Palin vs. N.Y. Times defamation retrial underway in Manhattan
April 15 (UPI) -- Another jury is hearing former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times after a second federal trial got underway on Tuesday.
The Times in 2022 initially prevailed in Palin's lawsuit accusing the newspaper of defaming her in an editorial following a 2017 mass shooting.
Palin, 61, successfully appealed the 2022 verdict and won a retrial order from the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appellate court ruled the trial judge erred by allowing jurors to have access to their smartphones while deliberating the case and a push notification said the trial judge was prepared to dismiss the case in favor of the Times.
U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff presided over the 2022 trial and is presiding over the retrial, but he prohibited jurors from accessing their phones, smartwatches and other mobile devices while the trial is underway.
Opening arguments in the retail began Tuesday in the Manhattan courthouse for the U.S. District Court for Southern New York.
Editorial error raises First Amendment challenge
Attorney Felicia Ellsworth told the court the Times made an error that was visible on the newspaper's website for 14 hours before revising it.
Ellsworth said the Times' editors did a bad job of describing a graphic that appeared in Palin's campaign materials and called the matter a First Amendment case in which the newspaper is protected against such errors.
"The moment they realized they made a mistake, they did exactly what they should have done and they fixed it," Ellsworth told the court.
"She wants this case to be about how unfairly the media has treated her," Ellsworth said. "She needs to show that they actually knew that they were saying something false but said it anyway."
Attorney Shane Vogt represented Palin during the first trial and is representing her during the retrial.
He said the Times never apologized to Palin and did not include her name when it corrected the editorial error.
A 1964 Supreme Court ruling in the New York Times vs. Sullivan determined news media are protected against defamation lawsuits when they make errors without "actual malice."
Unless done intentionally, media are not accountable for published errors, especially if they correct them after learning of the errors, the court ruled.
2017 'Lethal Politics' editorial
A Times editorial titled "America's Lethal Politics" and published on June 14, 2017, appeared to blame Palin, 61, for inspiring a 2011 shooting by Jared Loughner, who seriously wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz.
The editorial compared Giffords' shooting with the 2017 attack on the House Republicans' charity baseball team as an example of political violence in the United States.
James Hodgkinson of Illinois was 66 when he shot former Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and four others while practicing for a charity baseball game at Eugene Simpson Park in Alexandria, Va., on June 14, 2017.
Responding officers shot and killed Hodgkinson, who the Secret Service said referred to President Donald Trump as a "traitor" and a threat to democracy and was "intensely upset and angry" about the results of the 2016 election, according to the Secret Service.
Hodgkinson was a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and volunteered for Sanders while he sought the Democratic Party nomination for president in Illinois in 2016.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
Politico
37 minutes ago
- Politico
Men in DC are getting their jawlines done
Washington is looking a little different lately — and not just politically. Even the faces of powerful men are beginning to change, as surgeons and dermatologists get more and more male clients looking to enhance their jawlines. 'The surgeons and dermatologists who treat the D.C. power class will never share their patients' secrets,' writes Joanna Weiss in this week's Friday Read. 'Some doctors strategically time surgeries during congressional recess, and many go out of their way to make sure their clients aren't even seen entering the office, using a spy-movie-like web of hidden entries and secret back doors. But they will also tell you that, among the political power set, jaws are currently hot.' In a government led by a TV-obsessed commander-in-chief, appearances are more important in politics than ever. And lately, it's the pursuit of a Chad-like chin that's driving men under the knife. After all, looking weak could be a vulnerability. 'Across the internet and the gossip-journalism universe, it's not hard to find speculation about the mandibles of everyone from the Trump sons to Elon Musk,' Weiss writes. 'And if you're watching TV and wondering if some D.C. figure has a jawline that's newly strong and square … well, you might be right.' Read the story. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' Can you guess who said this about the president? Scroll to the bottom for the answer.** Trump vs. Pride … Dupont Circle is the traditional heart of Washington's local gay community, but you won't see rainbow flags waving through the park for Pride this weekend, as the Trump administration has fenced it off. 'The Park Service claims this is to prevent damage by revelers,' writes Capital City columnist Michael Schaffer. 'But plenty of outraged locals see a more sinister motivation.' Wait, why is everyone talking about a breakup? If you somehow missed the spectacular scrap between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, study up on these talking points so your friends won't think you're living under a rock. (From Associate Editor Dylon Jones) — Make yourself sound like an expert analyst with a word of warning for Trump: 'Seventy-six percent of Republicans view Musk favorably — more than House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and just about everyone else. He could become a real chaos agent who rocks Trump's midterm plans.' — As a political expert, you can speak to the bigger-picture divisions behind this feud: 'This is just the personification of the tech right vs. MAGA populist divide. This was inevitable ever since the H-1B visa debate picked up within the GOP coalition.' — Make sure to bring up Musk's main MAGA antagonist, Steve Bannon. 'Did you see that Bannon quote Rachel Bade got in POLITICO Magazine? 