Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Explosive Email Shows Anti-Palin Author McGinniss, Random House Likely Published Literary Hoax
Big Government.com ^ | Sept 22, 2011 | Andrew Breitbart

Posted on 09/22/2011 5:25:30 AM PDT by libstripper

The awful launch week for the over-hyped, expected bestseller The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, by controversial author Joe McGinniss, just got worse. Much worse.

After a week of universally scathing pans from the reflexively anti-Palin establishment media, McGinniss now faces the fight of his literary life: the accusation that he seems to have knowingly submitted a book to his publisher, Crown/Random House, that was filled with unproved “tawdry gossip” and rumors that lacked “factual evidence.”

(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ailes; book; corruption; democrats; dirtytricks; elections2012; enemedia; fraud; fruad; libel; liberalfascism; mcginniss; mediabias; obama; palin; perry; plannedlibel; plannellibel; politicallibel; randomhouse; randomhouseflack; randomhousefraud; randomhouselibel; randomhouselies; randomhouseprrep; randomhouseslander; romney; sarahpalin; schemedlibel; waronsarah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last
To: sickoflibs
The problem is the more "public" a person is, the harder it is to prove. The standards are different.

It's why you never see ordinary citizens being quoted in ways that might embarrass them - in newspapers or the press. Even police quotes - from those below the 'officer' level will (if they might make the police officer look bad) not be covered...

Same with government officials - the young office clerk with no knowledge of how the press works - will NOT be quoted because the paper can be sued. Her life and comments won't be covered in a book either - not if they make her look bad. Below a certain level you're allowed some privacy... put yourself up as a public person and that's gone...

Above that level and it's 'gotcha' and 'fair game'... Sarah's held herself out to the public - - that decreases her chances of winning - and a case would open her life up to things we really don't need to know about her... Court cases are usually part of the public record...

101 posted on 09/22/2011 11:41:13 AM PDT by GOPJ (126 people were indicted for being terrorists in the last two years. Every one of them was Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Book stores will put Rush and Coulter in the fiction section, but here we have a real work of fiction.


102 posted on 09/22/2011 11:43:30 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

bump


103 posted on 09/22/2011 11:47:49 AM PDT by lowbridge (Rep. Dingell: "Its taken a long time.....to control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
RE :”The problem is the more “public” a person is, the harder it is to prove. The standards are different.

That excerpt I posted explains the differences.

If she sued she would be interrogated under oath over her entire personal life with everyone in the world watching and it's very unlikely that she wants to go through that.

104 posted on 09/22/2011 11:52:24 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Over-taxed means 'paying too much in taxes', not zero taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Rush talking about this now, finally. Only a little over 5 minutes left in the show, and he’s not back until Monday.


105 posted on 09/22/2011 11:56:58 AM PDT by lonevoice (The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, impeach we much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Maybe one of the things that this sort of crap should open for some VERY careful review is the entire concept of so-called “Public” figures.

Is that determination made by a court, or just something that the lawyers or the media types being called to account get to assert?

What’s to keep those same individuals or groups from simply deeming anybody they defame as a Public figure?

Sounds to me like the only people the Law is defending in a case like this is the lawyers, and that only so they can get some more Billables.


106 posted on 09/22/2011 12:15:06 PM PDT by Unrepentant VN Vet ((485 and a wakeup) Truth, I know, always resides wherever brave men still have ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Josephat
Sarah doesn’t have to deal with it right now and should just let them know that she can and will, in her own time. Let them sweat it out.

...kind of like she's doing to the RINO establishment RIGHT NOW!

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

107 posted on 09/22/2011 12:30:52 PM PDT by LaybackLenny (All hail Her Royal Highness Sarah, Queen of The Hobbits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
How to prove libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as “proving malice ”.[17]

That would put someone like Alex Jones out of business.


Where there's a shell, there's a way.

If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.

Or you can get raw with these strings. Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.

Do it!

108 posted on 09/22/2011 1:30:15 PM PDT by rdb3 (The mouth is the exhaust pipe of the heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
...would be interrogated under oath... entire personal life with everyone in the world watching...

Only a liberal gay man who loves to wallow in filth would want to go through something like the above... Liberals have no standards beyond 'Am I being a hypocrite'.

It's why Castro, Stalin and Charles Manson aren't condemned, but Sarah Palin is.

As far as Palin's concerned I would not vote for the twenty year old Palin who most likely made her full share of 'bad judgements' (Like all of us - except the most timid) It might be one of the reasons the constitution doesn't allow 20 and 30 year olds to be President.

Sadly, good judgment often comes from bad judgment - it's how we learn...

From what I can see, Palin would make a great President. And McGinniss is a piece of liberal sh*t.

But even McGinniss is a hypocrite - not that he has the wit to see it... I'll bet he and his fellow liberals would NEVER accept a person saying 'I smoke and I'm proud of it - so shut the ____ up.' Or " I love greasy french fries and love being 20 pounds overweight" therefore I can't be criticized... not a 'hypocrite'.

There is nothing I can find admirable about liberals. They live to make the rest of us cringe... and provide 'low' entertainment.

109 posted on 09/22/2011 2:22:17 PM PDT by GOPJ (126 people were indicted for being terrorists in the last two years. Every one of them was Muslim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Unrepentant VN Vet
Maybe one of the things that this sort of crap should open for some VERY careful review is the entire concept of so-called “Public” figures.

Is that determination made by a court, or just something that the lawyers or the media types being called to account get to assert?

What’s to keep those same individuals or groups from simply deeming anybody they defame as a Public figure?

Being a public figure is kind of a function of name recognition (aka pervasive involvement in public issues, events, etc.). There is case law that provides some guidance, but the finder of fact, either a judge or a jury, will make the determination on that and all other relevant facts based on hearing both sides make their arguments. In other words, determining public figure status is not a hard science, but it's not arbitrary either. Palin will be a public figure by any measure. At the moment, I would not be. That part of the law ends up being pretty fair, IMHO.

110 posted on 09/22/2011 2:52:11 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

Well, maybe Todd is a “limited person public figure” or something. But it really shouldn’t matter, because if publishing something defamatory as a fact (and not in a parody) when you know that there is no evidence of its truthfulness isn’t “actual malice,” I don’t know what is. If I remember NYT v. Sullivan correctly, the plaintiff doesn’t need to prove that the author *knew* that what he published was false, he or she needs to show that the author had reckless disregard for whether or not it was true.


111 posted on 09/22/2011 3:31:44 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

“limited person public figure” = “limited purpose public figure”


112 posted on 09/22/2011 3:32:57 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
Something just doesn't smell right here with that email from McGinnis. I just wonder if it is authentic or if Breitbart is getting punked here. Notice how the screen cap show the Today Show identifying Weasel McGinnis as "Palin's neighbor"? Jerks!
113 posted on 09/22/2011 4:31:50 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Another Maryland girl for Palin in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

My thoughts, as well. I think Breitbart got punked.


114 posted on 09/22/2011 4:36:03 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Another Maryland girl for Palin in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

Don’t know where Andrew got the email but I heard Jesse Moron Griffen is basicly confirming it without meaning to. He is saying “I didn’t leak it”. It’s being investigated etc. HaHa


115 posted on 09/22/2011 5:09:36 PM PDT by Truthfreesus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

Don’t know where Andrew got the email but I heard Jesse Moron Griffen is basicly confirming it without meaning to. He is saying “I didn’t leak it”. It’s being investigated etc. HaHa


116 posted on 09/22/2011 5:10:24 PM PDT by Truthfreesus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: dead

I really hope the Palins do sue. I can fully understand that, especially if she’s going to run, Sarah would want to appear “above the fray”.
However, this steaming pile of unsubstantiated fecal matter that the alleged “author” McGinnis put out is just beyond the pale. It always seems that conservative stalwarts are “fair game” not just for mild gossip, but completely over the top, fabricated out of thin air, scurrilous (nay, libelous) assaults that are intentionally done not as investigative truth-finding, but (in McG’s own words) “hit pieces”. The old pervert has a history of this and has had to pay in the past. It’s about time that these types of slime merchants (throw Kitty Kelly into the mix) really get socked and financially ruined, and that their publishing whorehouses similarly suffer serious financial harm. Then, and only then, will they collectively think twice about pursuing intentionally malicious efforts that are driven by political agendas and hatreds so deep that the truth is but a mere fleeting, easily dismissed concern.


117 posted on 09/22/2011 5:19:42 PM PDT by nuvista (Obama-care - you think that arrogant Marxist "cares" about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
This literary garbageman blames the Enquirer and bloggers for not being able to source the rubbish he stole from them and pasted into his book.
118 posted on 09/22/2011 5:20:29 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec; libstripper
Another attempt to destroy a candidate. Random House is owned by German company Bertelsmann, and they have a political agenda of their own.
119 posted on 09/22/2011 5:23:30 PM PDT by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
It just keeps getting better and better.

sarc Buy the first edition! Once the lawyers have the book redacted, it'll be a collector's item! More valuable than McGovern-Eagleton buttons! /sarc

120 posted on 09/22/2011 7:14:17 PM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson