Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

December 2024
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

"Sarah Palin Threatens to Sue ‘Rogue’ Book Publisher"

ABC News:

Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned.

[portion of the letter here]

The book was widely panned by critics for using unnamed sources to criticize Palin and her family. Tiemessen cites an email they have access to in which McGinniss writes that attorneys from Crown Publishing told him “nothing I can cite other than my own reporting rises above the level of tawdry gossip. The proof is always just around the corner, but that is a corner nobody has been able to turn” and that McGinniss “ran out of time” to sufficiently source the book.

A source close to the Palins tells ABC News that the “Palins are fighting back and demanding answers from Random House.”

“Random House is at the top of the food chain and published a book based upon acknowledged unsubstantiated gossip,” the source said. “The revealing email is key as evidence of this defamatory approach to politics through proxies.”

Tiemessen writes in the letter that the email “clearly describes the fact that Mr. McGinniss researched and investigated many false and scurrilous allegations, and concluded that there was absolutely no evidence anywhere backing these allegations.”

Palin’s attorney writes that it is “malicious” for Crown to publish the book when it has proof McGinniss and Crown “were fully aware the statements in the book were false, intended to be false, and were intended to harm.”

“The final work that was published contains most of the stories that Mr. McGinniss complains were nothing more than ‘tawdry gossip’ that amounted to the wishful fantasies of disturbed individuals,” Tiemessen writes. “Since both your company, and the author, clearly knew the statements were false, admitted they had no basis in fact or reality, but decided to publish in order to harm Governor Palin’s family, you and Mr. McGinniss have defamed the Palins.”

Of course, some would argue that you can’t defame an abomination of nature and her hypocritical self-serving uterus — that is, that defamation suits are meant to protect human beings, not presumptuous hoochie cumsluts who enter into politics when what they should be doing is cleaning fish or, at best, reading the weather on some small Iowa newscast, and so Palin therefore has no standing, and should either shut up or else take everything thrown at her without complaint — so at the very least, we should get that kind of question cleared up. Legally speaking.

114 Replies to “"Sarah Palin Threatens to Sue ‘Rogue’ Book Publisher"”

  1. newrouter says:

    ot

    A Justice Department spokeswoman said it decided against asking the full U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit to review the August ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that found the requirement unconstitutional.

    The decision not to seek review by the full appeals court will likely speed up consideration of the matter by the high court in its 2011-12 term that begins next week. A ruling could come by late June, in the middle of the presidential campaign.

    Link

  2. happyfeet says:

    what is an example of a false statement in the book?

  3. Jeff G. says:

    Uh oh. I bet the lawyers never thought about that.

    RETREAT!

  4. newrouter says:

    mcginnis said the snowhoochie uses cumin in her moose stew recipe.

  5. Pablo says:

    Just Do It!

  6. happyfeet says:

    I’m just curious. I bet if I was a hot to trot celebrity someone would write a book about me with a lot of stuff I didn’t think was true or whatever. But I’d still be rich and famous, which would be nice. Well, the rich part anyways. It has to suck ass being famous. Me and NG we’re at lunch the other day and there were all these paparazzi at the gas station – like 8-10 of them but we couldn’t see who they were shooting but it was creepy how they all left with her and then she pulled a u-turn on ventura so we watch as all these priuses did u-turns at once right behind her. I’ve never seen anything like it. And so we googled for who it was and it was… Vanessa Hudgens. Who is nobody, really, it’s just that she was dressed all sexified.

    And this is what happens when you are famous and sexy. It’s a goddamn circus I tell you.

  7. happyfeet says:

    *were* at lunch the other day I mean

  8. Pablo says:

    Hollywood people sue and win too. Defamation is defamation.

  9. newrouter says:

    Vanessa Hudgens brought out the pol pot in me visavis hollyweird.

  10. Darleen says:

    what is an example of a false statement in the book?

    geez, hf, there’s that “sourcing” thing that has to be done when writing an ostensible biography.

    otherwise, well, you still haven’t proven that nishi isn’t pegging you on Mon/Wed/Fridays.

    What color was that strap-on again, pikachu?

  11. happyfeet says:

    I was just curious which thinger Sarah was in particular upset about – I’ve mostly only heard about that NBA guy she may or may not have had a one night stand with many many moons ago like back when Duran Duran were singing about “girls on film” remember?

    the diving man’s coming up for air cause the crowd all love pulling dolly by the hair

    and she wonders how she ever got here

    as she goes under again

  12. Darleen says:

    hf

    With the McGinniss email being leaked, it was the opening for Palin lawyer to serve a letter on Random House to legally commit them to saving every email in connection with McGinniss and his libelous book.

    the Left poured through 25,000 of her emails, payback’s a bitch.

  13. happyfeet says:

    it can also be kinda expensive

  14. motionview says:

    When this book first came out I was describing it to Mrs. mv and she was outraged that Palin could not sue for libel. I explained the very high hurdle of establishing malicious intent.
    Thanks for that email Joe. Pull all those books off the shelf or better yet just give Random House to Sarah.

  15. newrouter says:

    While I am not specifically familiar with Alaska’s libel law, I am familiar with libel law in general — as every journalist should be — and what Tiemessen has sent Random House is what’s known as a “demand letter.”

    A publisher is put on notice by such a letter that the lawyer’s client considers himself the victim of libel. Notice of intent is required for several reasons. In the newspaper business, if somebody calls your office and bitches about a story, OK. But the minute they say “lawsuit” or “lawyer,” you end the conversation and refer them to the newspaper’s attorney. If the complainer is actually serious about libel suit, their lawyer sends a demand letter, and the newspaper’s attorney then considers whether the complainer has a case. If the lawyer says retract, you retract.

    Printing a retraction is a humiliating thing for a newspaper to do, but it’s cheaper than taking a libel suit to court. Retracting a book is not so easy, which is why book publishers have lawyers on retainer whose job is to vet manuscripts like McGinniss’s.

    For many years, it has been part of my business to know the difference between the mere threat of a libel suit – threats are a dime a dozen — and such letters as Tiemessen has sent Random House. This is not a “threat,” and the executives at Random House damn well know it. They clearly failed to perform “due diligence” in fact-checking, and no cleverness in attributing lies to anonymous sources can protect them.

    Link

  16. leigh says:

    Why is she even dignifying this with a response? Kitty Kelly wrote scandalous books about all kinds of people. People who like to believe the worst will do that anyway and a lawsuit just invites people to pick through and find the things that are true. Mrs. Palin ought to let sleeping dogs lie.

  17. guinspen says:

    foot imitates the butthole.

    Oops, wrong thread.

  18. Pablo says:

    People who like to believe the worst will do that anyway and a lawsuit just invites people to pick through and find the things that are true.

    Suppose she’s got nothing to hide.

  19. bh says:

    That sort of response could also encourage more libel, leigh. It certainly would in the aggregate.

    Think I heard that this book isn’t selling very well. That might make Random House wonder whether this McGinniss asshole is worth the aggravation. After that email revelation, you gotta think their legal department isn’t in love with the guy.

  20. JHoward says:

    Suppose she’s got nothing to hide.

    She’s got the highest ratio of classy, smart, selfless optimism to toughness I can think of. The polar opposite of Barry, in other words.

    Let’s hire her.

  21. pdbuttons says:

    sarah had a boy named sue on the plane from texas to alaska but he wasn’t photo friendly so she chucked em
    out the aeroplane terlit

  22. Seth says:

    I’ve always quite liked presumptious hoochie cumsluts. I can’t be the only one.

  23. leigh says:

    What if she does have something to hide? What if parts of the book are true? Wouldn’t that negate her bringing suit?

  24. guinspen says:

    jiggers!
    it’s the buttonhole
    surfer.

  25. newrouter says:

    “Wouldn’t that negate her bringing suit?”

    @15

    (. If the complainer is actually serious about libel suit, their lawyer sends a demand letter, and the newspaper’s attorney then considers whether the complainer has a case. If the lawyer says retract, you retract.

    Printing a retraction is a humiliating thing for a newspaper to do, but it’s cheaper than taking a libel suit to court. Retracting a book is not so easy, which is why book publishers have lawyers on retainer whose job is to vet manuscripts like McGinniss’s.)

