Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Attorney Defending NYT in Palin Defamation Suit Claims “Honest Mistake”

    Attorney Defending NYT in Palin Defamation Suit Claims “Honest Mistake”

    “There was an honest mistake in posting the editorial”

    Sarah Palin is suing the New York Times for defamation, and attorneys for both sides appeared in court Friday.  The attorney for the NYT claimed that the publication of the well-known and thoroughly debunked claim against Palin was an “honest mistake.”

    The New York Post reports:

    “There was an honest mistake in posting the editorial,” lawyer David Schultz told Manhattan federal Judge Jed Rakoff.

    Last week, Palin sued the Times over a June 14th editorial that stated there was a “direct” link between one of Palin’s PAC ads and the shooting by Jared Lee Loughner.

    But there’s no evidence he ever saw the ad, which placed Gifford’s district in stylized crosshairs. The Times issued a correction.

    On Friday, Palin’s lawyers argued that the Times knew the story was false.

    “It was literally acknowledged the same day in another story in their paper,” said Kenneth Turkel.

    Hot Air has more about this second story:

    It didn’t take too much digging in the archives to confirm that Palin’s team is correct. The article was by Alexander Burns and it does indeed appear in the Gray Lady on the same day that the editorial came out. And if you go back and read both the original and “corrected” editorials from the board of the New York Times, their “retraction and correction” appears almost word for word in Burns’ article. (Emphasis added)

    In 2011, the shooting of Ms. Giffords by a mentally ill assailant came during a convulsive political period, when a bitter debate over health care yielded a wave of threats against lawmakers. Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate, drew sharp criticism for having posted a graphic online that showed cross hairs over the districts of several members of Congress, including Ms. Giffords — though no connection to the crime was established.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Semper Why | July 9, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    Meh. We don’t believe the NYT’s news section, we don’t believe their editorial section. I’m certainly not about to begin believing their lawyers.

    “The editorial was an honest mistake, as will the next three times we say very similar things about Sarah Palin also have been honest mistakes.” /sarc

    tarheelkate | July 10, 2017 at 8:19 am

    Oh, it was a mistake, and the NYT honestly thinks it can get away with anything.

    CaptTee | July 10, 2017 at 9:28 am

    I honestly believe it was an intentional mistake!

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend