Expose this slime ball
Posted on 09/22/2011 5:34:16 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
Andrew Breitbart appeared on the Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss the Big Government investigative report on the Joe McGinniss Sarah Palin book. Breitbart promises more stories are about to break on this including an interview with the prostitute who McGinniss used as a source for the book. Video at link:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.tv ...
A lot of these clowns like MCGINNIS have such big egos that they say on the internet what they believe.Case closed.
I’ll say this - Andrew Breitbart is making the world safer for conservatives and more dangerous for liberal liars. He’s doing the Lord’s work whether he knows it or not.
It doesn’t matter. The masses just see the headline, and they vote. :-(
I wish somebody would go after that other prick Geoffrey Dunn.
....I’ve been involved in many civil lawsuits in the real estate development business in Texas the past 40 years. As a result, I know more than the average non-lawyer about the process. So,just to hopefully add to the discussion tonight, I’m wondering if any lawyer out there in FR land would comment on where “venue” for a Palin vs. Random HOuse lawsuit would be?
If it is New York, I think the Palins would forget about it. But, if it were Alaska, I think they might give it some serious thought given these recent Breitbart emails which are at least close to “smoking guns”. Ofcourse if she runs for President, I don’t think she would pursue the lawsuit.
...but it’s a whole lot easier to force a settlement, especially when McGinnis’ own emails clear half the burden out of the gate and when as a defendent you need to stop the bad publicity asap.....
....I’ve been involved in many civil lawsuits in the real estate development business in Texas the past 40 years. As a result, I know more than the average non-lawyer about the process. So,just to hopefully add to the discussion tonight, I’m wondering if any lawyer out there in FR land would comment on where “venue” for a Palin vs. Random HOuse lawsuit would be?
If it is New York, I think the Palins would forget about it. But, if it were Alaska, I think they might give it some serious thought given these recent Breitbart emails which are at least close to “smoking guns”. Ofcourse if she runs for President, I don’t think she would pursue the lawsuit.
doesnt bertlesman make those plastic handguns?
If the smear is written, not verbal, it's libel, not slander. And while it helps to be able to prove that the allegation is false and motivated by malice, reckless disregard of the truth also qualifies, even if the complainant is famous. Not that I think it will be hard to come up with the "malice" part, especially with the e-mail trails that have started appearing.
Well, have we had enough of this type of behaviour yet, or not?
That's the question we all need to be asking.
((((Ping))))
I wonder if McGinnis had any wireless phone, cell, or wifi hacking equipment?
**** “If you’re going to kill the Queen, you better damn well kill the Queen.” *****
BUMP
TT
Even if there is some state that has a BARD as the standard for a civil case, she'll be able to sue him in one that doesn't.
If she were a "politician" she would have far fewer protections against libel.
hope palins sue mcginnis.
*******
I like Palin. I also believe that Obama is a fraud and a liar when it comes to telling us about his past and that he will lose come election day Nov. 2012.
But I believe that the book did severe damage to Palin's hope to run for President, because the ugly revelations in the book will help persuade Palin that she CANNOT run for President if she hopes to protect her family from savage criticism and ridicule.
1.Whatever ugly things people say about the book and the author, McGinnis, Palin will never sue the author for defamation, because at the trial, the author will parade a list of witnesses who will back up much of the terrible things the author wrote in his book about Palin and her family.
2. One of the damaging details in the book is the claim that Palin had an affair with a professional basketball player. If Palin ever went to court and the basketball player testified that he did indeed have a one night stand with Palin and Palin was called to testify about the affair, Palin's dream of running for President would be over.
3. So, again, sad to say, I don't believe that Palin would ever dare sue the author in court for defamation, because she knows that a lot of details in the book are true, and such a trial would do terrible damage to her family.
4. In addition, if Palin took the author to court and lost, Palin knows that such a loss would do terrible damage to her reputation and credibility, and she knows that if she loses her credibility , she loses any chance to be elected President.
5. The author: He wrote a great book "Fatal Vision". He did lose a lawsuit to Jeffrey MacDonald, but Jeffrey MacDonald had trouble disapproving many of the details in the book, especially when MacDonald's own father-in-law provided the author with many of the details in the book and when MacDonald admitted that he allowed the author free access to follow him and his defense team around during the trial, a trial that showed that MacDonald did indeed murder his wife and two beautiful young girls.
6. So, as much as I like Palin, I believe that she won't run for President or sue the author for defamation, because she would not want to have her family members testify in court, which would cause terrible damage emotionally to those family members, especially after they were cross-examined by the author's lawyers.
7. Also, as I see it, Palin has an additional problem: If she goes on talk shows and tells the world that the book is full of lies, then she is opening the door for the author to sue Palin for slander, and Palin will have to detail in court the lies that she claims are in the book.
8. In addition, if Palin remains silent and does not make any comments on the book, people could take her silence to mean that the book is mostly true.
9. In other words, Palin is damned if she comments on the book and damned if she remains silent, in my opinion.
10. So I don't envy Palin for whichever decision she makes: Does she publicly condemn the book and force the author to sue her in court for slander, or does she remain silent in order to protect her family from having to testify in court?
Especially within the context of recent emails being discovered that the author KNEW many of the accusations to be false...or where he falsified the source and made up the story.
A good lawyer ought to be able to make $25mil off this...and Palin $75mil. Easy.
Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).[30]
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles.[citation needed] Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.
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.