1 Take 'em down, Vicky. Take 'em down hard. Beat the hell out of them with legal fees (both sides) and then for the $27 million. The sooner the NYT vampire has the stake driven through its heart, the better. Your lawsuit is just one more big hammerstroke on that wooden spike.

2 She better hurry while they still have some assets to satisfy any judgment she may get.

3 Even if she doesn't get a dime but takes them down, it'll be worth it.

4 MexCain should have sued when it might have made a difference.

5 This might be the first time a newspaper has been totalled.

6 Sweet.  That Allen guy is a damn good plaintiff's attorney and a democrat.  He's not taking the case to make a statement - he must think there is some cash to be had.  Smolla is pretty highly regarded as well.

7 Yeah, because a lawsuit is exactly what you want during a presidential campaign.

8 Could she wind up owning a portion of the Red Sox? 

9 I'd hit it. Vicky, not the NYT, that is.

10 A lawsuit would not have hurt Mac. His lack of balls hurt him. He turned into a completely befuddled useless pussy when it came time to be a fucking fighter pilot.

11 I just heard this on Fox News...I was kinda-sorta napping, so I wasn't sure I'd heard right.

Sweet!

12 Given the financial state of the NYT, she'll be lucky to get $2.70.

13

I wonder if she can actually win. The article implied something salacious, but journalistic bottom-feeders know how to libel within the legal limit. The New York Times has plenty of practice. 

But Iseman and her attorney may not expect to win. They may be counting on the Times to pay off rather than expose their damaged brand to further damage in open court. It may be worth a million to make this go away.

14 Iseman waited to file the suit until after the presidential election, in an effort to avoid influencing its outcome, her lawyers said.

Yes, because it's okay to have false rumors influence the outcome of a presidential election, but not a spirited rebuttal against them.  That's brilliant thinking.

Qwinn

15 I'd hit it. Vicky, not the NYT, that is.

Really?  Because I'd hit the NYT.  With an aluminum bat.

16

Oh boy, I can hardly wait.  The lawsuit will be proclaimed to be a threat to the very existence of the NYT and, consequently, the viability of a free press.  President Obama will allocate some TARP billions to bail out his propaganda machine(s).  Let the healing begin, Chicago Style.

More importantly, will commentators on AOSHQ qualify for Fourth Estate bailout funds?  I wait patiently for my check, unicorn, and rainbow. 

17 Waste of time.  She can't prove $27M worth of "damage" to her reputation.  Indeed, one can argue that her value as a lobbiest has been enhanced by rumors that she was real close with a notable senator.  Clients like it when you're willing to do anything to get your point across.

18 Vicky is pretty confident I think.  This isn't the sort of thing you file unless you are angry and have the facts.  Also the NYT will have to put up with this being spread all over the talking head shows on FOX now.  And that Discovery stuff works both ways.  I have always wondered just how vile journalists' e-mails must be.  Maybe we'll get to find out.

19 Can you even get 27 Mil out of those fucking leftards? Maybe Schmaltzfucker Jr. will have to sell his sex dungeon.

20 PA,
This isn't about her reputation.  It's about hurting the Times.  They'll settle, and the settlement will be pretty large.

21 Depending upon what discovery shows the Times was up to she might be able to hurt some journalists' individual pocket books.

22 I hope the Times is forced to sell the Boston Globe to Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove.

23 I think that you are all overlooking the obvious.  If the NYT says it, it's true.

24 If she does bring down the Times, it would be the second good thing to come from McCain's run.

25 Scoundrels, every last one of 'em.

26 "She better hurry while they still have some assets to satisfy any judgment she may get." If they can't come up with the $27MM this will do...it would make a nice crip I think....

27 Oh and did I mention that no one is going to want to buy this newspaper with this hanging out there unresolved?  They'll settle.

28  Heh. Owning the building would rock.

29 The NYT has staff lawyers on salary, she probably doesn't.  That alone tells you who will probably prevail.  They'll just run her out of money.

30 http://tinyurl.com/4zu9cg

31

I am thinking there maybe a lawyer or two out there thay may take this case on contingency.

Just thinkin...

32 I wish Mrs. McLame would sue the "reporter" slut dem. that went after her daughter's friends...Surely there are some others that need suing....own petard sort of thing.  While we are at it some Palin lawsuits too....by the way, what happened to that little dem. hacker.

33 PA,

These cases are taken on a contingency fee basis.  The times has a problem here.  A big one.

34 They'll just run her out of money.

That's what contingency fees are for.  It's about time someone hit them back.

35 Judgment is worthless here.  Try collecting from the Old Gray Bag-lady.

36

She, and this lawsuit, are spooge-worthy indeed.

How beautiful would it be if she wins and greatly contributes to the downfall of the NYT?

