College Professors Sure Do Have a Problem With Whiteness
Shiela Jackson Lee Loses Houston Mayoral Race
'Journalist' Shows Leaked Image of Shani Louk Being Used as a Human Shield...
President Biden Says He's Delivering on His Vision of High-Speed Rail
We Regret to Inform You the ‘Experts’ Are at It Again
Author Claims That the United States 'Does Not Have a Right to Exist'
Long-Time Veteran Has Never Seen Scenes Like Those IDF Prisoners in Their Underwear
Five-Word Community Note Correcting Greater Manchester Police Is a Thing of Beauty
James Woods Advises Jews to Arm Themselves in Response to Shocking Poll
'Antisemitism Works That Way.' Leftwing Pro-Palestinian Writer Shares Deep Hatred of Israe...
Elise Stefanik Claims a Scalp: Liz Magill OUT At UPenn
Hillary Clinton Campaign Lawyer Says Donald Trump Is Plotting to Overthrow Democracy
Welp. Pro-Palestinian Activist Doctor Shares 20-Year-Old Photo to Try and Shame Pro-Israel...
POLITICO: Candidate Speaking Out After Online Sex Life ‘Exposed’
Dem. Rep. Ilhan Omar Decries, 'Gaza is the Most Dangerous Place in the...

'Amazing'! NY Times' presents mock-tastic argument for dismissal of Sarah Palin's lawsuit

As we’ve reported previously, Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times following a now “corrected” editorial in which the editorial board tied Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The paper published similar claims previously, but the Times’ is reportedly facing this laughable challenge:


Wait, come again…

Apparently that’s something that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to happen:

Here’s what that section of the judge’s ruling says:

For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statement of fact that are the subject of the Complaint were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them.

So the NYT now has prove to the court that their editors don’t always read the NYT? Classic.


Also, the Times’ argument for dismissal of the case doesn’t appear to be going well:

Editor’s note: This post has been updated to more accurately reflect the details of this story.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Twitchy Videos