  26. pdbuttons says:

    sarah surfs japanese tnsusami earthquake waves
    into our hearts
    hail sarah-full of grace

  27. leigh says:

    I guess that is the real question, nr. Is she serious about bringing suit? Printing retractions is pretty routine in publishing. How many copies of this book have been printed? If there are actual flat out lies in it, as well as some truth, I imagine the lies would be retracted in a second printing.

    Let’s not trash the publisher for their lack of vetting. It seems to be the thing to take one at face value. Look who is in the White House now./s

  28. happyfeet says:

    I wonder if she knows how to roast a chicken. I sure as hell don’t but I need to cook me 5 cups of chicken cause of my sister is gonna teach me how to make mom’s chicken spaghetti tomorrow. I’m using this and it’s already pissing me off cause of it says I have to wash the chicken and then… pat it dry with paper towels. Are you shitting me? Then I have to “truss” it but it don’t say what that means.

    This is not a fun game.

  29. happyfeet says:

    I’m just gonna boil it.

  30. newrouter says:

    “Is she serious about bringing suit?”

    its in the publishers court right now. do they hit the ball back?

  31. Seth says:

    What if she does have something to hide? What if parts of the book are true? Wouldn’t that negate her bringing suit?

    Yes, because Palin is that stupid as to launch a suit that proves the scandals true. I don’t think you’re thinking this through, leigh. I’d say a lawsuit is a fairly good signal that Palin feels she has nothing to hide.

    If she doesn’t fight back, the book will be taken as true. If she can get even half of it retracted, that’s a win for her. The book has already set the narrative, it’s now on her to force it onto factual grounds.

  32. newrouter says:

    “Then I have to “truss” it but it don’t say what that means.”

    you have to tie up the chickens legs like dick cheney does at gitmo.

  33. newrouter says:

    its interesting that joe’s book comes out at this particular time no?

    cain/palin 2012

  34. geoffb says:

    I would submit if any of the salacious tales in the book were true then she would not have had her attorney send the “demand letter.”

    “Random House is at the top of the food chain and published a book based upon acknowledged unsubstantiated gossip,” the source said. “The revealing email is key as evidence of this defamatory approach to politics through proxies.”

    Discovery would be a real bitch if they published a book of, known to them, lies as a political hit. If that is the case then there are most probably many others that they have done for the DNC which never drew a suit because the authors were not dumb enough to admit their lying in an email. However in discovery that might be uncovered. Then all such could be considered to be campaign contributions and illegally in excess of the limit.

  35. leigh says:

    Seth, I actually have thought this through. If it were me, say, either reviled or worshipped, as she seems to be, I’d let it go. Nothing good is going to come of this.

  36. Pablo says:

    What if she does have something to hide? What if parts of the book are true? Wouldn’t that negate her bringing suit?

    Probably. Which…

  37. geoffb says:

    Geez ‘feets. Every supermarket in my town sells already cooked roast whole chickens for less than $5.

  38. McGehee says:

    what is an example of a false statement in the book?

    Here’s two: “and” and “the.”

  39. pdbuttons says:

    we got chickens in the barn
    who’s barn
    what barn
    my barn

  40. Seth says:

    ….unless, leigh, she really has nothing to hide. In which case, how does fighting against outright lies hurt her? I might be slower than the other kids, but am not seeing the downside for her. If she has nothing to hide. Which, I’m going to be so bold as to conjecture, probably occured to her and her lawyers as well.

  41. leigh says:

    Lillian Hellmann helped with this book, McGehee?

  42. newrouter says:

    “Nothing good is going to come of this.”

    shouldn’t f$#k with a moose hunter

  43. McGehee says:

    If it were me, say, either reviled or worshipped, as she seems to be, I’d let it go.

    That’s easy to say when it’s only hypothetical. The only thing I can say in that mode is, it isn’t me — and God only knows how many people are still alive because of that fact.

  44. McGehee says:

    Lillian Hellmann helped with this book, McGehee?

    She’s the ghost writer.

