 |
| Just a goldurn minute. |
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan devised an extraordinary procedure this summer in Sarah Palin’s defamation case against The New York Times, calling an early-stage evidentiary hearing to obtain testimony from Times witnesses. The judge said he called the hearing to give Palin, the former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate, a fighting chance to establish that the Times acted with actual malice, a requisite for defamation claims against a public figure. Rakoff concluded not long after the evidentiary hearing that Palin couldn’t plausibly allege the Times’ ill will, even with the procedural bootstrap he had provided. He dismissed her case with prejudice.
In a new motion for reconsideration, Palin’s lawyers at Bajo Cuva Cohen Turkel and Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe suggest that Judge Rakoff’s usual process went awry, leading the judge to speculate – and reach speculative conclusions – about what Palin might have asserted in an amended complaint.
The article really gets into the weeds about the legality of how the judge made his decision, and the chances that Palin can successfully re-litigate this case (Spoiler alert: Not a snowball's chance in hell.), but ultimately it seems more of like an act of desperation to keep her name in the papers than a faithful attempt to get "justice" for Palin.
Most people recognized at the very beginning that Palin had no case here, so the idea that they would fight for a different verdict seems quixotic at best.
However this also reinforced my initial belief that this whole thing is being bankrolled by some conservative backers who are looking for a way to attack the New York Times and damage their reputation.
Palin would NEVER spend this much money on a lost cause.
Hell she wouldn't even spend this much money on one of her kids. Or is that essentially the same as a lost cause?
Source http://ift.tt/2xGTOFp
