READER COMMENTS ON

"Village Voice: Palin Attorney Swings and Misses on 'HouseGate' Scandal Questions"

(26 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... another joe said on 7/7/2009 @ 2:56 pm PT...





GIVE 'EM HELL, BRAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The sheer mass of wingnut trolls and apologists that showed up here and all over the bloggosphere to attack anyone that even questions why a Governor would unexpectedly step down is utterly amazing. And the fact that little johnny mclame put her on his presidential ticket makes discussing her inability to maintain commitments to the citizens of Alaska even more compelling. You have them running scared - when a bunch of weirdos show up here, posting under a variety of different names, and making insane proclaimations and threats, they know that this is potential scandal of MAMMOTH proportions. Please keep posting updates and following this story. If the trolls keep showing up, please consider it additional truth that you are doing the citizens of this nation an OUTSTANDING SERVICE!

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Plumber said on 7/7/2009 @ 3:08 pm PT...





Didn't the FBI refute it?

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... another joe said on 7/7/2009 @ 3:21 pm PT...





Plumber - fbi does not speak for every other agency in the federal government such as IRS, DOJ, etc.. And it is highly unusual for them to categorically deny something like this. Just the fact that the lying liars in the mainstream media and folks like you proclaim that a scoop by the rag-sheet la times should end all dialog means that someone is trying to cover up something VERY BIG!

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 7/7/2009 @ 3:25 pm PT...





Comment #2...Plumber Have you ever considered that it may not be an FBI investigation ?

Have you even considered that the FBI may not want to comprimise their current investigation by revealing that investigation(if they are investigating)?

Have you considered that it may indeed be a State law enforcement investigation ? Just a few of things to ponder... By the way...why hasn't Sarah Palin filed her lawsuit yet ? the blogosphere hasn't stop reporting on the iceberg story; hell more sites are reporting it now.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... DES said on 7/7/2009 @ 3:31 pm PT...





The FBI refuted nothing, Plumber --- they simply stated “Sarah Palin is not the subject of an FBI investigation”. Which is interesting since it looks like no one ever said the FBI was investigating. Also, the FBI is not the only federal agency that conducts investigations. There are also state agencies that investigate corruption as well.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Axey said on 7/7/2009 @ 4:01 pm PT...





Sarah Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein spent his July 4 in Fairbanks, Alaska, issuing a four-page statement warning news organizations not to investigate allegations printed by the Voice last October. Starting off on a bad note, since nowhere in the letter does Van Flein warn anyone not to investigate allegations. In fact, he invites investigation by offering tidbits on where to look.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Plumber said on 7/7/2009 @ 4:20 pm PT...





And it is highly unusual for them to categorically deny something like this. I agree completely.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Plumber said on 7/7/2009 @ 4:23 pm PT...





BlueHawk, I'm still waiting for you to address the malice issue in Sullivan. That's okay, but it truly changes the playing field and not recognizing that could mean trouble for a lot of people.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... DES said on 7/7/2009 @ 4:31 pm PT...





Eh, starting off on a bad note yourself, there, Axey --- nowhere in the letter does Van Flein say or even imply that he "invite[s] investigation", so, "in fact", you inferred that. Also, you're quoting Will Barret's characterization of Van Flein's letter as excerpted in the Village Voice, not Brad.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Axey said on 7/7/2009 @ 4:41 pm PT...





COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... DES said on 7/7/2009 @ 4:31 pm PT... I'm aware the quote was from Barrett. In fact, I followed the link and read the entire post. And yes, the attorney invites investigation when he says "basic journalism and fact checking would confirm this".

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 7/7/2009 @ 5:17 pm PT...





Comment #8...Plumber... The verbatim Sullivan vs New York Times 1964 libel case; The opinion by the SCOTUS written by Justice Brennan is as follows... If you want to wade through the whole opinion it's here... http://caselaw.lp.findla...mp;vol=376&invol=254 "Cases which impose liability for erroneous reports of the political conduct of officials reflect the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors. . . . The interest of the public here outweighs the interest of appellant or any other individual. The protection of the public requires not merely discussion, but information. Political conduct and views which some respectable people approve, and others condemn, are constantly imputed to Congressmen. Errors of fact, particularly in regard to a man's mental states and processes, are inevitable. . . . Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate." 13 According to SCOTUS Shannyne Moore or any other journalist have first amendment protection in reporting the news. If that news is found to be in error then they can retract, but it's not libel. The SCOTUS valued the free flow of ideas and public discourse over shackling that free flow with libel...in short Govt. officials can't sue if something isn't factual. They have the same medium to get the facts out.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... DES said on 7/7/2009 @ 5:37 pm PT...





To further BlueHawk's point, the Supreme Court defined 'actual malice' quite specifically: "Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice"--that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

...

(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice"--knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth--is alleged and proved." Moore said there were rumors of an investigation. It would be difficult for Palin's attorney to prove that there were no rumors of investigations.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Plumber said on 7/7/2009 @ 6:55 pm PT...