  45. happyfeet says:

    I know I should’ve bought one I’m kicking myself

    this poor lady wants me to boil it for 4 hours cause that’s what her acupuncturist told her which is fine I don’t care I have 4 hours but that seems retarded to me

  46. pdbuttons says:

    hf-get the fluck outta cali

  47. leigh says:

    Boil it for an hour, ‘feets, then let it cool in the broth. You can take the meat off the bones then and save the stock for soup.

  48. leigh says:

    nr, rumor has it the moose hunting is a fiction.

  49. geoffb says:

    <i>Random House Doubles Down, Defends Anti-Palin Literary Hoax; McGinniss Spins Emails of Omission

    Please consider that Breitbart is who obtained the email. He has in the past broken some story with a small piece of evidence and then waited allowing the ones involved to go wide with denials and their own “evidence” and then released more that showed that they were lying even more than the original story showed.

    We shall see.

  50. pdbuttons says:

    i agree w 37
    my local supermarket has whole chickens for 599
    5 on fridays
    avoid the retarded bag boy though
    he’s a pain in the ass

  51. happyfeet says:

    thank you leigh! that’s how my mom taught me but I forgot if it was an hour or a half hour

    mr. buttons I am enmeshed in California for now but some day I hope to make a break from here … I know for sure I’m here through next March cause of I have plans

  52. newrouter says:

    “I don’t care I have 4 hours but that seems retarded to me”

    she’s a crony chickenist

  53. geoffb says:

    More from the letter:

    “Further, as Mr. McGinniss waived the attorney client privilege and disclosed to third parties what “Random House Lawyers” told him (he
    needed sources and the book was not publishable without them), we will
    also be entitled to review your company’s legal correspondence with Mr.
    McGinniss and his responses thereto.”

  54. pdbuttons says:

    beware of the ides
    chickens in tasty buckets
    busboys with tatooes

  55. Watch Joe McGinnis on CSPAN, click: http://www.booktv.org/Program/12838/The+Rogue+Searching+for+the+Real+Sarah+Palin.aspx

    and then click on Watch the Program on the right.

    Implies Sarah is the Don Corleone of Alaska. People wouldn’t talk to him because their kids wouldn’t get into college, Sarah and Todd, no love lost between them, business relationship only, parents afraid of her wrath, they have no friends, she was a disaster for Alaska, questions whether Trig is her, says Troopergate was Sarah playing the Godfather, that the poor man just wanted to get away from her sister and had his reputation ruined by Sarah.

    He did no research that I can see, he just reprinted lefty sites and the things they’ve said for almost 3 years. He is a real sleaze.

  56. pdbuttons says:

    i think prez palin would have one of them rocking parades
    when o one i watched the inauguration parade and it was pretty cool
    then all downhill
    76 trombones make a hit parade
    jp sousa
    just riffin
    unless she had one of them russkie high in the sky platforms
    with big phallic weapons and shit may day things marching past
    and she had a big fur collar around her pretty face..
    that would be cool
    i used to see russia from my porch

  57. ThomasD says:

    You boil an egg, you never boil a chicken

    Simmer people, simmer.

  58. happyfeet says:

    there’s a time issue plus the chicken spaghetti takes ro-tel and bell peppers and onions and a POUND of spicy velveeta and chipotle sauce and a jalapeno and mushrooms and olives and cavender’s greek seasoning and whatever else so there’s tons of flavor the chicken is sort of just there for to have something to flavor up

  59. McGehee says:

    Implies Sarah is the Don Corleone of Alaska.

    Lordy. If she were one of Alaska’s dozen or so Don Corleone wannabe’s, her parents wouldn’t have been in Idaho in 1964. They would have either been in Alaska since territorial days, or they would have gone to Alaska from Texas or Oklahoma during the pipeline project.

  60. pdbuttons says:

    lisa cokeface murcowski is one ugly perp
    and sarah took her on and that whole corrupt machine
    and she’s coming to a theater
    near you!

  61. newrouter says:

    “Implies Sarah is the Don Corleone of Alaska.”

    the murkowskies were unavailable for comment

  62. Joe says:

    If Sarah sues I suspect she is not running. But she has frankly surprised me before.

  63. Spiny Norman says:

    When Rachel Maddow won’t return his calls and Keith Olbermann cancels interviews, you know McGinniss is fucked.

  64. Mueller says:

    feets.
    Dry it salt and pepper rub olive oil on the outside put it in a pan and bake at 350. 20-30 minutes per pound untill the juices run clear. Truss it. Don’t truss it. It doesn’t matter.
    Don’t boil it. it looses a lot of flavor. If you got a pressure cooker, use that.
    Better yet, just buy a bag of frozen chicken breasts from Meijer.

  65. happyfeet says:

    too late it’s done but I can try that next time… this way I have some stock I can use for the recipe too

  66. serr8d says:

    otherwise, well, you still haven’t proven that nishi isn’t pegging you on Mon/Wed/Fridays.

    What color was that strap-on again, pikachu?

    I’m thining she’s borrowing the Barbed Cock of Satan.

    It’s the only thing she could find that still fits.

  67. guinspen says:

    Beware mister chickenchokers “mystery stock.”

  68. SDN says:

    leigh, there’s another possibility, contained in the phrase “family attorney”: McGinnis not only slimed Sarah, Todd, and their kids, he also slimed several other members of the family who have not been and are not now public figures. They can sue the socks off Creepy Joe and his publisher even if Sarah doesn’t, and have a much easier time of it.

  69. Joe says:

    ThomasD posted on 9/26 @ 8:21 pm
    You boil an egg, you never boil a chicken

    Simmer people, simmer.

    Even an egg is better simmered not boiled. But most of us do not want to wait.

  70. All right hf. Grab a chicken, a dead one. I use fryers because they’re cheaper than roasters and I think jucier. Stick an onion, some rosemary and salt and pepper up its ass and drop it in a roasting pan with a lid (not a dutch oven, one of those cheapy black and white roasting pans you can get at Big Lots) pour some olive oil on top, rub it down with some more salt and pepper, cover it and throw it in the oven @ 350 for 1.5 to 2 hours. Check the temp after 1 hour or so, you want around 165. Once you’ve got it, take the bugger out and let it rest, covered for a bit, it’ll cook up to about 170.

    Remove from pan. Eat. Make sides if you remember, use forks if you must. I can only cook 2 edible things, this could be one of them.

    I usually cook mine lower and longer, because if I’m cooking dinner Mrs cookies is not here to “help” (read: do everything) so right around dinner time, I’m usually picking up or dropping off one or more of my porchfull of kids, some Central, Mountain or Pacific time zone jackass has scheduled a meeting at 2, 3, or 4 their time so I’m on the phone and not paying attention, I’m at the grocery because I forgot something, I’m busy trying to finish the chores I promised the Mrs I’d do but didn’t because I got distracted by work or Jeff’s fine site here on the innertubes, or I just plain forgot that I had dinner in the oven. YMMV

  71. happyfeet says:

    ok I’m excited to try … I have a chicken in the freezer still so I can do this on the weekend

  72. leigh says:

    leigh, there’s another possibility, contained in the phrase “family attorney”: McGinnis not only slimed Sarah, Todd, and their kids, he also slimed several other members of the family who have not been and are not now public figures. They can sue the socks off Creepy Joe and his publisher even if Sarah doesn’t, and have a much easier time of it.

    Didn’t she make her family members “Public Figures” during the ill-fated campaign? Also, she has shown them on her television show and just about every other time she could haul them out and prop them up. I think I’d recognize all of her immediate family if I ran into them at the supermarket and I’m only a casual observer. And, Bristol has a reality teevee show in the works.

  73. Squid says:

    I think the arguments about the merit of the potential suit are beside the point. Here’s an opportunity for Sarah to grab headlines as the legal proceedings continue for month after month. She may not have any friends in media, but this could be the opening she wants — here’s an opportunity for her to get out in front of the cameras and microphones to defend her family against this slimebag and all the lefty bloggers and talking heads he represents.

    All she needs is one quote along the lines of “I’ve been under attack for years, and I learned a long time ago to laugh off this kind of amateur attack. But this son of a bitch went after my family, and his friends in publishing and broadcast fell all over themselves to help him slime my loved ones, and I’ll be damned if I’ll let that happen without fighting back.” It reinforces her mama grizzly image, and it just might force some people to start seeing her as a human being. Further, it lets her hammer home the idea of her media foes as ‘associates of Joe McSlimebag’ in the mind of the public, which they’re not going to like one bit.