 

 

37 I hope the Times is forced to sell the Boston Globe to Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove.

Rush could by the NYT right now.  How sweet would it be if he did so as an anonymous investor and then made Pinch/Punch/Paunch Sulzberger dance in Times Square for a hamburger?

38 34 They'll just run her out of money.
That's what contingency fees are for.  It's about time someone hit them back.


True.  So please tell everyone center-right to stop railing against contingency fees.

39 by=buy.  Does not = bi.  Just sayin'.

40

All the news that sticks, we print.

Wait....

She's doing what?

41 The NYSlimes can't come up with $0,27 in cash without floating a loan. They are like a catfish thrown in mudhole, flop around a while but eventually die and stink up the place.

42 NY Times editor: "But... but... they're Republicans! I thought we could lie about them with impunity! They can't sue us! Quick; get out the long list of liberal judges."
/sarc

43 I don't think the Sullivan standard would apply to her.  She isn't a public person, nor has she thrust herself into the limelight.  The NYT may have some real problems here.

44

Good luck to her. Hope she takes that worthless organization for everything it's worth. Granted, that's not that much these days, but still...

The only complaint I have here is that this is just now happening.

45 Interesting question, can the NYT apply the Sullivan standard to her? She' a public figure, because they made her one...

46 Well, they must be holding pocket aces with ace-ace-king on the board if they're making this much noise about it. Here's hoping.

tmi3rd

47 27 million ought to put them out of business right?

48  I hope that she wins the money, and screws the Slimes over in the process...just another nail in their coffin...

49

The thing about Sullivan, I believe, is that while it sets a damn high difficult bar for libel against a public official, it does not set an impossible one.

Meaning that if Iseman does have the facts on her side (and she has to be to be getting involved in this) and can prove that the Times intentionally lied about her (a third party not seeking the spotlight) and her sex life to maliciously or recklessly attack an ideological opponent, then this is damning.

If a court finds that the Times is culpable, especially because the standards set by Sullivan were intentionally set so damn high, then this is, to be truthful, a devastating shaming that may never be overcome. This would be ironic since Sullivan was a case that originally involved the once-proud Times.

And while I don't think that it would actually involve the actual legal case, the facts that she did wait untill after the election will play well with the court of public opinion.  

50 Why are these evil Rethuglicans constantly trying to distract Barry ?

51

To elaborate further to a hypothetical small potatoes scenario.

Sullivan creates a very high bar to libel against a public official, especially politicians, because the dangers of restricting the free flow of political speech due to fear of lawsuit, especially frivilous lawsuit, is much more dangerous than the occasional risk of a reputation being unfairly harmed.

However, if a small town publisher simply hates a local political official, he can not intentionally sceme to tell outright malicious lies about that official. He can't blatantly lie and say this official likes little boys, or burnt down a church, or accidently killed someone while drunk back in college.

I don't think that Sullivan protects against an actual conspiracy to lie.

But such situations discussing whether Sullivan applies or not usually have to be hypothetical, because acheiveing that high bar of proof and culpability is extremely rare.

So for the NY Times, the supposed paper of record, the supposed standard by which all journalists and publishers should judge themselves by, to be brought down so low as to be guilty of libeling Iseman, and by extention John McCain, is breathtaking.

If this were in Japan, Pinch would pretty much be forced to disembowel himself to save face.

52 Sullivan can be overcome. Knowledge of falsehood is hard, but its cohort "reckless disregard of the truth," is much easier. Arguably, reckless disregard of facts where Republicans are concerned is S.O.P. at the Slimes. Obviously, the Slimes will attempt to argue Sullivan is the standard, while Iseman will argue she is a private figure. IIRC, the libel of private figures standard is simply (1) falsehood; (2) publication; and (3) lack of "due care." Again, the amount of care injected by the partisan hack Mediacrats at the NYT has to be minimal in most cases. I think she will probably settle for a much smaller sum. But I hope she doesn't. It would be great to have a 20,000-candlepower spotlight on these cockroaches for a few months...just to remind everyone how much and why we hate their ever-living guts. Pukes.

53 Lee-- A conspiracy to lie is most definitely not protected. In fact, a proven conspiracy is prima facie evidence of knowledge of falsehood, ergo, guilt.

54

Fresh Air ~ I'm definately not a lawyer, just remembering from a first amendment class I took back in college. But I think I'm generally right on this. I'm sure you and some other morons out there can shed some more light on this.  

55 Hell if the Times loses, they might have to turn Gail Collins and MoDo out on the street to turn tricks (not just rhetorical either). That oughtta bring in $3 or $4 bucks a night

56 If this were in Japan, Pinch would pretty much be forced to disembowel himself to save face.

Oooh! Change of venue, please!

57 Even first year law student wouldn't take the case unless it was rock solid...

...I just hope she doesn't settle.

