Sarah Palin is on the attack, and if there’s one thing you don’t want to do with a hockey mom, it’s goading her into a fight.
Palin is currently bringing a defamation suit against the New York Times for an article that linked her to the 2011 attack on Gabby Giffords.
In an editorial, the Times actually blamed former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for inciting the shooting of former Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords. Despite there being absolutely zero evidence that Giffords’ shooting was political, the “Slimes” still tried to point the finger at Palin, as if to compare what was truly an incited incident by a left-wing lunatic.
The paper was forced to admit that there was no evidence linking Palin to the attack, yet they still rant the story anyway. Palin was furious at the Times and brought a suit against them for defamation. The paper may not even be able to win the case, which just shows how bad the reporting was.
The next step that she plans to take is to subpoena nearly two dozen reporters, editors, and other workers from the paper, the New York Post revealed. The request was discovered in court documents after the paper demanded that the case be dismissed; lawyers for the defendant complained that she had given notice about plans to subpoena 23 staffers from the paper.
The subpoenas are part of Palin’s effort to obtain “documents that might reveal, among other things, their ‘negative feelings’ toward her,” the Times told the judge.
Palin’s legal team also intends to ask the paper to produce “every internal communication it has had about her since 2011,” they said.
Palin’s team is looking for evidence that shows the paper’s true intent towards her leading up to the story that was published in June. The paper’s lawyers argue that she has no case because she cannot prove “actual malice,” which is the legal standard for a libel case.
However, as we reported, the Times may not be able to make that case because of how they fabricated the link. While evidence may or may not be found that shows the paper wanted to “get her,” the fact that the link was known to be fallacious, yet the story was published anyway, may pass the legal test.