READER COMMENTS ON
"Shannyn Moore to Sarah Palin: Sue Me! Please!"
(88 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Stephen Crockett
said on 7/6/2009 @ 5:22 am PT...
Very good article. It documents well what my political instincts were telling me.
Nice job all the way around for all the bloggers involved.
Threats of legal action seldom work when you want to silence critics. It wets the appetite instead.
Additionally, it tends to demonstrate fear on the part of those threatening legal action.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
another joe
said on 7/6/2009 @ 5:51 am PT...
Let the DISCOVERY process begin - put "little shop of horrors" under OATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's see what she has to say...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Juliana
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:14 am PT...
Boo Hoo. Liar defamer and general asshat Shannyn Moore is calling Sarah a bully. Awwwwwwwww. Guess what idiot, suing for Libel is a perfectly legal recourse and in a court of law, you will lose. Especially since the FBI has stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that they never started an investigation, and have no intention of doing so. Because their is NOTHING to investigate.
So all Moore's lies and false allegations are just that. She had no sources, none. She made this shit up and now she will drown in the shit of her own making.
Moore is liable for what she wrote as is anyone that reprints her lies or rebroadcasts her lies,
Courts will rule in favor of Palin and it will cost Moore dearly. No amount of "freedom of speech, freedom of the press" BS that Moore will put forward will hold any weight.
But Moore knows that, and her whining about being bullied is the mark of a lying, coward who victimizes others and then plays the victim when they fight back.
Moore is the architect of her own demise, she'll drown not just under the weight of lawyers fees, but under the heap of her own shit.
Brad Blog should consider itself warned.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Shannon Williford
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:29 am PT...
What's the big deal? Wouldn't y'all like to have a house for free? She was the mayor! She was elected to be the boss! And when they accidently order too much materials for the sports complex the city was building, why not build a house for the mayor? Makes sense. I'm sure we'd all do it, if given the opportunity. But this is just a RUMOR! Please don't sue me, Ms. Guvnuh!
shw
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
another joe
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:32 am PT...
SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE, Juliana
SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE, Juliana
Grab some popcorn and watch palin squirm under oath!
SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE, Juliana
SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE, Juliana
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
anonymous
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:42 am PT...
[ed note: Comment deleted. You are using five different screen names, and I already asked you yesterday to pick one and stick with it. --99]
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Allen
said on 7/6/2009 @ 7:06 am PT...
Palin will not dare sue anyone. During the depositions the lawyers can ask any questions they want of the person they are deposing. Could Sarah handle that?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Nunyabiz
said on 7/6/2009 @ 7:20 am PT...
Good for Moore, she is obviously not a "democrat" she must be an Independent or Green Party supporter.
If she were democrat she would be crawling into her shell only coming out to apologize profusely for telling the truth.
What you want to bet that Palin now shuts up?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Can O Whoopass
said on 7/6/2009 @ 8:37 am PT...
Could Sarah handle a deposition if she can't handle Letterman or Katie Couric?
The Empress's wearing new clothes.
Sue me bitch. Sue me.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
lottakatz
said on 7/6/2009 @ 9:07 am PT...
All that is needed to make the house concerns go away is to have Todd name the 'buddies' that helped him build it and produce some of the receipts for materials.
I know a man that built a 1500sq ft, ranch style house with the help of a buddie (he had a contractor pour the foundation) and it took him nearly six months of quasi-full time labor (did it in addition to his day job) and it was lovely. He had a file with all the paperwork and receipts in it for everything he bought and the foundation/HVAC he contracted for. He was virtually a master carpenter and the house was well built and beautifully done. He did all the finish carpentry, kitchen, plumbing and electrial also.
If there was ever a question about anything from the State or Feds regarding money or inspections(he built it for a close relative and sold it to them at a no-profit price) he could just pull out his file which was stuffed with all of his receipts, plans, permits etc. The paperwork got put into the file as time allowed during the building process and the need arose but started out in a cardboard box.
Prudence and common sense dictates that Todd ought to be able to produce something approaching that and name his helpers. Case closed on the house. If it was on the up and up there shouldn't be a problem.
The FBI seems to have disclosed that there were no investigations pending so once the house thing is put to rest the 'rumors' go away, no?
http://rawstory.com/08/n...n-raised-more-questions/
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 9:08 am PT...
I'm resigning...and if you try and figure out why...I'LL SUE YOU!!!
Thou dost protest too much!!!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 9:11 am PT...
Were her threats like 24 hours after her crazy resignation speech? She was hoping to threaten people. It would've been somebody. The plan was to make a resignation speech, and then immediately threaten people if they try and figure out why she resigned.
Actually, she should've rolled it all into one: put a "pre-emptive threat" in her resignation speech.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 9:12 am PT...
Her resignation speech should've been:
"I'm resigning, and I'll sue anybody who tries to find out why"
Why did she break it up into two different things 24 hours apart?
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 9:13 am PT...
Better yet:
"I'm going to sue people for what I am about to say: I'M RESIGNING!!!"
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 9:15 am PT...
She should've said:
"I'M GOING TO SUE THE TUBES OF THE INTERNETS"
Isn't that Alaska again? The guy who said "tubes of the internets"???
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 9:39 am PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
... Juliana said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:14 am PT...
Boo Hoo. Liar defamer and general asshat Shannyn Moore is calling Sarah a bully. Awwwwwwwww. Guess what idiot, suing for Libel is a perfectly legal recourse and in a court of law, you will lose. Especially since the FBI has stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that they never started an investigation
Juliana: They're only threats until she actually sues. We can conjecture all we want about what would happen "if" Palin sues. Let's see if she sues. Hasn't happened yet!
And do you believe everything the FBI says? btw? So, they find ONE guy somewhere, who says there's no investigation (so far)...
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Timbeer
said on 7/6/2009 @ 9:56 am PT...
Moore threw Bradblog under a bus, she is now saying Brad Blog totally mis quoted her and she has no control over what other blogs say!
Hilarious.
(The national "Brad Blog" quoted Moore as saying Palin resigned because a scandal was about to break. Moore said she was misquoted and can't control other blogs.)
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 10:02 am PT...
Comment 17...Timbeer...
That's easy to resolve...have you ever considered going to Shannyne Moore's blog and seeing for yourself what she said and then comparing that to what's post here by Brad ?
both blogs stated there are RUMORS of an investigation.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Timbeer
said on 7/6/2009 @ 10:04 am PT...
oh and the FBI speaks agai --- sorry your scadal was just another Jason Leopold pipedream there losers.
"We are not investigating her," FBI spokesman Eric Gonzalez said on Sunday. "Normally we don't confirm or deny those kind of allegations out there, but by not doing so it just casts her in a very bad light. There is just no truth to those rumors out there in the blogosphere."
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 10:32 am PT...
Don't you love the way people quote the dishonest FBI, only when it suits their purposes? As if they are the shining example of being above board and honest! That's a JOKE in itself!
I would sooner quote FORMER FBI agents (like whistleblowers) than anyone actively in the FBI right now.
Now we're quoting FBI agents. They've never lied, right?
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Phoebe
said on 7/6/2009 @ 10:39 am PT...
It was wonderful to see all Shannyn Moore's supporters at her press conference. Ms. Moore's courage in the face of the wrath of the all powerful and vindictive She Wolf of the North is inspiring. Mr. Van Fleet will not dare harass a citizen with his frivolous lawsuits. Unless of course he has screen shots to prove his claims.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 10:50 am PT...
What if Palin's under investigation by some other entity, besides the FBI?
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 11:12 am PT...
Comment 22....Big Dan....
BINGO!
I've asked the same question...
All these Palinites avoid it...
great question
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
Plumber
said on 7/6/2009 @ 11:19 am PT...
For some reason I think the deposition phase of the litigation will be a lot harder on Moore than on Palin. She isn't going to want to reveal who funds her. Palin has a defense fund. Perhaps Moore will start one.
My guess is the end game here is new "loser pays all" legislation in AK, which will chill any legitimate ethics complaints in the future. I wonder if that is something Moore thought of when she started down this road.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
TSM
said on 7/6/2009 @ 11:20 am PT...
The rumor in Alaska for the last several months, if the Palin supporters cared to look, was that the IRS was investigating her, not the FBI.
There's also the U.S. Attorney's office that could be investigating her.
Just because the FBI says they're not investigating her doesn't mean she's not under an investigation.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
TSM
said on 7/6/2009 @ 11:22 am PT...
"She isn't going to want to reveal who funds her."
Moore wouldn't have any problem revealing that information.
I'm one of her funders. Her funding comes from individual contributions.
Care to explain why she would have to reveal her funders since it would have nothing to do with the case?
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
TSM
said on 7/6/2009 @ 11:25 am PT...
"My guess is the end game here is new "loser pays all" legislation in AK"
It would be unconstitutional. The SCOTUS has already ruled in such a case.
In fact, the Republican controlled Alaska legislature has shot down proposed legislation (brought up by a Palin Republican ally in the legislature) because they didn't want a protracted court battle they know they would lose.
It's easy to tell the people who haven't been keeping up on Alaska's politics.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 11:31 am PT...
Here's what Sarah Palin would have to prove in a libel case...
http://www.ehow.com/PrintArticle.html?id=2086301
Step One -Show defamation. Prove that there was in fact defamatory language that shows badly on your morality or integrity or questions your credibility in your profession.
Step Two- Explain identification. Show that the libelous statements in question refer to you and show that at least one reader could identify you as the defamed person.
Step Three-Demonstrate publication. Prove the public received--generally that they read--the libelous statements.
Step Four-Prove fault. Show negligence or recklessness, if not intent to defame, on the part of the defendant.
Step Five-Establish falsity. Prove that the published statements were untrue. You only need to prove this in cases involving public concern.
Step Six-Confirm personal harm. Show the loss of reputation, emotional distress or money. If there was no personal harm done, and instead the published statements just caused annoyance, for example, there is no libel suit.
Any lawyer worth his salt will demonstrate to Sarah Palin that she has NO CASE...steps 4, 5 and 6 will do more harm to Sarah if she had to answer those in court.
Please Sarah sue...There are many lawyers that would love for Sarah Palin to incriminate herself on the stand while suing for libel...
kinda ironic when you think about it...
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 11:45 am PT...
Shannyne Moore's defense...
1964 Supreme Court of The United States ruling.
http://www.enotes.com/ev...opedia/libel-and-slander
"In 1964, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, and the law of defamation changed drastically. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment, which protects an individual's freedom of speech and expression, protects even speech and expression that is defamatory. In Sullivan, the plaintiff was a public official who sued The New York Times for libel after the newspaper published certain unfavorable allegations about him. The Supreme Court discussed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part that "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press." The First Amendment exists, according to the Court, to help protect and foster the free flow and exchange of ideas, particularly on public or political issues. The Founding Fathers of the United States valued open debates regarding political issues or governments, determining that citizens in a democracy need a free marketplace of ideas in order to become informed and make good decisions. Open debates often become caustic and emotional, with opponents sharply attacking one another in the effort to persuade others. Sanctioning defamatory speech or expression would put an end to such attacks, but sanctions would also jeopardize the free marketplace of ideas by effectively censoring free and open debate."
Shannyne Moore this case in a walkover...U.S. Supreme Court precedence.
Of course I do understand that when Sarah Palin shot off at the mouth about suing...she wasn't aware od SCOTUS law.
Palin isn't aware of much...
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Phil
said on 7/6/2009 @ 11:58 am PT...
