Posted on 02/15/2022 11:31:40 AM PST by navysealdad
A federal judge has announced that he will dismiss Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, saying the former Alaska governor failed to meet the high standard of proof in a libel case. NBC News legal analyst Danny Cevallos explains why the judge made the decision to throw out the case and what could be next for Sarah Palin.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
No doubt to make way for the hillary trial right?😂
The jury was in the middle of deliberations when the judge notified the press what he was going to do. I’d be pissed if I was a juror. Wasting my damn time when all along you were playing a Star Chamber with the press as your lackey. Clinton appointee. Scumbag.
Jury said not libel.....
The way I heard it the judge dismissed it when the jury was still deliberating......wth is that?
How could the judge decide to throw out the case after he had ordered the jury to start its deliberations?
And secondly, why ask the jury to come to a verdict despite the members of the jury obviously being aware that the case has been thrown out?
The crooked politijudge, Jed Rakoff (D-Soviet Union), is still mad because the appellate court told him he had to hear the case when he dismissed it the first time.
So he decided to screw Palin yet again by pulling this little stunt. No doubt the jury will get the information anyway, whispers and all that.
That’s all that’s happening. The destruction of the judicial system by Communist gangster judges.
Maybe Our Sarah started screeching at him and pissed him off.
Is proof really necessary when the editor confessed under oath to doing it? This dung beetle judge needs to retire to dog walker.
Very drole....
Hopefully someone else can give me a better answer.
When you grow into a ScaniaMan you will know that
the word you're trying to use is "droll" and that
screeching at a judge is no way to win a case.
Judge is trying to be too cute by half. He first sends to the jury for deliberations but then dismisses while the jury is out. Trying not to decided it, knowing that it will be appealed, tries to give cover for the appeals court to go with the dismissal even if the jury decides in Palin’s favor.
OK, sorry for using French spelling.
I know you have some odd views regarding Ms Palin, so I leave it there, except for posting a comment from another site where the actual case is discussed:
“In Britain, judges sum up the evidence in the case for the jury, and give them some views they might or might not take. In America, the rule is generally judges are not to comment on the evidence.
If there was enough evidence to go the jury in the first place, then the judge ought to leave it alone until verdict. If there wasn’t sufficient evidence at the close of plaintiff’s case, then the judge should have tossed the case at that point, before it ever got to the jury.
By announcing this ruling while the jury is still deliberating, and not being sequestered, jurors will doubtlessly know of the ruling before resuming deliberations, the judge has overstepped and clearly tainted the jury’s deliberations. Reversible error? I think it should be.”
Or maybe she started screeching and pissed off the judge.
Dismissed it after it had gone to jury but before the jury could come back with a verdict? That doesn’t sound kosher.
The way I heard it, the judge said he WOULD dismiss it IF the jury sided with Palin. Basically he tampered with the jury and made a mockery of the process all in one egotistical statement.
The jury dismissed the case.
The entire administration is made of Deepstate Commies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.