'MAGA's done with him.' He's even suggesting Trump consider deporting him.' — Bring in a dispatch from the podcast circuit for your liberal friends who never tune in: 'JD Vance told Theo Von that he hopes Musk comes back over to their side, but 'maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear.'' Is MAGA Losing the Tech Right? … Elon Musk's dramatic breakup with President Donald Trump isn't just a sign of two strong personalities that had become allies inevitably clashing. It's also a sign of two strong ideologies that had become allies inevitably clashing. There's the tech right Musk embodies, which supports H-1B visas that promote highly skilled immigration, and there's the MAGA populist right, led by Steve Bannon, that staunchly opposes immigration writ large. They had seemed to have struck an uneasy truce. 'But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved,' writes Ian Ward. Butterworth's Doesn't Care About the Bromance Blow-Up … The Musk vs. Trump earthquake was a tectonic event on the internet, but it hardly registered on the Richter scale over at Butterworth's, the fashionable MAGA bistro on Capitol Hill. 'As the denizens of Butterworth's saw things, the kerfuffle was simply the temper tantrum of a disgruntled administration official who'd run afoul of a popular president,' writes Ben Jacobs. 'And Trump's counter attacks dismissing the world's richest man as 'going CRAZY'? Now that was gospel.' Andrew Yang Has a Pitch for Elon Musk … Andrew Yang has been pushing his independent Forward Party for years. But the recent falling out between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has given him a new opportunity to bring the world's richest man into the fold — or, at least, to try. 'Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach,' Yang tells Assistant Editor Catherine Kim. 'I'm happy to spell it out for Elon or anyone else who wants to head down this road: A third party can succeed very quickly.' From the drafting table of editorial cartoonist Matt Wuerker. Who Dissed? answer: That would be his erstwhile ally, Elon Musk, who dropped the allegation in a since-deleted post on X. politicoweekend@
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Democrat-controlled budget office wrongly analyzed Trump's big bill, missed record savings, White House says
The White House is challenging the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's assessment that President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and spending package will raise the federal deficit by trillions of dollars throughout the next decade. The national debt, currently $36.2 trillion, tracks what the U.S. owes its creditors, while the national deficit measures how much the federal government's spending exceeds its revenues. So far, the federal government has spent more than $1 trillion more than it has collected this fiscal year, according to the Department of the Treasury. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued an analysis Wednesday predicting that the so-called "big, beautiful, bill" the House passed in May would increase the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. But according to the White House, the CBO's analysis is based on a faulty premise because it assumes that Republicans in Congress will fail to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts. Rather, the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forecasts that the tax and spending measures would independently reduce deficits by $1.4 trillion. Senate Weighs Trump's 'Big, Beautiful, Bill' As Policy Group Backs Cbo, Projects $3 Trillion Debt Increase Read On The Fox News App Additionally, the White House argues that the measure, coupled with other initiatives like tariffs and other spending cuts, will lead to reducing the deficit by at least $6.6 trillion over 10 years. The "big, beautiful, bill" has faced criticism from figures including SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who labeled the measure an "abomination" and argued that the bill would increase the federal deficit. The measure now heads to the Senate, where lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-K.Y., have voiced opposition to the legislation. Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Faces Resistance From Republican Senators Over Debt Fears Meanwhile, OMB Director Russell Vought told lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday that he believed the CBO's analysis was "fundamentally wrong." "It will lead to reduced deficits and debt of $1.4 trillion," Vought said. "It will reduce mandatory savings of $1.7 trillion. I don't think the way they construct their baseline, not only does it not give a fair shake to economic growth, but it fundamentally misreads the economic consequences of not extending the current tax relief." Failure to pass Trump's tax package would trigger a recession, according to Vought. "We'll have a recession," Vought told lawmakers. "The economic storm clouds will be very dark. I think we'll have a 60% tax increase on the American people." Meanwhile, the White House has accused the CBO of employing those who've contributed to Democratic campaigns, even though CBO Director Phillip Swagel served in former President George W. Bush's administration. Price Tag Estimate For House Gop Tax Package Rises To $3.94T "I don't think many people know this: There hasn't been a single staffer in the entire Congressional Budget Office that has contributed to a Republican since the year 2000," Leavitt told reporters Tuesday. "But guess what, there have been many staffers within the Congressional Budget Office who have contributed to Democratic candidates and politicians every single cycle since. So unfortunately, this is an institution in our country that has become partisan and political." The CBO director is appointed according to the recommendations of the House and Senate Budget Committees. Then-Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, first recommended Swagel in 2019, and then Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, recommended Swagel again in 2023. The CBO did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital on OMB's analysis or claims from the White House about the office being full of staffers who've backed Democrats. Fox News' Deirdre Heavey contributed to this report. Original article source: Democrat-controlled budget office wrongly analyzed Trump's big bill, missed record savings, White House says