Off Topic, Warning, Caution.
Be careful. Have a backup plan. I am goin on day 8 of hard core rebuild on new iron...lost everything. Seriously, watch out.
Maybe I just fucked up and hit a bad page. Maybe I was targeted to be shut the fuck up. Who knows, with a corrupted NTSF partition who won't recover, not even the NSA can find out.
hint: look up virut.ce (Kaspersky definition)
Laugh if you want, I thought I had it fixed, then it removed all my data.
Sweet Virus, like back in the DOS days. gotta give cred where cred is due. Think your a tech? HAHAHAHAHA!!
One thing that might help if you get hit, is the TOOLS you use. I actually had a small window to save some data because of the way I went about it, some AV and other tools remove that chance.
Oh and while your trying to fix it, better get a knopix disk or something and change all your bank, domain, hosting, passwords...eh?
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
Plumber
said on 7/6/2009 @ 12:00 pm PT...
"Care to explain why she would have to reveal her funders since it would have nothing to do with the case?"
In a deposition you can ask anything that "may lead to discoverable information". Certainly if Moore is being funded by a democratic operative, that would be relevant. And of course no one can know that unless they ask.
"It would be unconstitutional. The SCOTUS has already ruled in such a case."
I'm not sure that is right. Do you recall the case?
"Please Sarah sue."
I sense a "be careful what you wish for" moment coming on.
BTW I think the facts of this case put Palin outside of Sullivan. After all, she can probably prove malice.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
Phil
said on 7/6/2009 @ 12:00 pm PT...
Secunia PSI WorldMap [ Change Location ]
Your Secunia System Score of 100% is 5% HIGHER than the average user from California, United States.
Compared to users WITHOUT the Secunia PSI installed, your Secunia System Score is 15% HIGHER (more secure).
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
Mort
said on 7/6/2009 @ 12:15 pm PT...
This has all the traits of a high school female cat fight. There are much bigger issues with what is going on in the U.S. besides this garbage.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
FreedomOfInformationAct
said on 7/6/2009 @ 12:16 pm PT...
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 12:19 pm PT...
Shannyne Moore's website is on Wordpress...doesn't take much funding for that.
From what I read here Shannyne Moore wouldn't hesitate to answer the question of who funds her site.
Sarah Palin would have more trouble PROVING that Shannyne Moore's claims are false and damaging to her (seeing as how Sarah's resignation was self-inflicted)
And more trouble yet in PROVING malice by Shannyne Moore.
The SCOTUS Sullivan (1964) ruling applies directly to this scenario...
But hey let Sarah sue and answer questions in open court...
her adoring public awaits...
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
Plumber
said on 7/6/2009 @ 12:48 pm PT...
Actually Sullivan doesn't apply - at least based on my reading of it (which is a few years old, but I don't think it has changed.) Even if it does, I doubt it is about winning for either of them.
If Sullivan is applied and accepted it will never go to Court - it will be decided in summary judgment - but it will still cost lots and lots of money to get there. And Palin may bring in other bloggers as well.
But I agree with you. Palin should go forward and we can see it play out.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 12:55 pm PT...
Comment #36...Plumber
See Comment #29...it's a summnation of the Sullivan ruling. It applies directly. Go to the link provided in 29.
Shannyne Moore is a journalist...She made charges in her blog about Palin. Sullivan applies; also see post 28 about proving libel in court...Palin's lawyers will be mal-practicing if they advise her to sue. Palin can't win.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
...
Plumber
said on 7/6/2009 @ 1:02 pm PT...
it's a summnation of the Sullivan ruling.
It's actually not. It leaves out the most important part - malice. DO you not think Miller meant malice? How about Brad?
Palin may not be able to win, (although I'm not as convinced as that as you are) but that may not be the point. Have you been following what has been happening in Canada with the HRC or the proposals by our own AG?
There is an awful lot more in play here. And Miller widely opened that door.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 1:16 pm PT...
