J.K. Rowling Pulls ZERO PUNCHES in Straight-Fire Thread DEFENDING Detransitioners from Tra...
David Frum's FAILED Attempt to Make Biden Look Good for NOT Debating Trump...
Biden's LIE About Lifting Children Out of Poverty With a Freakin' Tax Credit...
OMG, SO REKT! Megyn Kelly Literally ENDS Jeffrey Toobin for Calling Clarence Thomas...
Dr. Phil Has Had Enough of the Speech Police
National Public Radio Suspends Whistleblower for DARING to Publicly Admit NPR's Bias
POPCORN! Climate Change Loons Protest Outside Kamala Harris' CA Home and It's GLORIOUS...
Peter Doocy Corners John Kirby Over Biden's Iran Policy
Adam Schiff-for-Brains Tries Taunting Trump Over His First Day in Court and WOW...
BOMBSHELL: Check Out Flyer Distributed at a Mexican NGO Encouraging Illegals to Vote...
Teachers Union Harpy Tries RUNNING After Getting Torched for Burning Book Post but...
Chris 'Reporters Don't Root For a Side' Cillizza Can't Grasp Why People Miss...
Unhinged Union Teacher So Triggered by Corey DeAngelis Book She Lets the Mask...
Infanticide: The Musical! Cringe Reproductive Rights Song Shows the Left Are Abortion Extr...
Christopher Rufo Goes Through New NPR CEO's Amazingly Woke Twitter Timeline

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

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

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/895747729544163328

Wait, come again…

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/895760489459978241
https://twitter.com/Imusually/status/895754247224033280


https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/895749858799366146

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

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

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement