Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned.
So now, it has come to this. Flat out lies.
Actually, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. This is just Liberals doing what they always do. They can't find any skeletons in Palin's closet by seeking the truth, so, they make things up.
When will they learn? They are fighting a battle they cannot win. Surely they are beginning to get the message by now.
Sarah Palin been investigated ad nauseum, she's had every moment of her life scrutinized under a microscope.
The media wolves descended on Wasilla, Alaska in packs during her 2008 Vice Presidential campaign, rabid in their eagerness to discover some tidbit of damaging charges about her. They found nothing but unsubstantiated gossip, which in the end, proved to be false.
She's had her private e-mails hacked. They found nothing.
They've combed through her public e-mails with a fine tooth comb. They found nothing.
They've invented full blown scandals out of rumors and gossip. All ultimately refuted.
Despite all their efforts, they've been unable to find any dirt on her at all. She is squeaky clean.
Sadly, this fact only feeds the frenzy. The total lack of any evidence of immorality or malfeasance makes her even more hated by the left.
Sarah Palin needs to run for President. This is why I say that:
The only campaign strategy the left ever uses to win elections is character assassination. Without that, the Democrat's political positions are weak and cannot withstand honest in-depth investigation. When faced with questions of integrity or morals, Liberals always come down on the wrong side of the fence.
Their only recourse is attack.
It's kind of sad, really. As Lone Ranger has penned, "[Liberals] are like house flies that criticize the air-worthiness of a Stealth fighter.'
She has continually demonstrated that her character is unassailable, so nothing the left can do or say can defeat her.
There is only one credible charge the left has against Palin:
She quit.
Yes, she quit. That charge is true.
I admit, I used to believe she had no chance of victory in a Presidential race solely because of that incontrovertible fact. But, as it turns out, even her resignation was a logical calculated move that was motivated solely by her dedication to the people of Alaska. Even in her resignation, the left can find little honest objection.
Not that they won't try to make her resignation a major issue, of course.
A drowning man will always reach out for anything that floats in an effort to stay above water. In the vain hope of creating a demon out of Sarah Palin, they will grasp at any straw.
But, that's not enough now.
Joe McGinnis has shot himself and his fellow leftists in the foot by publishing this latest pack of lies.
The only segment of the American people that the Democrats need to convince are the independents, and the independents are now going to have sympathy for Sarah Palin and only derision for anyone who would resort to lies to besmirch her.
She will have the sympathy vote.
The left's plan has backfired.
Only, they don't know it yet.
This should be interesting.
15 comments:
"24. Liberals are incapable of attacking the message, so they always attack the messenger."
I haven't worked it out yet, but I think this ties in with the idea of libertarianism as applied autism.
Yep just one little teensy-weensy thing. "She quit."
"her resignation was a logical calculated move that was motivated solely by her dedication to the people of Alaska."
She quit out of dedication to the people of Alaska?
What a pitifully deluded statement! I'm going to be talking about this one for weeks.
She quit because she couldn't get as much attention and not NEARLY as much money as governor of Alaska as she could doing a reality show for Fox and strutting around the country raising money for Sarah-PAC. Her "sole" motivation is MONEY!
That's your opinion, Jim. Obviously you are still willing to believe the worst about her, but it really makes no difference why she quit.
Stalker McGinnis has insured the independents will forgive Palin anything just to punish McGinnis and all the other Sarah hating Liberals for being such dishonest, hateful, vengeful jerks.
If Palin enters the race for President, this promises to end very badly for the Democrats, something I would have never said before McGinnis's hit piece.
"If Palin enters the race for President'
If she enters the race I will bow down before you on this blog. But she actually has to compete in all primaries through January of 2012.
But she won't. She can't make enough money actually running for president. Fox will have to drop her, for one thing. And by the way, have you seen her ranking in the polls lately? She said all summer long that she would announce in September, didn't she? She's going to drag this out as long as she can.
And...I'm sure McGinnis is shaking in his boots. Can't wait for Palin to prove the "lies" in his book. I mean, what is she SUPPOSED to do but threaten to sue. Good luck with that.
I don't believe she'll have to prove he lied. I believe he'll have to prove that what he wrote about is true. Yeah, I was pre-law (or was it pre-med), but I don't recall that she really needs to do any more than to list the things he said she doesn't like and then he'll have to prove what he said is true.
I got this from FreeDictionary.com
"To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication."
I think Palin can check off all four conditions. There is some aspect regarding malice, and considering the guy moved in next door for the express purpose of finding something wrong with her, that shouldn't be a stretch. What's more, I doubt she'll need to succeed in refuting every lie in the book. I would think one would do.
I'm pessimistic. I've thought before that the left had finally overstepped and shot themselves in the foot before - but they're like zombies; they never stop.
"To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements"
You forgot the first part. The "communication" must be proved false. Then it must be proved that McGinnis had reasonable knowledge that it was false.