58 Well, since the NYT is on its way down the toilet, of course she won't get it all even if the case is rock-solid.  What she gets with a judgment is a seat at the table in bankruptcy court.

59 Awe.  Some.

60 Isn't that 27,000 large?  Or has the large been embiggened?

61 Schmaltz!

62 So you're saying a "large" is a "stack of high society" or a "big one".

63 mill = a million dollars or a million pounds. Interestingly mill is also a non-slang technical term for a tenth of a USA cent, or one-thousandth of a dollar, which is an accounts term only - there is no coinage for such an amount. The word mill is derived simply from the Latin 'millisimus' meaning a thousandth, and is not anything to do with the milled edge of a coin.

The more correct slang term for 27 million dollars is 27 mill according to the money slang website.

64 IF the discovery process reveals that the "un-named sources" cited by the article from the McCain camp were either non-existent, or mis-quoted by the TImes- then they're well and truly fucked

65 Can the jury award more than she is seeking?

66 Better late than never I guess :/

67 Every right wing advocacy group will contribute to her cause just to get discovery, she probably has deeper pockets at this point then the slimes.  The potential liability and legal costs associated with this are going to be reported and further drag on their worthless stock.

Hell, I bet the WaPo tosses a few bucks her way.

68

29 The NYT has staff lawyers on salary, she probably doesn't.  That alone tells you who will probably prevail.  They'll just run her out of money.

Not only are her lawyers likely working on contingency, as several above have mentioned, but the NYT will have to hire lawyers in Virginia to defend the case.  Plus depositions and responding to discovery requests will tie everyone involved up in knots, leaving them even less time to practice their version of "journalism". 

69 To add to Buzz, she filed in the Rocket Docket, this isn't going to take years. 

70 These things happen.

71 "Can the jury award more than she is seeking?"

I wouldn't think so; however, the complaint probably has a catch-all request for something like "any and all other lawful relief as may be deemed appropriate," which opens the door to them doing anything.

72

The Times still has a few assets of value, mostly real estate. I believe they have a small share of the Red Sox. And ultimately their brand name is still salable.

But the brand is vulnerable to this lawsuit. Under Pinch, the Times has grown in partisanship while bleeding out its integrity. The newspaper used to come into court swinging a ponderous reputation. Not any longer. 

I wonder if Iseman is holding more than just a malicious bit of Times' hatchetry. She must have sworn statements from McCain staffers. What about tapes?

Does she have anything from inside the Times? That article embarrassed a lot of liberal reporters with its naked agenda and lack of evidence. What about within the Times itself? 

The 'story' would not have been pursued and published without the active  involvement of Pinch. He's an idiot. Can he hold up in court?

I doubt the Times will let this go to a jury.

73

The Times still has a few assets of value, mostly real estate. I believe they have a small share of the Red Sox. And ultimately their brand name is still salable.

But the brand is vulnerable to this lawsuit. Under Pinch, the Times has grown in partisanship while bleeding out its integrity. The newspaper used to come into court swinging a ponderous reputation. Not any longer. 

I wonder if Iseman is holding more than just a malicious bit of Times' hatchetry. She must have sworn statements from McCain staffers. What about tapes?

Does she have anything from inside the Times? That article embarrassed a lot of liberal reporters with its naked agenda and lack of evidence. What about within the Times itself? 

The 'story' would not have been pursued and published without the active  involvement of Pinch. He's an idiot. Can he hold up in court?

I doubt the Times will let this go to a jury.

74

If the Izeman team can get some of the "sources" to testify under oath that the Times fucked with their statements, lied, manipulated, or otherwise distorted what they said- shes going to be a rich woman.

 

 

75

On the other hand- and I dont handle any defamation cases- Im not so sure the definition of defamation includes libel by "implication" and "reading between the lines". I would think the salacious comments would have to be pretty direct and explicit

But Im not sure.

76 Perception is everything. The Times' retraction was pathetic and hidden, as their apologies always are. This same derelict media has the public believing that Palin said she can see Russia from her house also has caused this mess. The Times is pure scum. I only wish that Iseman made it $100 million.

77 I cannot help but notice that this does not appear on the front page of the Times, as did the original article.

78 May she have victory in this most glorious of battles!

79 I remember a time when 27 large would have meant $27,000.  Damn inflation.

80

The newspaper used to come into court swinging a ponderous reputation.

Coincidently, I also have the reputation of swinging something quite ponderous. You know what I mean ladies? Awww right... giggity.

81 The Times 'source' is THEMSELVES.  Just like every other you hear sources referred to as 'some people' 'experts' 'many' etc.  Fuck them all.  I hope they don't leave too many streaks on the bowl.

The NYT building should be used as a homeless shelter.

82

The NYT building should be used as a homeless shelter.

Too late.

83 Um, 27 large would mean, $27,000. In Chicago terminology, this would be 27 fuckin' HUGE.