    In the end, I think she’ll wind up hurting the media far more than they can hurt her. And she’ll get plenty of exposure, which always drives the right people out their minds, which is never a bad thing.

  74. […] “Sarah Palin Threatens to Sue ‘Rogue’ Book Publisher” Of course, some would argue that you can’t defame an abomination of nature and her hypocritical self-serving uterus — that is, that defamation suits are meant to protect human beings, not presumptuous hoochie cumsluts who enter into politics when what they should be doing is cleaning fish or, at best, reading the weather on some small Iowa newscast… […]

  75. Squid says:

    Didn’t she make her family members “Public Figures” during the ill-fated campaign?

    So Sasha and Malia are fair game?

  76. leigh says:

    Yes, they are.

  77. leigh says:

    Also, Squid, she has used that My Family is Sacred to Me line so much that it is threadbare. Witness: the quitting of the governorship of Alaska.

  78. NoisyAndrew says:

    Can anyone diagnose Palin Fatigue Syndrome?

    Because, I hope she nails the shitbirds at Random House to the wall and that this McGinniss character is run out of town on a rail, but dear sweet merciful Lord do I weary of hearing about her and the nothing she’s doing.

    Shit or get off the pot, woman.

  79. Squid says:

    …she has used that My Family is Sacred to Me line so much that it is threadbare.

    That’s as may be, though I still think “This perv moved in next to my house and spied on my family and the best he could do was publish a bunch of lies with the help of his media friends” would have legs of its own.

  80. leigh says:

    It could. I think that was last year’s story, though. Remember when they built the giant fence and accused the author of trying to look into one of the daughters’ window?

  81. Klawnet says:

    he also slimed several other members of the family who have not been and are not now public figures.
    Leigh: Didn’t she make her family members “Public Figures” during the ill-fated campaign? Also, she has shown them on her television show and just about every other time she could haul them out and prop them up. I think I’d recognize all of her immediate family if I ran into them at the supermarket and I’m only a casual observer. And, Bristol has a reality teevee show in the works.

    Other. Family. Members. Explicitly not Todd & kids. You don’t read so good. Also, you’re arguing in bad faith, but that’s pretty much a given.

  82. steph says:

    she has used that My Family is Sacred to Me line so much that it is threadbare

    She has used it so much because it has had to be used to combat the relentless and over-the-top hack attacks on her family. Stop attacking her family and there would be no reason to use that line of defense.

  83. Pablo says:

    Also, Squid, she has used that My Family is Sacred to Me line so much that it is threadbare.

    So, your family is fair game for whatever vicious bullshit anyone might care to sling at and about them? You’re cool with that?

  84. Squid says:

    Stop attacking her family and there would be no reason to use that line of defense.

    Well, if she’d just shut up and sit down, we wouldn’t have to attack her all the time. /media

  85. leigh says:

    Anyone running for public office today needs to know that their entire family history is up for grabs by the opposition. It’s not cool, but that’s the way it is.

  86. Pablo says:

    History being up for grabs is one thing. Being targets for any vile slander people can dream up is another.

  87. Hadlowe says:

    What if she does have something to hide? What if parts of the book are true? Wouldn’t that negate her bringing suit?

    Doesn’t negate the suit. All she needs is one lie and actual malice. Tactically, yes, it dissuades a potential suit to have damaging true information. The right strategy is to determine which lies you can prove actual malice on and limit your complaint to those specific statements. Yes, the media and Palin haters will seize on the lack of inclusion of any allegations as admissions of truth, but they would do that anyway if no suit was filed.

    And a retraction at this point doesn’t get Random House/McGiniss off the hook. The libel occurred the moment a defamatory statement was published to a third party. The fact that you go back and retract later may mitigate damages, but doesn’t undo the injury.

    And, as someone mentioned above, I would guess that Olbermann and Maddow are steering clear of McGiniss because they have attorneys on their shows saying that there’s a giant, expensive, libel stinkbomb following this guy around and they would rather not be named as codefendants.

  88. leigh says:

    Does she have to demonstrate actual harm or just the potential for harm and to who and by whom? Is she looking to have the book banned or retracted and corrected? Is she perhaps spurring sales of the less than top seller book by bringing suit? How does she presume to be made whole by Random House and/or McGiniss?

  89. bh says:

    That’s as may be, though I still think “This perv moved in next to my house and spied on my family and the best he could do was publish a bunch of lies with the help of his media friends” would have legs of its own.

    I agree with that.

    And discrediting the media is a worthwhile goal. It’s been a focus of hers for awhile.

  90. Hadlowe says:

    Does she have to demonstrate actual harm or just the potential for harm and to who and by whom?

    Depends on the nature of the lawsuit and the jurisdiction. I believe libel per se still exists in a few jurisdictions and damages are presumed when the libel involves a person’s livelihood or chastity. Otherwise she would have to prove damages, such as a reduced estimation of the figure in the community at large. Honestly, though, damages are easy in this case.

    Is she looking to have the book banned or retracted and corrected?

    Who can say. Generally, a plaintiff might ask for an injunction against further publication while the suit is pending, but that can be very costly and dangerous if the case is not a slam dunk. I know that in some other defamation lawsuits, part of the judgment involved a public apology and retraction, but that’s more to the court’s discretion. The most effective punishment would be to empty the bank accounts at Random House and the McGinniss house. That kind of thing leads to shareholder revolts and firings.

    Is she perhaps spurring sales of the less than top seller book by bringing suit?

    So, you’re worried that by filing legal action against a tawdry smear merchant, she might add a few dozen books to the sales figures? That seems like a lousy reason to give up potential legal claims, especially because those sales figures inadvertently driven by the action can be added to the list of actual damages later on.

    How does she presume to be made whole by Random House and/or McGiniss?

    How does anyone presume to be made whole after a car accident. You can’t go back and undo nerve damage. Instead we come up with complex damages equations to justify what is ultimately an arbitrary award of cash. When dealing with a defamation suit such as this one, the arbitrary award numbers begin at seven figures.

  91. leigh says:

    Thanks. I’m still skeptical that she actually has a claim to defamation, if that’s what she’s going for. It would seem that most or all of the book is a rehashing of rumors and previously published malarky. Doesn’t that make this book more of a compendium than an original work? It looks like she would have to cast a pretty broad net to catch all of those fish.

  92. Hadlowe says:

    Like I said, as far as the book goes, she just needs one demonstrable lie and actual malice. She doesn’t have to bring up every claim made in the book as long as one claim is false.

    I admit I haven’t been following this story at all. I have no idea what allegations McGinniss made, other than Mrs. Palin sleeping with Glen Rice. One aspect of defamation law that is famously undefined is the limitation of what constitutes a public figure. Mrs. Palin is definitely a public figure. I think Todd and Bristol probably are as well.

    But, what about Track, the oldest. He’s been safely tucked away in the Army since his mother came to prominence. Part of the Supreme Court’s justification for the higher “actual malice” standard was that public figures have greater access to public speech meaning they can combat smears and lies in the public arena instead of the courts. Track has not shared the same limelight as the rest of his family. Additionally, military codes severely restrict statements by soldiers to the press, effectively restricting Track’s means of combating potential lies. Is it just to apply an actual malice standard to any lies against him?

    What about Piper or Trig? Can McGinniss argue that they voluntarily entered the public arena and thus have to prove actual malice? Can infants and very young children be public figures due to membership in famous families? There is no precedent on the question.

  93. leigh says:

    Beats me, but those are good questions. Like you, I haven’t followed this story closely and also only heard the part about Glen Rice and then only because of Mike Tyson’s comments.

    As I was rather harshly admonished upthread, the suit speaks of “other” family members. Who would that be? The trooper BIL, perhaps? I would be interested to learn if there was a demonstrable lie, a new one, that comes to light. Quite frankly, I’m weary of her sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. As someone else said, “Shit or get off the pot.”

  94. SDN says:

    Leigh #72: Is English your first language? How about your second or third?

