• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Todd Palin says McGinniss book is "lies, innuendo and smears"

Is Sarah Palin silent? If so, until she speaks I think it's telling.
 
RandFan said:
Is Sarah Palin silent? If so, until she speaks I think it's telling.
Click to expand...

That's a wonderfully ironic sentence.

She says of McGinniss, "Bless his heart, he needs to get a life."

On the specific allegation McGinniss makes that both Sarah and Todd have used cocaine, Todd's denying it outright in the strongest of terms. McGinniss says he has spoken to someone who did cocaine along with the Palins.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's a wonderfully ironic sentence.

She says of McGinniss, "Bless his heart, he needs to get a life."

On the specific allegation McGinniss makes that both Sarah and Todd have used cocaine, Todd's denying it outright in the strongest of terms. McGinniss says he has spoken to someone who did cocaine along with the Palins.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think it's original. However, the sounds of silence can be deafening is an old meme.
 
RandFan said:
I'd like to think it's original. However, the sounds of silence can be deafening is an old meme.
Click to expand...

But that idea combined with the double meaning of "telling". . .

Anyway, I don't know if what she said counts as saying anything. It was rather something that sounded like a clever put down that actually didn't say anything at all. (It was not a denial of anything, so I guess that's strictly Todd's department.)

ETA: OTOH, anything they say about the book will only help book sales, so I can see a legitimate case for absence of evidence is not evidence of absence here. But, it's kind of too late for them to ignore it, what with Todd already denying things in terms that leave no doubt at all.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
But that idea combined with the double meaning of "telling". . .

Anyway, I don't know if what she said counts as saying anything. It was rather something that sounded like a clever put down that actually didn't say anything at all. (It was not a denial of anything, so I guess that's strictly Todd's department.)

ETA: OTOH, anything they say about the book will only help book sales, so I can see a legitimate case for absence of evidence is not evidence of absence here. But, it's kind of too late for them to ignore it, what with Todd already denying things in terms that leave no doubt at all.
Click to expand...
:)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
If that's true, then a person in Sarah Palin's position should experience damages and could sue for libel.
Click to expand...
What are the damages?

eta: and it could be full of lies, innuendos, and smears but still not be libel.
 
Last edited:
The New York Times' reviewer is unimpressed:

Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.”
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
What are the damages?

eta: and it could be full of lies, innuendos, and smears but still not be libel.
Click to expand...

Libel cases like this--especially for high-profile people--can be awarded for damage to reputation. (Although a defense might be that her reputation is already so bad--her credibility so poor--that no further damage is possible!)

And as strong as Todd's denials are, it sounds like it shouldn't be too difficult to prove the elements necessary: that the statements are false, that they damaged the plaintiff, and that the respondent either knew or should have known or failed to investigate as he should have to determine that the statements were false.

There's also a legal theory/tort of public disclosure of private information.

McGinniss also alleges that Sarah had an affair with one of Todd's friends.

I think I'll have to buy or borrow the book to see how he presents this information. I suppose he could avoid vulnerability to a libel suit if he reports things as quotes of the people he interviewed rather than his own statements.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I suppose he could avoid vulnerability to a libel suit if he reports things as quotes of the people he interviewed rather than his own statements.
Click to expand...
And this, I'm sure, is how it is. Now, if they can show the source doesn't really exist they could have a case but that would be extremely difficult to do.
 
WildCat said:
And this, I'm sure, is how it is. Now, if they can show the source doesn't really exist they could have a case but that would be extremely difficult to do.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And I wonder if he used unnamed sources a libel suit would shift the burden back on him to substantiate those statements? I would think it would.

I'll have to read it. Some of what I hear from it is pretty credible, but some of it seems to be repeating anything anyone says with little concern for credibility. But I'm just getting it all third hand and in little quotes.
 
I can't imagine that the book wouldn't be lies and innuendo. It was pretty much established from the get-go that it would be tabloid-quality "journalism."
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/15/new-book-on-palin-blasted-as-lies/
He says the book "is full of disgusting lies, innuendo and smears."

If that's true, then a person in Sarah Palin's position should experience damages and could sue for libel.

Anyone care to take bets on 1)whether such a suit is ever filed and/or 2)if filed whether it will ever see the inside of a courtroom?
Click to expand...

Very, very difficult for a public figure to successfully sue for libel. NYT v Sullivan (near and dear to my heart) says that as long as there was reason to believe that what was said was true, based on diligent research, then no libel can be committed against a public figure even if the assertion proves to be incorrect. You do not have to be right, you just need a good reason to think you were. You do not need to prove you are right in court, you just need to show that you had a reason to think you were.
 
BenBurch said:
as long as there was reason to believe that what was said was true, based on diligent research, then no libel can be committed
Click to expand...
But surely there must be some standard of "diligent research". If the book just repeats unsubstantiated gossip--especially if little effort was made to corroborate it, and especially in instances like the affair where the person allegedly involved is denying it--then there should be a case.

I believe there have been successful suits against the tabloids.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
But surely there must be some standard of "diligent research". If the book just repeats unsubstantiated gossip--especially if little effort was made to corroborate it, and especially in instances like the affair where the person allegedly involved is denying it--then there should be a case.

I believe there have been successful suits against the tabloids.
Click to expand...

There have been suits against the National Enquirer in particular, I recall that Barbara Streisand won a case against them.

The fact that we can recall specific cases shows how rare this is.

The standard is rather lax, and basically is whatever a jury will accept. Enquirer now needs two sources for any story, and that has been enough to prevent them from being successfully sued since the Streisand incident.

The goal is to prevent a chilling effect on reporting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom