t.
Get a grip.
“They don’t want you to know that THE FAMILIES WANTED Trump there, nor do they want you to be reminded that BIDEN AND HARRIS GOT THEIR LOVES ONES KILLED AND TO THIS DAY REFUSE TO TALK TO ANY OF THEM.”
**The families of the 13 dead soldiers have gotten nothing from Biden and Harris — no acknowledgement publicly, no personal phone calls, no explanation, no apologies, no mention of their sons and daughters names! Just scorn and contempt.**
Another lie from svelaz george.
There is no law against photography in section 60, even for campaign purposes.
Just makin shit up.
I guess ignorant svelaz hasnt seen the Biden campaign ad from 2020 with a picture of Joe standing over a grave in section 60 when he was vp.
I’m sure you’ll see the indictment soon, turd brain…
The same Turley who wants to make it illegal for the government to even inform media companies that something posted is factually wrong, when it comes to Republicans, he suddenly is all in favor for censorship.
He never mentioned the defamation case against Fox News either. Not a single word. It would have been a perfect example of applying the actual malice standard.
Why would he, you idiot? He works for them. An employee of Fox is not free to discuss their legal perils.
Get a grip, nincompoop.
Well DUH!, that’s what makes Turley a massive hypocrite.
Nope. It makes him not free to discuss litigation involving Fox.
YOU are the massive hypocrite. Proven here many times.
The dominion case is over dumbass. Nothing prevents him from discussing it. Fox News settled the case for $787 million. He can’t discuss the smartmatic case because THAT is still ongoing.
They are related dumbass.
Can anyone possibly be this stupid on purpose?
Bwahahahahahaha
And it’s STILL his employer, according to you.
Sux to eat your own words.
“Nothing prevents him from discussing it.”
Because you ignorantly think there is no contract? Bwahahahahaha idiot.
“something posted is factually wrong”
The point is, turd layer, the “government” doesn’t have the corner on what is “factually wrong”.
Get a grip, Metamucil
How do we start getting these CRIMINAL Bias judges jailed?
Are you in favor of the executive branch absolutely in charge of the judicial branch? Are you in favor of purges of government officials that don’t agree and that won’t work only for the Dear leader? Than Project 2025 is for you…….
Fishstick, the connection to Trump and 2025 has been debunk many times over. Only brainwashed leftist cultists who believe everything lying MSM tells you would believe it.
Upstate, “ the connection to Trump and 2025 has been debunk many times over.”
Umm…no. It hasn’t. Trump is very familiar with project 2025. His former advisors and future members of his administration are authors of project 2025. Trump, the guy who keeps being wishy washy about his debate commitments with Harris is going to be equally wishy washy about project 2025. Remember, Trump is the guy who suddenly doesn’t remember knowing a guy because he implicated him on some crime or illegal activity despite him being a “really good friend of mine”. Trump knows what project 2025 and he wants to implement it.
Ummmm…yes it has.
Svelaz and the rest of his turd brained friends don’t have a clue what Kamala’s policies are, so they spend all day defining Trump’s. Because we didn’t have 4 years of Trump.
Bwahahahahahahaha
Spastic.
“ Ummmm…yes it has.”
Aww, it’s’ so cute that you believe that. Bless your heart.
“Umm…no. It hasn’t.”
Aww, it’s’ so cute that you believe that. Bless your heart.
“Are you in favor of the executive branch absolutely in charge of the judicial branch?”
LMAO what a spastic idiot. This is EXACTLY what Harris is proposing.
Can’t make this shit up.
I’m in favor of Trump becoming POTUS and using the Plum Book as a starting point to fire every single non-Trump appointee in the exec branch on day 1. I hope he has replacements lined up three deep for every spot.
The judicial branch is a separate beast, and no, SCOTUS is not “in the tank” for Trump.
There is some good in Project 2025, in spite of the source.
Judge Eileen Cannon should be first on your list.
“It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America,” Biden said Friday, adding of the U.S. legal system: “We should never allow anyone to tear it down.”
STFU George, you reckless, dangerous, irresponsible POS
I’ve always felt a little sorry for Sarah. After losing with McCain, she could have studied, learned, and become a Republican leader for the future. Instead, she went on the lecture tour with mixed results. Consequently, she’s just another celebrity in some conservative circles – destined for a slow fade.
You ignore the crux of thearticle: justice was denied her because she is a woman and a …. republican. You just relegated her to the bimbo media dungeon. You’re not a serious thinker, just a NY Post, Daily Mail regurgatator.
@gdonaldallen – “destined for a slow fade”. Can you imagine if that would have been the destiny of Pelosi, Schumer, Shifty, Smallwel, Obacala, et al? How better our nation would be today.
“Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign,”
I’m sure JT is fine with this first amendment desecration of the graves. Thumbs up, YEA they’re dead.
“Federal law prohibits…” HAHA….like Democrats care about Laws?
10 Million Illegals? Bidens and advisers getting Millions from China? Endless DOJ persecution of TRUMP? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/08/joe-biden-aides-family-business-dealings-00161476
There would not be endless DoJ prosecutions of Trump if Trump was not an endless criminal.
Let’s hope that Trump’s bail gets revoked for this.
Sammy huh? What does your hate-Trump comment have to do with Palin’s lawsuit? Oh, I get it, you’re a hatemonger. If I were a dem, I would wish you ill. But I ain’t. Good luck. YOu need it sammy.
So you change the subject too and then accuse someone of not staying on subject?
Comments made to guyventner
Fishysmell and Sammy are the same moron
No. I can assure you that we are very much different morons. I have no idea who Fish is.
What’s that SammyFish?
Why, yes, it is possible that there are 2 people in this world as stupid as me—Sammy Metamucil
@Sammy, oooh, I didn’t think about that. Will the Arlington fiasco qualify as a violation of his release from jail in Georgia?
“Will the Arlington fiasco qualify as a violation of his release from jail in Georgia?”
Absolutely. If it were true.
Good luck with that.
Spastic
Well… his probation officer in NY would notice. And the bond conditions from his Georgia arrest and booking I assume would apply. He is a convicted felon and we all know felons are supposed to avoid breaking the law while out on bail or awaiting sentencing.
Trump didn’t break the law, idiot.
Even if what happened were considered illegal (its not), the activity was conducted by others, not Trump. You see a camera in Trump’s hand, douchebag?
Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities.
Thats the law.
Good luck, spastic.
Bwahahahahahahaa
The Trump Campaign broke the law, and Trump is in charge of the campaign.
And here it is for your steaming turd brain, Sammy. Maybe you can get this.
Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities.
Pictures taken in oooooh “Section 60” (like thats a special section), have NOTHING to do with that law. NOTHING.
NOTHING
Get a grip, Metamucil.
we all know felons are supposed to avoid breaking the law
Brilliant Svelaz strikes AGAIN!!!
Really, is that just felons??
I swear, you must absolutely LOVE looking like an imbecile and a tool.
Trump was an invited guest. What do you not get? Ah, you’re a dem, a hate mongering form of subhuman.. Close?
I missed the part about being an invited guest makes it ok to make a campaign in a National Cemetery. Could you point me to that exemption?
Maybe “the part” of your brain is missing that would let you comprehend simple language and was replaced with a piece of sh!t. Like in sh!t for brains. Fixed it thanks to my medical background. Tell all you friends.
Yet, you can’t seem to comprehend what you read. Weird.
It’s illegal to do campaign photo ops in section 60 at Arlington. Even if the families “invited” him. The Trump campaign posted video of the “ceremonious event” on the campaign website. That’s a big no no.
“That’s a big no no.”
No, it’s not.
“Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign,”
Svelaz, your spastic friend above took the word from someone on X that this is what the law says, and you bought it.
Gullible and ignorant once again.
The LAW does not say that. The LAW says you can’t campaign because its a disruptive act. The ANS employee said that. And it MAY be against their rules, but YOU don’t knw the details, so STFU about it.
If Trump broke the law, you could BET there would be charges. There won’t be because he didin’t. Sorry.
Do you enjoy looking like an idiot?
Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities.
Doesnt say JACK about taking pictures and posting them or what can be done APART from the memorial service or CEREMONY.
Get a grip, spastic.
Invited by private parties IE the gold star parents.
In 2016 Trump had a lot to say about a Gold Star family, and none of it was good, oh yeah, that’s right the fallen soldier was not a white man.
Irrelevant. It’s still a violation of federal law to take pictures or video for campaign purposes in section 60 at Arlington. Trump posted video of the event on his campaign website.
Cite the law, Svelaz. So I can once again show everyone what an idiot you are.
Once again, your ignorance outpaces even your fat mouth.
That’s what I thought. You don’t even know what law.
Quick, go look it up, internet warrior.
Go educate yourself, or go ask Jimmy Fallon again.
Bwahahahahahahaha
It’s in the Hatch act and 32 CFR 533
“ (c) Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities.”
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-32/subtitle-A/chapter-V/subchapter-D/part-553#part-553
If this was a private event. Why were campaign officials coordinating it?
Hatch Act Bwahahahahahahahahaha. This is a perfect example of your CLUELESSNESS. That applies to the employees at the cemetary, you MORON.
Thats what I thought. You got it from an article. Thanks for verifying that with your stupid statement.
Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities
I already posted that, but thanks for agreeing by finally reading it for yourself.
The acts in question occurred AFTER the ceremony, dum dum.
Arlington may have additional rules, as the employee claimed, but you don’t know what they are, so stop ignorantly commenting as though you do. But as you like to say, rules are meant to be broken. Bwahahahahahaha. Stop claiming it was illegal. It was not. Spastic.
Private???? There was press there, you idiot.
You love being played for a tool by the press, don’t you? It’s HILARIOUS.
Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities
Spastic.
Even though a remembrance ceremony may have value to a campaign that doesn’t make it a campaign activity. 100:1 things went as the families wished so all good in my book.
They are all just petulant children, pissed off because Trump made Biden look bad.
Svelaz even admitted it.
Don’t blame it on Trump, the families didn’t want Biden there.
When will George ever get something right?
When he dies.
“Laws” ! Bless your heart.
Are you the FBI?
If laws were broken, we’ll see the indictment.
Spastic
“…for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign,”
–And who determines such a dispositive finding on intent/purpose/suppport? MSM? Political rivals? Cemetery officials?
The private families who invited Trump over to their loved one’s site(s) apparently didn’t see it as that.