    I specifically mentioned Todd and her children because I knew libtards like you would try to make that argument. However, family includes in-laws, nieces, nephews, uncles, aunts: people who were in no shape or form involved with Sarah Palin’s campaign and were dragged through the mud by people you support. One example is Sarah’s brother, Chuck Heath Jr. There are others.

  95. newrouter says:

    “Quite frankly, I’m weary of her sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.”

    then start ignoring the snowhoochie

  96. vaguely says:

    More importantly, are they poultry?

  97. leigh says:

    Is English your first language? How about your second or third?

    English is my only language. I was only asking a clarifying question, and I wasn’t refering to you in #72, but thanks anyway.

    libtards like you

    Really? That’s news to me since I’ve been a registered Republican since 1976. I don’t have to love Sarah Palin or any other American unless I see the merit of doing that, and with her, I don’t. If it makes any difference, my step-daughter has known her since her pageant days and lives in Wasilla. So, I’ve got that going for me, I guess.

  98. steph says:

    Leigh. Really? A registered Repub since 1976?
    You are full of shit.
    You decided to register repub in 76 to vote for whom exactly? Gerry Ford?
    Leigh, you are totally full of shit.
    If it makes any difference, I knew your step-daughter, and she has no merit. So I’ve got that going for me, I guess.

  99. steph says:

    Leigh? Curious George? Hello???
    You Leigh, are a lying sack of shit (if I didn’t earlier make it clear).
    If it makes any difference, my step-son has known Barry since his poofter days and lives in Urbana.
    PROOF!

  100. leigh says:

    I am not lying, but if it makes you feel like one of the cool kids, go ahead and call me names.

  101. steph says:

    Liar.

    Nope. Doesn’t make me feel any better.

    Still. You Leigh, argue in bad faith and lie.

  102. happyfeet says:

    leigh is not full of shit that’s just rude

    if everybody liked all the same celebrities then all the movies would always have all the same people

  103. steph says:

    Yes, Leigh is full of shit and she is a lair.
    That is not rude, it’s true.
    The remainder of your hf comment is bullshit.

  104. leigh says:

    Thank you, happyfeet. I am not full of shit and I am not a liar. I also don’t like it that you are now attacking happyfeet.

  105. happyfeet says:

    nonono Mr. steph I disagree plus also you should be more cordial to our friend leigh I think plus also I need to make the spaghetti

  106. newrouter says:

    full of feces dept.

    “September 27, 2011

    “SMART DIPLOMACY:” Germany slams ‘stupid’ US plans to boost EU rescue fund. “Germany and America were on a collision course on Tuesday night over the handling of Europe’s debt crisis after Berlin savaged plans to boost the EU rescue fund as a ‘stupid idea’ and told the White House to sort out its own mess before giving gratuitous advice to others.”
    http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/128700/

  107. happyfeet says:

    thanks leigh sometimes the internets don’t really embrace the idea of how you can disagree without being disagreeable

  108. leigh says:

    No kidding, hf. I can’t love the Caribou Barbie and I’m not going to be bullied into. Are you making the spaghetti chicken? I hope it turns out nice.

  109. happyfeet says:

    thanks! I’m just gonna have a little for lunch tomorrow and then if I don’t get sick the next day I’m gonna send the rest home with NG so she and her husband can have it for dinner cause their kitchen is all torn up and they’re waiting for the new countertops and a sink

  110. happyfeet says:

    chicken terrifies me

    it’s a thing

  111. newrouter says:

    “the internets don’t really embrace the idea of how you can disagree without being disagreeable”

    tell me more about the snowhoochie please?

  112. Jeff G. says:

    No kidding, hf. I can’t love the Caribou Barbie and I’m not going to be bullied into.

    You’ve already been bullied into a way of thinking. Know how I can tell? The “Caribou Barbie” schtick.

    But you found a nice cuddle buddy in happy. He doesn’t let anybody boss him around. Except, like, the entirety of liberal-leaning popular culture.

  113. happyfeet says:

    that’s so not even true I never even saw avatar until it was on dvd

  114. happyfeet says:

    that’s some motherfucking outlaw right there

Comments are closed.