Posted on 07/29/2010 8:59:36 AM PDT by freespirited
Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.
Sherrod made the announcement in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention.
The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart led Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to ask her to resign, a decision he reconsidered after seeing the entire video of her March speech to a local NAACP group. In the full speech, Sherrod spoke of racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.
Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Vilsack has offered her a new job at the department, which she is still considering.
Obama said Thursday morning on ABC's daytime talk show "The View" that the incident shows racial tensions still exist in America.
"There are still inequalities out there. There's still discrimination out there," Obama said. "But we've made progress."
Obama pinned much of the blame for the incident on a media culture that he said seeks out conflict and doesn't always get the facts right. But he added, "A lot of people overreacted, including people in my administration."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“She just needs a black jury and Clinton appointed judge!!! “
Having read thru the Clinton appointed judge’s ruling on Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, I have to agree. No liberal judge is bound by the law. They laugh at the law and impose their will without regard for the law.
This is where I disagree with you. Shirley's image will be damaged by the press because the facts about her lawsuit against USDA will come out in a big way. [Settlement 13 million in taxpayer money for her group, plus another 300K to Shirley and her husband for their alleged suffering]. She will look less like a victim and more like a shakedown artist.
I bet he won’t be laughing if Judge Susan Bolton was handling his case...or any other democrat judge. Even if the law is on your side, you can no longer assume victory.
Discovery should be a hoot...
“Well, I assume she will sue him where he lives and works. I think it’s California, but I’m not sure.”
Not a lawyer, but doesn’t the suit take place in the jurisdiction of the alleged crime? Would that mean DC or VA? Don’t know. I know one thing if Shirley get Judge Bolton to hear the case she will be one rich “woman of color”. Shoosh, its all about Shirley. Maybe we should shop this as a sit com idea to the networks. You know, kind of a Seinfeld who thinks her race is that important to one and all. Maybe we could add a Jesse Jackson look alike to play the part of Kramer. Oh yeah, we could just use Kramer himself, he is really into the race hustle as well.
Shirley had better watch herself. I’m sure she’s been so used to spouting crap that she doesn’t remember what she may have said in the past.There may well be other stuff on her and her spouse yet to be revealed. Plus, as I understand it there is an unexplained gap in the NAACP’s tape. What’s up with that? Maybe they’d like to explain it in court.
Breitbart may be sitting on stuff right now, just waiting for the right time to release it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s saving things for Fall. She may well be walking into a big ol’ trap.
Good luck with that, Shirley.
It’s not a crime, it’s a tort. But in terms of where it happened, seems to me that would be where Andrew loaded the clip onto the internet, which was probably Los Angeles.
Maybe she can sue him in Georgia, but I dont see how DC is relevant. But like I said, I’m not a lawyer, I really dont know.
The only way for this double standard to end is for Rush to sue the Lib networks that spewed lies when he was considering buying the Rams.
I know it would mean great time and effort on his behalf but it is time for Rush to walk the walk and lead by example. He has the resources to do so, is in the right, and can end the endless drive-by shootings that take place every evening on what the networks call “news”.
We are in a very dangerous place where political disagreements are not tolerated and El Rushbo is talking about The View...sheesh!
>> Shirley’s image will be damaged by the press because the facts about her lawsuit against USDA will come out in a big way.
You and I must live in different countries. The press in MY country (USA) would never do this.
The press in MY country are not journalists, they are agenda-driven propagandists. They will report only the “news” that furthers the NAACP position. The truth (i.e. the Breitbart side) will not be reported on because it will be deemed not newsworthy.
Still inequalities....Yeh...She and hubby got $300,000 because they were black....I got zip.
I didnt see the video on Andrew’s site. Did he specifically state that that was his reasoning for the excerpt? To prove NAACP as hypocrits?
Even if not, I don’t see how its against the law to show an excerpt of any video. Doesnt it happen everyday? It is up the viewers of those videos to do their homework, and not be lazy, and discover what’s in the entire video before reacting—or over-react.
>> Oops...my bad...how about WAFER
WAFER! Good one, bro!
er... it’s okay if I call you “bro”, isn’t it? :-)
Remember when they posted some of Wright's I hate whitey videos.
National Association of BLACK Journalists. I can only
imagine what would happen if there was a National Association of WHITE Journalists. The double standards
are getting old. I hope she does sue and more of their
racial garbage comes to light.
>> I didnt see the video on Andrew’s site. Did he specifically state that that was his reasoning for the excerpt? To prove NAACP as hypocrits?
Yes, he did. If I remember correctly, it was during an interview by some talking head on some news show. I heard it with my own ears, but I’m sorry I can’t give you an exact reference.
And, you’re right — “excerpted” words are still the speaker’s actual words, and the fact that they spoke those words is just that — a fact — so there should be no grounds for libel.
If he had truly EDITED the tape to, for example, rearrange or remove certain words in a normal flow to paint the speaker a certain way, that might be a tort. But that is NOT what he did. The part of her speech that he presented, he presented in its entirety with no editing.
Just my 2c — I’m not a lawyer, nor do I watch them on teevee.
Like her friends at the NAACP, Shirley is just another race-baiting moocher.
Correction: a pretender to the presidency who seeks out and incites conflict.
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.