BREAKING: Shirley Sherrod plans to sue Andrew Breitbart for defamation
That loud PLOP you just heard was Andrew Breitbart crapping a brick at this news:
Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod says she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.
Sherrod made the announcement Thursday in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention.
This is long overdue; frankly, I always felt that both Van Jones and ACORN officials should have sued Fox and/or Breitbart after they were smeared, just so that they will think twice before smearing other people in the future. So Sherrod will be carrying the burden forward for many of us on the progressive left who have been victimized by these crooks and liars.
Attoney Michael Yaki at City Brights thinks so too:
Defamation law clearly puts Breitbart in a tough position. He deliberately aired a video that was edited in a way to put Sherrod in a very bad light. Breitbart even said on Fox News that the purpose of the tape was to show that racism existed in the NAACP, even though the speech Sherrod gave was precisely the opposite -- it was about overcoming prejudice and stereotypes. Before the tape, Sherrod was not a public figure for whom a higher legal threshold of "actual malice" would be required, though in this case it would be hard to say that malice or a reckless disregard to the truth wasn't present.
Fox, by way of offering Breitbart a forum, may be similarly at risk. Under the "republication" doctrine, Fox may be as liable as Breitbart for recklessly running (and rerunning) the doctored footage.
There is no excuse for those liberals who so quickly threw Sherrod under the bus without the benefit of hearing her side of the story. But while inexcusable, the fact remains that but for Andrew Breitbart, who deliberately manufactured this story and dressed it up with racist overtones, people today would have no idea who Shirley Sherrod is or what she does. And she'd still be at her old job.
Sometimes in the law you get the perfect test case. Shirley Sherrod's high tech railroading by Breitbart offers an unprecedented opportunity to make an example of the right wing's repeated distortion and discoloration of the facts. At the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights I've watched my right-wing colleagues and their media friends misrepresent and inflame the paltry facts that constitute the New Black Panther Party investigation. But while my conservative colleagues flail around like psychotic berserkers in the Panther proceedings, they have yet to cause collateral damage to anything but the truth. That is not the case with Ms. Sherrod, who suffered public vilification, private harassment and humiliation, and who was pressured to leave her job.
I wonder if our corrupt corporate judicial system will give her justice.
And good for her for standing up for herself unlike so many other democratic officials.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
Well, we've got his apology as evidence. And the anguished cries of all wingnuts after the fact as character witnesses for her.
Good for her, and I hope she drags it out in court for all the world to see.
Breitbart apologized? When, where-link please because the google can not find it for me.
I found many, many blog posts and opinion pieces that say Sherrod owes Breitbart an apology, I watched him decline to offer his 'mea culpa' on CNN, and I have not seen any report that he is actually sorry.
The closest he came to saying anything close was that the whole thing wasn't about Sherrod.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
...the rethugs can stack the courts with their favorite judges but it's going to be a jury that decides this one.
you is your jury will be made up of average americans. It's not pretty.
I think we all could predict who the 5-4 decision would be in favor of on the conservative activist SCOTUS.
Someone has the spine to stand up and challenge these right-wing yahoos. I hope she carries through with it, and he loses badly. Maybe she can attach Faux to him, and bleed them both dry as Rupert Murdoch's withered balls.
that this gets gavel to gavel coverage by the MSM though I know it probably won't.
If she were a blond who died of an overdose and she had giant boobies, they would follow the trial without commercial interruptions.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
blonde and had giant boobies she wouldn't have to die of an overdose or anything else.
it's so much more marketable when it happens that way.
I hope the right-wing and main-stream medias try to ignore it, hoping that it will either be settled out of court or that clever defense attorneys will find a way out of it.
What I want them to cover, which they will, is the verdict when Sherrod wins, and I do hope she takes it all the way to trial no matter the settlements offered.
When the story is simply that a jury has ruled that the right wing can't lie like this anymore without facing consequences, it'll have a much better impact than if the media tries to analyze (and distort) every chess move along the way.
>)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
"chilling effect on free speech," while ignoring the defamation laws cited in furtherance of the suit. They'll paint the liberals as wanting free 'speach' for themselves, but for no one else. They'll howl like banshees, scream like wounded eagles, and the rightwing talking points will abound on the MSM.
me-oww!
And they'll do it no matter what Sherrod's reaction is. They're going to continue lying and defaming to get whatever they want until we finally stop them.
This is a great case to start stopping them.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Seeing Sarah Palin on tv has a chilling effect on my gonads.
Can I sue?