As in any civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof unless there is a prima facie case on her side. For instance, if McGinnis asserted that Palin's hair color was not her natural hair color, she would have to prove that it was. She could strip to show that the carpet matched the drapes. Then the burden of proof would be on McGinnis to prove that Palin used the bottle in both locations.
If McGinnes failed to prove that, then Palin would have to prove that the statement was defamatory (good luck with that). And then she would have to prove that she was financially harmed by the defamation (really good luck with that).
So this filing suit business is simply bluster and bluff unless of course Palin is willing to drop her drawers (so to speak), uh, without being paid to do it (TLC or Fox?).
"I don't recall that she really needs to do any more than to list the things he said she doesn't like and then he'll have to prove what he said is true."
I think that is case law in Iran. Not here. It must have been pre-med.
Also from the same source as earlier:
"A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false."
The emboldened section is very likely. The jerk set up shop with the express purpose of finding fault. To suppose he wasn't serious about confirming suspicions shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate. I would suspect that if he had any proof of his allegations of her, he would be compelled to provide them. These could include pictures, recordings, testimonies from sources, etc. I don't believe he is free to say anything he wants about her without his having to prove his contentions. It would seem to me that ANY accusation by anyone toward anyone else should fall under the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty". She might have to prove malice on his part, but he should have to come forth with what he has that proves his allegations of her.
Indeed, his moving in next door to spy on her seems quite malicious in and of itself.
"To suppose he wasn't serious about confirming suspicions shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate."
It isn't hard to suppose anything you want. However, an author and his publisher would have to be insane to publish anything defamatory that they knew was false or that did not have adequate sourcing. Accepted practice is that two sources constitutes a defense against "reckless disregard".
"I would suspect that if he had any proof of his allegations of her, he would be compelled to provide them."
You may suspect that, but again, she would have to demonstrate that an allegation is false and then prove again that he had reason to believe it was false. Only then would he be "compelled" to provide his evidence.
The problem for Palin is that she has the burden of proof, not McGinnis. And to try to prove any of the allegations are false, she's going to have to dredge it all up in court and provide witnesses to refute the allegations.
And what a great reality show that would be!
She's bluffing because the best thing for her to do is ignore McGinnis.
You assume that she is not courageous enough and determined enough to defend herself against published charges by a worm who took up residence next door for the purpose of finding dirt. You assume that he and his publisher are not above printing questionable allegations under the assumption that she wouldn't make a serious effort to defend herself against them.
I don't believe it is true that if I write a book wherein I say that you have sex with animals that I can sit back while you try to prove you didn't do what never happened. How does one go about that exactly? You're saying that anyone can accuse anyone else of just about anything without hard proof. You're saying that anyone is free to hint the worst about another without having to defend the accusation. You're saying that Sarah Palin has to prove that she's not a witch, but because McGinness is accusing her in a book, rather than in a court of law, that it is OK. You're saying that a woman who supposedly quit Alaska politics for money wouldn't take a guy like McGinness to court to sue his sorry ass.
You seem to have some sort of a fetish about McGinniss living temporarily next to the Palins. What? You think he stares through binoculars looking for letters from Glen Rice on the Palin picnic table? You think he hops over the fence at night and rummages through their house? There is nothing he could do in the house next door that he couldn't do in the Motel 6 across town.
"You assume that she is not courageous enough and determined enough to defend herself against published charges by a worm"
Not at all. If they are defamatory, false and cause her monetary harm, I would expect her to fight. But I doubt they are particularly defamatory, they surely will not cause her monetary damages, and they probably aren't false. Her best course of action is to ignore the book just like Bush ignored the books about him. The books were forgotten in short order. Palin would do well to follow suit.
AND There it is. Once more, the anonymous troll "jim' ( who I believe to be a consortium of lesbians in jail who have a "fetish" for Obama--email me for an exclusive report from a source who says he/she bribed guards to live in the cell next to them) proves he is a completely clueless moron. He never disappoints!
Joe McGinness is a weasel. Remember all the controversy over Fatal Vision?
"You seem to have some sort of a fetish about McGinniss living temporarily next to the Palins. What?"
Why? Because I give an opinion on a topic brought up by someone else? And then respond to statements YOU make on the same subject? By this, I would imagine you have an equal fetish for McGinness or one for Palin, which wouldn't be bad considering she's a babe.
"You think he stares through binoculars looking for letters from Glen Rice on the Palin picnic table? You think he hops over the fence at night and rummages through their house? There is nothing he could do in the house next door that he couldn't do in the Motel 6 across town."
I stated what I think, which is that he moved in next door in hopes of finding something he could use to discredit her. And no, he couldn't do that as easily in a motel across town. Obviously.
"Her best course of action is to ignore the book just like Bush ignored the books about him."
That may be. I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But we weren't talking about what her best course is, but about whether she could nail him for defamation and whether she has the stones to do so.
Post a Comment