sue for the current taxable valuation, PLUS one dollar... Their editorials are 100% malice.
I think Palin’s attorneys will have something to say about this. These are heavy hitters she hired with giant success. They would not have taken it if it were so easy to get out of imo.
Since the rule of law may be out the window, it’s possible that some activist Progressive judge might decide that there’s no merit to the case, by making a brilliant, intellectual, Progressive decision, with no due process.
(Progressive scu%bags just love that double standard of justice.)
IMHO
Palin’s lawyers should have a lot of fun in the discovery phase.
Wasn’t The Times sold for $1?
She could sue them for $2 and double their money.
Take over, and fire all the ‘progressives’ who see their role as being there to “change the world”, and replace them all with actual reporters who know their job is to “report what happened” without bias.
The editorial cannot be anything BUT actual malice. It was an opinion piece, not news. So it reported an opinion that reflected a completely unsubstantiated assertion that Sarah Palin, acting through the agency of her PAC, suborned another party to commit murder. That is certainly damaging, and if not malicious, was composed with no regard for its veracity. Either one constitutes libel.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha... etc.
That might possibly fly, except for that little inconvenient fact that the correction was neither made promptly nor was it a full correction.
The New York Times habitually lies. This is just par for the course.
After all, when you're The New York Times, actual facts are such inconvenient things, huh...
I think it may be closer to proving her claims.
sue for the current taxable valuation, PLUS one dollar...