BlueHawk, I've read the opinion. You continue to avoid this: The court thus sustained the trial court's instruction as a correct statement of the law, saying: "In such a case the occasion gives rise to a privilege, qualified to this extent: any one claiming to be defamed by the communication must show actual malice or go remediless. This privilege extends to a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of [376 U.S. 254, 282] public concern, public men, and candidates for office." 78 Kan., at 723, 98 P., at 285. When there is intentional malice as there clearly was in the Moore report, there is a remedy and that remedy is money. That is the absolute guts of the decision. Moore wasn't reporting news. News is factual. Her report was a malicious rumor designed to hurt Palin. It reminds me Jason Leopold's scoop about Rove being "frogmarched from the white house" in 24 "business" hours. So at the least this is not a cakewalk for Ms. Moore. You and she may relish the opportunity to be sued, but if Palin decides to proceed it will be a costly one.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Plumber said on 7/7/2009 @ 7:45 pm PT...





Des, You may be right, but if I were Moore I wouldn't be quite that smug tonite. I suspect she is not the only one. I'd say there certainly was "reckless disregard" for the truth that was repeated many other places, including here. But good luck with it.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 7/7/2009 @ 7:54 pm PT...





When there is intentional malice as there clearly was in the Moore report What the hell are you talking about, Plumber? What "malice"?? If you don't know who Shannyn is, she's also the one who debunked the so-called Palin book-ban list, and other such myths. I appreciate that you and the Palin protecorate have an agenda here, Plumber. But if you could avoid simply making stuff up outta thin air, in hopes of pushing it, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 7/7/2009 @ 8:56 pm PT...





So Plumber... Do you actually think Sarah Palin can PROVE to a court that Shannyne Moore was motivated by malice ? good luck wid dat...

With malice comes tangible INJURY...unless Sarah Palin can demonstrate injury above and beyond what any other elected official endures then she has NO CASE. I've used the example of Bill Clinton before...right wing media outright accused Bill Clinton of murder. They did it for years regularly. I can't think of any elected officials who endured the lies, smears and MALICE of some in the media (right wingers).

Yet they never sued or even threatened a lawsuit. Both were lawyers educated at the best institutions, yet they didn't sue... ask yourself; why ?

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Gos said on 7/8/2009 @ 12:34 am PT...





YEAH WHO CARES ABOUT THIS PARTISAN CRAP? sUP WITH HONDURAS BRAD? SUP WITH CYNTHIA MCKINNEY? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Axey said on 7/8/2009 @ 9:57 am PT...





ask yourself; why ? They killed Vince Foster? I keed, I joke. Run over to the newest thread. I mentioned you.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... DES said on 7/8/2009 @ 10:16 am PT...





Sorry that our discussion of the subtler points of constitutional law is boring to you, Gos! I think the sticking point, Plumber, seems to be the definition of 'malice' in the Sullivan case. Brennan makes a point in that decision to clarify the definition of 'actual malice' as distinct from the common usage of 'malice', the intent to cause harm. Common malice is difficult to prove because it involves proving a person's state of mind at a given moment. Brennan acknowledged the subjectivity of this, and so clarified with the logic that a person who would say or publish something they know to be untrue must have malicious intent, thereby arriving at the legal, provable definition of 'actual malice'. The first test here, as I understand it, is that the information must first be untrue, and then and only then does the second test --- the legal definition of 'actual malice' --- come into play: the person must then have known that the information was untrue at the time of publication, or had reckless disregard for finding out if it was true. In the case of rumors of an investigation from an unknown entity, the plaintiff would have to prove that there were no rumors, not that there was no investigation, as that is what Moore and Brad actually said. If it was twisted or conflated from 'rumors of an investigation' to just 'an investigation' by others as it spread across the internet, then the plaintiff would likely have to seek relief from those other entities for getting the quotes wrong. The last test that would have to be proved to satisfy Sullivan, I believe, is that the plaintiff must prove actual damages, and prove the amount being sought as well. As Palin announced her resignation from office in that rambling speech prior to Moore's statements, the plaintiff would likely then have the difficult task of proving that it was Moore's specific statements that were the cause of any subsequent damage to Palin's reputation, rather than Palin's speech or any stories about her in the media prior or subsequent to Moore's July 3rd statements. It's my understanding that all three of those tests must be simultaneously answered in the affirmative to satisfy Sullivan.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 7/8/2009 @ 2:20 pm PT...





Comment #19...Des Well said...

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... woemstac said on 7/8/2009 @ 2:49 pm PT...





What will happen if it turns out Palin really is being investigated by someone other than the FBI, but they conclude no wrongdoing?

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Mustafa said on 7/9/2009 @ 7:09 am PT...





It was the LA Times that broke Uncle Ted's scandal in 2003, it was the LA Times that broke the story of organized crime in Alaska in 1974.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... DES said on 7/9/2009 @ 11:57 am PT...





woemstac @ #21 said: What will happen if it turns out Palin really is being investigated by someone other than the FBI, but they conclude no wrongdoing? My guess would be...nothing.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... tomandlou said on 7/11/2009 @ 8:22 pm PT...





Seems to me it would be very easy to investigate. Discover how many windows,railing glass,fixtures etc that match the fixtures in the home against those used in the complex.If the sum of both adds up to the amount ordered for the complex. I guess that would answer a lot of questions (or generate a lot of questions.Just speculating.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Deeper Voice said on 7/19/2009 @ 6:03 am PT...





My guess would be...nothing as well.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... deeper voice said on 9/15/2009 @ 6:58 am PT...