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
but breitbart has very wealthy benefactors, and this will only serve to increase his street-cred amongst the rightwing puppet masters and puppets
I'd suppose that asking for his head on a plate might be off the table, but monetary stuff should not be limited/
cutting off the head of this worm would not kill him anyway...
However, to hurt them where it counts, hit their deep pockets.
Nothing short of say $300 million for Fox and $50 million for Bright-fart.
That will sting those with deep pockets and set an example to corporate info-tainment outlets that they will remember.
At least we'll get closer to the truth.
will tell the truth even under oath?
He's a right-winger and they all lie like a rug.
And here's the number one question you pose in your initial interrogatories to defendant:
"Identify the person you claim to have provided you with the edited video you posted to your website."
Breitbart has argued over and over again that he received the edited video from someone in Georgia, but he's refused to identify that person. I GUARANTEE you that no person exists and that he did it himself. So now he's a liar. And Sherrod's attorney will attempt to prove malicious intent by making inquiries regarding Breitbart's activities generally, including his involvement in the ACORN matter.
I'm looking forward to it.
This is a civil case and not a criminal one.Or maybe she can still introduce that there is a clear pattern in this slander of her and others.I'm not sure about the rules of evidence in civil cases but if this was allowed,his goose would be cooked.
if anyone else can come up with actionable bullshit this seeming drunk has aimed at them.
me-oww!
It is not reasonable doubt, but preponderance of doubt. She stands a VERY good chance of hammering him. Simply show the edited tape vs the whole tape.
Slander, Defamation of Character, Fraud.
One has got to stick!
Go for it Shirley. Teach these idiots that they can not do this with impunity.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
She wants her
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuFKv7__G08
Back?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Breitbart protege James O'Keefe got off with only a misdemeanor after shutting down ACORN with a faked video and attempted wiretapping of a U.S. Senator's office. I'm not holding my breath for justice in this country, although I'd love to see it. Bin Laden, The Anthrax, Election Fraud, etc.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
My only hope...she does not accept an out of court settlement.
What happens in this case, will determine where "punditry" tv goes, and whether cable television will finally be forced to adhere to basic principles of fairness.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
an all black jury but I hope there will be at least 50/50. It would be better if Breitbart and Fox lost with an all white jury.
Well I'm glad that Shirley is standing her ground and will not go away like I'm sure the MSM wants her too. Even if she loses her case, I think people respect the fact that she is not afraid of the right wing and won't back down. She has more balls than a lot of these seasoned politicans.
will happen, if at all, by accident.
I'm not holding my breath for a good outcome, but still am glad Sherrod is pursuing this.
as reverse racism, and will get it to the Roberts court to try and overturn the civil rights act.
All she has to do is to show malicious intention, false facts, and resulting harm.
She will probably go for a nonjury trial, but it is hard to see how she could fail to show those points.
Yeah the supremes might over turn another century or so of precedent.
I hope Breitbart gets it good. In the pants. He is a deranged individual with a big hostility issue.
The Obama Administration should give Shirley Sherrod her job back. They shouldn't throw her under the bus the same way they did Van Jones. Time for progressives to start standing up for themselves against the bullies like Breitbart, O'Keefe, and the Republicans.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
about the Jones "incident". But that's another story.
Right now, the Obama Administration needs to reinstate Sherrod. Not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because it would be a big F*ck You to Beck, Breitbart and their enablers (Fox, GOP)
NOBODY 2012
I hope the administration stands behind her...
Less incoming that way...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89c3hWx3RQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It will be interisting if they have a jury trial. It would presumably be in either NY where Fox headquarters (they caused the injury by airing the tape), or in the DC area where Sherrod lives and works.
Either way it will be hard for defense lawyers to manage to get an all white jury, since a mixed jury will have trouble discussing this case as being non-racist withough themselves being subject to being charged with racism.
If she wins with Breitbart, I hope she goes for Fox. Breitbart will go to court Fox would probably settle out of court.
Good. Make an example of this snot-nosed little punk.
Does anyone low if there is a legal fund set up for her. I want this slanderer taken down as a warning for others.
I will happily donate!
NOBODY 2012
Fox News and Brietibart get their faces shoved down into the big piles of dung that they are always throwing around at other people. I'd step on the back of their necks if I could.
Why isn't she suing the NAACP for defamation. They put out a statement saying how bad her actions were, even though they had the unedited tapes but didn't actually review them before putting out their statement.
Also, why not suing for wrongfull termination.
Without doing the above, this could be seen as a partisan, political retribution suit instead of trying to rectify an unjust harm performed against her.
But not for this repulsive racist, the NAACP or the Obama Administration(no credit to them of course) would have never had a chance to respond.
But that is beside the point if she is really looking for complete justice. As I said above, the NAACP had the tapes and was negligent in reviewing the tapes before putting out a defaming statement about her. Also, she was fired and then was apologized to for wrongly firing her. Vilsack has already admitted to wrongfull termination. Both of those should be easy to win.
Who provided the tape? Was the tape deliberately edited to exploit a political agenda? Motive? Damage?
The NAACP statement and White House firing are the damage caused by the actions of the defendant.
Try and keep up.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
to keep up. Let's say I am your boss and someone (who has been caught as a liar before) tells me you are selling crack in the bathroom at work. I immediately fire you. Then the next day I find out the person that told me made it all up. Would you not want to sue me for wrongfull termination? Seems logical to me.
As for the NAACP, they had the tape to review before putting out a statement. I cannot believe that you can obsolve them of defamation because they were goaded into making a statement when they had the accurate information but were to lazy, incompetent, whatever, to find out the truth.
But the NAACP admitted to being "snookered"....so they have the Snookered Defense.
Try and keep up.
all it takes is all of us
Again, the NAACP admitting to be snookered is not a defense. I would love to see that used in a court of law. "I'm sorry for robbing the bank, but I saw a video online saying it was ok, so I did. I got snookered!"
Again, the NAACP admitting to be snookered is not a defense.
Uh..yes it is. See my comment below.
And journalists do it ALL the time. That's why they print retractions.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Mr. Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, entire defense in front of the Senate Sub Committee was that he had been snookered by everyone that reported to HIM.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
that work out for him...
Irrelevant. That was his defense, which was the whole point of your argument.
Also, Reagan used it, Poindexter used it, Nixon used it, and a whole host of CEOs.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
It's very popular among billionaires waiting for that Golden Handshake...
me-oww!
You could accuse them of negligence, for not being thorough enough, but I get the impression suing breitbart is about intentional defamation. He intended to harm, while NAACP and White House were reacting to intentionally misleading information.
Would you not want to sue me for wrongfull termination?
Perhaps. If I felt you had been manipulated into firing me, then I would go after the source of the wrongful information. And...that would be your defense..."I acted appropriately given the information I knew..AT THAT TIME."
Try again.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Wrongful termination has entirely different elements from defamation. It's an entirely different kind of case, and most people, unless they have specific contracts, are at-will employees who can be fired for any reason or no reason. Having been defamed is not instant evidence of wrongful termination. It's evidence that the defamation did you damage. Besides, when you work in politics, you can be fired legally for being perceived as a political liability.
Actually, that's exactly a defense in this kind of defamation case. When the plaintiff is a public persona, there are more elements to prove than if the plaintiff is not a public persona. One of those elements will be that the defendant acted not merely to publish an untruth, but that the defendant did so negligently or maliciously. In this case, I'm not even sure you could prove that the defendant NAACP "published" anything. They just reacted to a publication, and they likely did so not maliciously, but to protect their organization from political fallout.
You can call it craven, but probably not defamation.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
...they would just claim that they were manipulated and lied to by Breitbart. Mrs. Sherrod's lawyers know exactly who to go after.
but I just don't see that as a good defense. The NAACP had the raw, unedited tape. As for Vilsack, he has already admitted by apologizing that he fired her unjustly.
that you could become a lawyer. You would be chasing every ambulance that ran a siren in the whole city on a given day.
She said she wouldn't sue the government or the NAACP because both entities apologized. Breitbart to my knowledge has not issued an apology.
and Breitbart is too late.
me-oww!
hu, 07/29/2010 - 11:29 — miss_kitty
and Breitbart is too late.
_______________________________________
breitbart is pregnant?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I hope she sues the crap out of brainfart.
No matter what happens, brainfart is going to have to spend some serious cash to defend himself.
What city is this case supposed to be held in?
What's the composition of the jury pool?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
He gave the usual right wing non-apology apology and also claimed he was "snookered" by the person that gave him the video.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Sort of like: "I'm sorry that you felt defamed by the video that I, I mean, that someone edited to make you look like a racist"?
Both entities admitted that they were wrong in believing the racist lies of Breitbart. They're still assholes, but at least they apologized.
Breitbart knew this was coming. That's why he hasn't apologized or recanted.
I hadn't heard that. That makes my post, and all of the posts since, moot.
You're welcome 4liberty and others. I really hope this lawsuit ends up taking Dimbart down the way he tried to take down Mrs Sherrod and anyone he deems to be in the "institutional left".
She can now call one or both of the entities to testify on the ramifications of not so Breitbarts actions.
Whether it's a good defense or not (I personally don't think it is) is not the issue. The issue is who Sherrod wants to sue. Her lawyer would name the NAACP if she requested, but my guess is that Ms. Sherrod wants to make an ideological point (good for her) rather than a financial one. Breitbart and others on the Right routinely manufacture facts in order to support their specious political and social arguments. A lawsuit offers an unparalled opportunity to expose these hypocrites for who they are. For example, Breitbart claims that he received the edited video from an unidentified third party. My guess is that the unidentified third party does not exist, and that he edited the material himself. We'll find out for sure once/in the event Breitbart is forced to respond to Sherrod's discovery requests.
I don't think she has to do any of that to prove the current case. In fact, because all of the above happened as a result of the doctored tapes it seems to make her case.
It's really easy to point to all the events/evidence of a disrupted/ruined life and sue the source. That would not mean she could not seek remedies separately for each of those events.
that she had to do it to prove her case. I am just pointing out preemptively the spin that could, and most likely will, be brought out about this.
Because the NAACP was likely not acting with the requisite maliciousness to have defamed her character. Not to mention that their particular words might very well not have been defamatory in a legal sense. They were likely just shitting their pants at the long arm (loud mouth?) of the right wing noise machine, and acting politically, even if cravenly.
Besides, their instant reaction only serves as evidence of what the right wing lying liars have been able to get away with for so long, and why.
Because that would be an almost impossible case to make. The president can always find a business necessity in avoiding political liability.
And again, the Administration's instant reaction is just further evidence of how politically frightened people have become at the reach of right wing lies. It only helps Sherrod's defamation case.
Please. When you're defamed, and you lose your job because of it, you sue the person who defamed you. That others around you believed the defamation because your defamers doctored your tape, and they panicked, doesn't mean you sue everyone involved. You sue the guy who intentionally ruined your life. That's essentially what defamation cases are about anyway.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
for a reasoned response to my post. I see your point about the maliciousness surrounding the NAACP. However, I still have a problem about the instant reaction as serving as evidence. They were negligent in not reviewing the evidence that they had before issuing the statement.
And I don't follow the statement "The president can always find a business neccessity in avoiding political liability." I thought Vilsack fired her. And while I understand that Vilsack reports to Obama, Obama was not the one that did it. Unless Obama ordered the firing, and if so, that was not something I was aware of.
>Why isn't she suing the NAACP for defamation. They put out a >statement saying how bad her actions were, even though they had >the unedited tapes but didn't actually review them before putting >out their statement.
>>Because the NAACP was likely not acting with the requisite >>maliciousness to have defamed her character. Not to mention that >>their particular words might very well not have been defamatory >>in a legal sense. They were likely just shitting their pants at >>the long arm (loud mouth?) of the right wing noise machine, and >>acting politically, even if cravenly.
Actual Truth: First, you only need to demonstrate maliciousness in regard to a claim for defamation where the defamed person is a public figure. Georgia's Court of Appeals follows a three-part test for determining who is a limited-purpose public figure: “the court must [1] isolate the public controversy, [2] examine the plaintiff's involvement in the controversy, and [3] determine whether the alleged defamation was germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution v. Jewell, 555 S.E.2d 175, 185 (Ga. App. 2001). In Jewell, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff, a security guard initially hailed as a hero during the 1996 Olympics after discovering a knapsack bomb, was a public figure because he granted a series of media interviews in which he attempted to influence public perception. Applying the reasoning in Jewell to this matter, Breitbart might argue, should the issue ever be litigated, that Sherrod was a public figure because she tried to influence public perception by giving a speech before the NAACP on racial discrimination. My guess is that the argument loses. In the event it loses, Sherrod only needs to show that Breitbart acted negligently. Second, Sherrod's not suing the NAACP because she doesn't want to, not because it's impossible, as you erroneously conclude. She wants Breitbart's hide, not the NAACP's.
>>Besides, their instant reaction only serves as evidence of what >>the right wing lying liars have been able to get away with for >>so long, and why.
>Also, why not suing for wrongfull termination.
>>Because that would be an almost impossible case to make. The >>president can always find a business necessity in avoiding >>political liability.
Actual Truth: Uh . . . no. It doesn't have anything to do with "business necessity," whatever that means. My guess is that she's an appointee given that they asked for her resignation so quickly; if she is, she serves at the pleasure of the president and can be canned for any reason. Thus, she has no claim, but not for the reasons you describe.
>>And again, the Administration's instant reaction is just further >>evidence of how politically frightened people have become at the >>reach of right wing lies. It only helps Sherrod's defamation case.
>Without doing the above, this could be seen as a partisan, >political retribution suit instead of trying to rectify an unjust >harm performed against her.
>>Please. When you're defamed, and you lose your job because of >>it, you sue the person who defamed you. That others around you >>believed the defamation because your defamers doctored your >>tape, and they panicked, doesn't mean you sue everyone involved. >>You sue the guy who intentionally ruined your life. That's >>essentially what defamation cases are about anyway.
Actual Truth: Your argument isn't even remotely true. You can sue people for passing along false information. That is, you aren't immune from liability for defamation simply because you are quoting another person, even if you state that you're only repeating the information you received from another source.
You lie
That was more than one word...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I'd love to see the media explain giving time and effort to a man not accused, but CONVICTED of lying, falsifying evidence, and slander.
...But it wouldn't be the first time a disgraced political figure was actually given center stage.
Maybe now we'll find out exactly who edited the tape.
Let justice be done.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
the courts like our politicans are crooked to the core.
she will lose this one.
the nation has become an immoral nation
the culprit: capitalism an economic system based on greed and profits over society's needs.
one only has to look at our imperialism around the world to see this immoral nation at work.
the good news self destruction of a nation.
what would the universe be like if our capitalist system were successful?
cause and effect or karma take your pick.
ignorance has an origin
find that origin and you will have discovered a profound discovery into the mystery of life.
I hope she wins every cent she is suing for and puts the creep out of business forever.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Make this scumbag pay Mrs Sherrod.
Indeed! The elements of defamation are so easily met, so easily provable. And it's about fucking time.
Yes, she's a public person acting in a public capacity, but that should be no barrier to this particular case. The maliciousness required to be proven is very, very provable.
The case ought not only to be used for Ms. Sherrod's personal grievance, but a precedent and a warning to the rest of the lying liars to our right, that we're mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore. Get ready FUX News. You may have a free speech right to lie in general, but not to defame maliciously, which is what you do every day. As your very own Bull O'Really? might say, we're coming for you!
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I think she could show a pattern of conduct with the other doctored tapes Brietbart has ginned up.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Which would be relevant to Breitbart's maliciousness, but might not even be necessary.
But who cares. Throw the book at this fucker. Whatever they can find, try to get it admitted into evidence.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I was thinking just exposing the creep for all of his BS - but he is already completely discredited to anybody who knows.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Some of his own quotes could go a long way to providing motive. He said (paraphrasing) he aspires to take down the institutional left.
Does anyone remember that Breitbart's explanation for all this shit
was that he "only wanted the parts of the tape that were RELEVANT..."
He said that ON CAMERA, DAMN IT!
Relevant TO WHAT?
For Pete's sake...
how much clearer can the agenda of this waste of DNA be????
Exactly. The achilles heel of these asshats is they are attention whores. They crave attention, and since no one ever calls them on their bullshit, they've become so emboldened that they think they can say ANYTHING.
That is why this case is so important. Acting like a petulant five year old may have consequences.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Relevant to proving his made up bullshit.
:)
me-oww!
He only wanted to the part of the video that he could use to wrongly prove that black people that work in the Obama Admin. are racist and trying to screw over white people any chance they get.
...is that it's not Beck in the hot seat.
. . . Beck's seat might start to feel a little hotter every day for him.
>)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Beck's seat might start to feel a little hotter every day for him.
Loss of bowel control? Oh puleeeease...let it happen on camera!!
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Yes, I agree. As long as I don't have to witness it.
Now it looks like a big loss for the Obama's enemies instead.
That's taking a "turd" and putting a "blossom" on it.
Chicago politics trumps Rovian politics every time.
It's how you win the White House, and it's how you keep the White House.
You brush your shoulder, and you win.
I'm a lot like Ricky Gervais and the Golden Globes: Why?
She needs to take back the hurtful things she said about Barack, and by that I mean the inference that Barack is not as authentically black as she and African Americans of her generation are.
Mrs. Sherrod, raised in the segregated South family victimized by Jim Crow, treated wrongly by the first Black President's Administration, had every right to make those statements.
but for the administration's actions against her, she probably would not have felt the need to utter what you say she did. And maybe she apologised during their phone chat anyway.
At any rate, he's not in short pants anymore; he can take it.
me-oww!
In Fox/Rove/Nutter world, lawsuits like this aren't necessarily bad news. In fact, they may be GOOD news.
Just watch - Sherrod's suit will be spun as yet another Liberal/Racist attack on free speech and conservatism. Breitbart will wear it like a red badge of courage.
and if she loses...well they'll say even MORE of whatever lying bullshit they want, with impunity.
me-oww!
They count on our reacting in exactly that manner. Until we finally stand up to them, even if we lose a few battle along the way, this is how it will always be. They'll establish themselves as the "city hall" that "you can't beat."
Remember when FUX tried to sue Al Franken? He didn't back down. Offered no settlements. Said, bring it on! And FUX was literally laughed out of court. Yes, literally. The judge literally laughed at FUX's lawyers from the bench.
Go for it Shirley!
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I would not want her to back down over my fears. She wouldn't have a chance at winning, unless she tried.
It would be like, say the Dems wanted to pass a law, and had a simple majority, and the Thugs said, "We'll filibuster then," and that caused the Dems to not even try. That would never happen... ;)
me-oww!
So why not go for a few kill shots. No matter what, FUX will lie. However, hit with a multimillion dollar lawsuit, they will fall.
Maybe not this one, maybe not the next one, but one day their number will be up.
for defamation.
Fox pushed this as hard as they could. CNN was just being Fox's little bitch as usual.
Cut the snake off at the head, and watch CNN suddenly grow a pair of balls, peeing their pants that they'll be next.
Andrew? You and your FOX buddies are going to pay for this one.
I don't believe in God. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.
-Andrew Carnegie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oghc8k8mlY
.
I don't believe in God. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.
-Andrew Carnegie
YOU. GO. GIRL!
Maybe if more people did that, they'd discourage these right wing witch hunts.
If Ms Sherrod does prevail against Breitbart and FOX and Co it will be because of Barrack's historic appearance with Joy and The Girls, who gave him the rare opportunity to talk about his experiences, his travails as well as his many,many victories against racism, and evil in general.
it will be because Breitbart and Fox intentionally defamed her, and as a result she suffered a measurable injury.
Obama and the view have absolutely nothing to do with the airing and interpretion of the video, nor with the decision to fire her.
I know they gave her the choice, get fired and that goes on your job reference, or resign and we will just not recommend you for a new job - the bottom line is she was defamed and she suffered measurable damage because of it.
Obama went on the view and talked about Sherrod to cover the ass of his Ag Comissioner. He should have showed up with his boot firmly stuck up the Ag Comissioner's rump.
Next person to be sued should be the asshole who fired her. He cannot possibly have followed procedure in the way the handeled it.
I seriously doubt the Civil Service prodecure for firing includes, "You are going to be on Glen Beck tonight, you have to quit now or I'll fire you now."
...if she'd simply kick him in the nuts, personally.
I hope Sherrod shows the world what a piece of human excrement Breitbart is. I know it won't be a clean fight, but it'll be worth it if the court finds in her favor. This moron took her job and her living away from her with an edited video. He deserves to pay.
I hope she doesn't accept any settlements.
NOBODY 2012
Breitbart will lose. He is NOW claiming that this "was never about Sherrod" but about the audiences reaction (a reaction that proves no racism, BTW). However this is not true. His original post called Sherrod a racist in the very first sentence:
"In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist."
Case closed. He is guilty.
in the suit! That would be very fitting if every single nasty America hating piece of shit that works there were penniless in the very near future.
We should be suing the sh*t out of Fox News, the GOP and Breitbart for all the misery and damage they have inflicted on our lives.
...was the Administration shitting a brick.
They so want this to just disappear.
If they are smart they will stay way way away.
Rupert Murdick could be added to her suit?
It will be extremely interesting to see what Fox does now.
Clearly, Breitbart and Fox intended harm and clearly they both publically aired false claimes about Sharrod.
If Breitbart goes down. Sherrod can go after Fox.
Will Fox continue to defame her or will they put a sock in it and hope everybody, especially tort lawyers forget they were, actually, the biggest player in the defaming of Sherrod?
One commenter yesterday was drooling about all the racism that can be dug up against Sherrod and her husband and how she would haave to defend that on the stand. So maybe Fox will continue to defame her as a racist with better fact checking.
But that is not what this trial would be about. Her racism is not the legal issue. The intention to harm is, and the video Breitbart and Fox used was false.
"...she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one. 'He had to know that he was targeting me,' she said".
From the ABC News link cited in the main.
Comments are closed on this entry