Comment #38....Plumber...
See post 28...proving libel...
Step Four-Prove fault. Show negligence or recklessness, if not intent to defame, on the part of the defendant.
Step Five-Establish falsity. Prove that the published statements were untrue. You only need to prove this in cases involving public concern.
Step Six-Confirm personal harm. Show the loss of reputation, emotional distress or money. If there was no personal harm done, and instead the published statements just caused annoyance, for example, there is no libel suit.
I just posted those 3 because Palin would have HUGE trouble proving those points (especially step 6 her resignation was SELF-INFLICTED).
She can't sue Moore for what she did to herself.
That alone with Sullivan makes Palin a fool to pursue this in court...
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 7/6/2009 @ 1:22 pm PT...
Juliana @ 3 said:
Guess what idiot, suing for Libel is a perfectly legal recourse and in a court of law, you will lose. Especially since the FBI has stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that they never started an investigation, and have no intention of doing so.
...
Brad Blog should consider itself warned
Just for the record, Juliana, neither The BRAD BLOG, nor Shannyn Moore, to my knowledge, has ever reported an FBI investigation of Palin.
Though Palin is, as any citizen, welcome to file a lawsuit against either me or Shannyn, or anybody else I suppose, on those grounds if she so chooses. Beyond that, thank you for your thoughtful 'warning'. The Free Speech Police are, no doubt, indebted for your vigilance and servitude.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
...
Steve
said on 7/6/2009 @ 1:57 pm PT...
Shannyn Moore would be unlikely to incur significant personal expenses in a Palin libel suit against her except in the extremely unlikely scenario of a judgement against her. This would be a huge Free Speech/First Amendment case and she would have the ACLU and virtually every legal group interested in Free Speech offering more free representation than Moore would know what to do with.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
...
Plumber
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:07 pm PT...
Shannyn Moore would be unlikely to incur significant personal expenses in a Palin libel suit against her except in the extremely unlikely scenario of a judgement against her.
I disagree, the legal fees will be huge. She needs her own lawyer, not the ACLU - any lawyer would tell her that. The ACLU looks out for their own interests, not Millers.
Bluehawk, I don't agree with your analysis. Do you think there was malice involved in Miller's posting?
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:11 pm PT...
I like the part where Juliana says: "She will drown in the shit of her own making". That's so poetic!
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:15 pm PT...
Also: "She'll drown not just under the weight of lawyers fees, but under the heap of her own shit."
The "Drown in shit" troll, Juliana will henceforth be known as...
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:17 pm PT...
Maybe she had some traumatic childhood experience, where she almost drowned in shit, or something...
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:36 pm PT...
I am still wondering why Moore, a journalist, has to wait until this goes to court to tell us what she knows about Palin? She really doesn't know anything, does she? Otherwise, depositions wouldn't be necessary. Basically, what Moore is telling you is she repeats gossip. I know a few of those around my small town too. We don't call them journalists, though.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:43 pm PT...
Of course I do understand that when Sarah Palin shot off at the mouth about suing...she wasn't aware od SCOTUS law.
Palin isn't aware of much...
Her attorneys aren't aware of SCOTUS law? Very odd for an attorney to not be aware of SCOTUS law. I have never heard of SCOTUS law, but then google hasn't heard of it either.
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:45 pm PT...
In a rambling quasi-legal letter, the most powerful person in this state accused me of defaming her for pointing out the fact that there have been rumors, -rumors- of corruption, rumors that have been around for years.
She really was just repeating rumors. I'll be damned. She really does need depositions to find out something, anything, on Palin. LOL.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:46 pm PT...
I think Brad has been had. Icebergs. Get your icebergs!
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:50 pm PT...
The Lady protests way too much. Eventually we'll all find out why she really walked off the job."
But I thought Moore knew. Icebergs were mentioned.
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
...
Idontgetit
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:52 pm PT...
So, now that a Fox News commentator said that Palin could be up for an investigation on her dealings in Wasilla as an answer for her quitting, does that mean Fox News will be sued, too?
(Video here.)
Can you imagine Palin's reactions to cartoons, media, and other world leaders comments about her if she were President? At this rate she'd last just a few weeks. What if Ahmadinejad called her the devil? She'd cry and go fishing?
Look at all the flak Obama takes. He made a contract with all his voters just like Palin did, but he's still working on the job the best he sees fit.
People who are secure about themselves, whatever their ideology and worldview, don't let other people bother them. It's only the insecure who feel threatened.
{Ed Note: Broken link fixed. - BF}
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:53 pm PT...
UPDATE: Alaskan Sarah Palin authority (and
occasional BRAD BLOG guest blogger) Shannyn Moore, who broke the news at HuffPo today, tells me she believes, with good reason, that there is an "iceberg scandal that's about to break. She's doing damage control."
She says Palin is "resigning as part of damage control" due to a scandal that is "not of a family nature." ...
Went back and looked to make sure my memory of the wording was correct. It was. "Iceberg scandal". Now, we'll all find out eventually.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
...
Idontgetit
said on 7/6/2009 @ 2:58 pm PT...
umm, Axey..... you haven't heard of the Supreme Court of the United States (aka SCOTUS)
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 3:23 pm PT...
Idontgetit,
Sure. Just not SCOTUS law.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
...
Steve
said on 7/6/2009 @ 3:24 pm PT...
I will guarantee that not only would Palin not win a defamation suit, she won't ever file one in this case. The idea that she could win such a suit is just the wet dream of wingnuts who think the Constitution is "just a piece of paper", that First Amendment rights are so easily assailable and that the media should be so easily intimidated. "Plumber", you can conjecture all you want but your arguments are just legal hot air. I'll be waiting to hear from you here in a few months when I'm proven correct.
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 4:04 pm PT...
Aren't y'all a little disappointed in Ms. Moore? An "iceberg scandal that's about to break" and "resigning as part of damage control" turns into "there have been rumors, -rumors- of corruption, rumors that have been around for years". You can pretend Ms. Moore hasn't walked back what she told Brad (either that or Brad misquoted her) but she did. She can be defiant all day long, but she repeated gossip. She admitted it.
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
...
idontgetit
said on 7/6/2009 @ 4:23 pm PT...
Axey, surely you don't need the Cliff Notes to understand that when someone says 'SCOTUS law' it means precedent. 'SCOTUS law' is a ruling of law.
As far as icebergs are concerned, they tend to float towards you either very quickly or move away very slowly depending on the weather. It's still very early to predict the weather at this moment. But many forecasters suggest looking out for them just in case.
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
...
ESNElson
said on 7/6/2009 @ 4:46 pm PT...
Notice how Shannyn didnt cross the line against the attorney warnings....she sure as hell stopped making factual statements and replaced them with sue me sue me.....what a pansy ass.
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 4:46 pm PT...
Axey, surely you don't need the Cliff Notes to understand that when someone says 'SCOTUS law' it means precedent. 'SCOTUS law' is a ruling of law.
Well, thanks for the Cliff notes. I thought SCOTUS issued opinions, not law. My bad.
So you aren't bothered by Ms. Moore needing depositions to find out if the gossip she repeated is in fact true? I didn't realize that is how journalism worked. I must need the Cliff notes for that one too.
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
...
Reaganite Republican
said on 7/6/2009 @ 4:57 pm PT...
What I'm thinking is that Palin’s move puts yet more pressure on Obama to finally get some results, as the soaring rhetoric isn’t hypnotizing the plebes like it used to.
Last week Helen Thomas, Colin Powell, and Warren Buffet all turned on him. Polls are looking droopy for The One lately.
And Obama’s porkulus program is a train wreck, all it’s done is bump interest rates and tank the dollar. We are being laughed at by bad guys like Tehran, Pyongyang, and Al Qaida who amazingly turned-down Barack’s friend-requests.
Palin could trounce him in 2012, when Americans would vote for the Gipper-in-Heels in droves- while begging for lower taxes, free enterpise, a defense posture with some backbone… an end to the radical, anti-American nightmare we’ve got now.
Go get ‘em Sarah-
http://reaganiterepublic...nresistance.blogspot.com
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 5:25 pm PT...
Comment #59...Axey...
So you aren't bothered by Ms. Moore needing depositions to find out if the gossip she repeated is in fact true? I didn't realize that is how journalism worked. I must need the Cliff notes for that one too.
Who says Shannyne Moore NEEDS anything from Sarah Palin ?
Sarah's action has given Shannyne Moore everything could could have dreamed of. A lawsuit was be early Christmas for Shannyne Moore; it would vault her to national hero...
COMMENT #62 [Permalink]
...
Kalee
said on 7/6/2009 @ 5:31 pm PT...
"...aborting her term as Governor." lol.
Keep the faith, Shannyn! And it's amazing how little Palin knows about the law. No one but her fanatical true believers will take her seriously as a presidential candidate after her public meltdown and running away from her responsibility to the people of Alaska.
COMMENT #63 [Permalink]
...
Plumber
said on 7/6/2009 @ 5:40 pm PT...
"Plumber", you can conjecture all you want but your arguments are just legal hot air. I'll be waiting to hear from you here in a few months when I'm proven correct.
And I from you when you are handed your hat.
Who says Shannyne Moore NEEDS anything from Sarah Palin ?
I'm pretty sure she needs a release and I suspect you agree given your unwillingness to address the malice issue.
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 5:41 pm PT...
Who says Shannyne Moore NEEDS anything from Sarah Palin ?
Someone up above. Oh and Ms. Moore herself..."'Line of Attorneys' Eager to Depose Palin". If she didn't need the depositions, she would release the information she had instead of stumbling around with rumors, and corruption in Alaska and we'll see comments.
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
...
jamzz
said on 7/6/2009 @ 5:58 pm PT...
Hey Reaganite,
Being insane is not a virtue....please crawl back in your hole...
COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:02 pm PT...
Comment #63....Plumber...
Spelling it out for you...
Malicious or slanderous material is considered INJURIOUS (key word).
Shannyne Moore reporting from unnamed sources things that she heard about Ms. Palin's frauds and unethical dealings is not considered "malicious" because Sarah Palin WAS NOT INJURED! by those reports...I'm sure they were irritating but not injurious.
Sarah Palin's resignation was SELF INDUCED
What Sarah Palin would have to prove in court is that Shannyne Moore personally was out to smear and destroy her.
That's tough...and given Ms. Palin's public persona probably impossible to prove.
Sarah Palin suffered what most public figures endure with rumors, innuendo and the such...it goes with the territory*.
*See Bill Clinton's being called a murderer (Vince Foster) for almost 8 years by right wingers in the media.
Sarah Palin would have to PROVE that what Shannyne Moore wrote was false.
Sarah Palin would have to demonstrate how Shannyne Moore injured her in a tangible way.
Sarah Palin would have to PROVE there was no reason or circumstances that Shannyne Moore can cite for calling her a fraud and dishonest.
And that's just off the top of my head...
COMMENT #67 [Permalink]
...
Plumber
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:02 pm PT...
Axey,
She doesn't want or need depositions. That is a talking point. It's a pretense to flex her muscles - but given how far she has backed down it's an idle threat. No serious reading of the events thus far would say otherwise.
Nor do I think Sarah Palin has any interest in suing Moore. What she has an interest in is stopping irresponsible malicious defamation and my guess is that she has largely succeeded (assuming Moore is being counseled by a semi-smart lawyer).
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
...
FreedomOfInformationAct
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:04 pm PT...
stick a fork in her boys (metaphorically speaking of course), she's done!
So Long Sarah, wish we didn't know ya!
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:11 pm PT...
I find it ironic the right wingers are up in arms about Shannyne Moore regarding Sarah Palin...given the right wing smear jobs over the last 15 years...off the top of my head...
Bill Clinton- Called a murderous head of a crime family by right wingers.
Hillary Clinton- OMG! take your pick of slanderous stuff about her...the right hated her with a red hot passion
John Kerry- That Swiftboating of an honorable veteran was shameful...from a party that preaches patriotism.
John Edwards- Ann Coulter called him a fag-ot on national television and got away with it.
Barack Obama- the lies the right are floating out there about him are racist, insidious and reek of sedition.
yet these yahoos are perplectic about Sarah Palin...it's reeks of hypocracy from the right wing...
COMMENT #70 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:20 pm PT...
Everything reeks of hypocrisy. Depends on which side of the aisle you are sitting on whether you believe your side is hypocritical or the other side is.
COMMENT #71 [Permalink]
...
Plumber
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:23 pm PT...
So Long Sarah, wish we didn't know ya!
Why?
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:28 pm PT...
Comment #70....Axey...
typical right wing reply...
"hyprocracy is normal"
That alone illustrates the state of right wing thinking.
a sad observation
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:37 pm PT...
... BlueHawk said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:30 pm PT...
I believe I said it depended on which side of the aisle you were on whether you thought it was hypocritical. I see hypocrisy in the left, you see it in the right. So if that makes it normal, which I didn't say, you did, then I won't argue with you.
COMMENT #74 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:47 pm PT...
Axey...
Great deflection of the statement...you didn't deal with the examples given or acknowledge their legitimacy. You just gave a standard right wing retort ...
"everyone does it according to where one sits"
and all is fine in your world.
Truth be damned
Right Wing thinking is scary sometimes...
COMMENT #75 [Permalink]
...
Axey
said on 7/6/2009 @ 7:01 pm PT...
COMMENT #74 [Permalink]
... BlueHawk said on 7/6/2009 @ 6:47 pm PT...
No, I didn't respond to your actual points because I could list those that were made against republicans that were inaccurate and we would argue whether they were accurate and neither of us will give an inch. So, I think it is hypocritical that the left thinks Palin and her children are fair game while defending John Lying Kerry, John Baby Daddy Edwards, Bill Cigar Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama. I kind of like Hillary, so I'll agree with you on that one. You see hypocrisy, I see hypocrisy.
COMMENT #76 [Permalink]
...
christine craft
said on 7/6/2009 @ 7:06 pm PT...
Bravo Shannyn Moore. Caribou Barbie salivates at blowing animals away and gutting them but seemingly lacks the guts to actually sue you for defamation....clue to sarah..you'd have to answer lots and lots of difficult questions under oath.It think that would be a depo that could go on for several days . Shannyn. You keep on unmuzzled and please be my guest some evening on KGO RADIO...I think you are absolutely fabulous..and thanks Brad for bringing her to us bradblog fans.
CHRISTINE CRAFT
LAWYER, RADIO TALK HOST.
COMMENT #77 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 7/6/2009 @ 7:16 pm PT...
Comment #75....Axey...
So we're in agreement that what Sarah Palin endured was actually pretty tame in light of what Bill Clinton, Hillary, John Kerry and John Edwards endured...right ?...
Not to mention the many jounalists who were smeared because they dared question the Bushies. and let's not forget Valerie Plame and Cheney putting her life in danger by outting her as a CIA agent.
OH! what about the mother who lost her son in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan...the smears and lies about her from the right wing were just peachy huh ?
Her son gives his life in Iraq...and his mother gets treated like crap at home...nice right wing stuff there.
all that kinda makes Sarah Palin's whining and playing the victim about a blogger on the internet seem kind of small and petty doesn't it?
Please Sarah sue...put the finishing touches on any chance at a public life again.
COMMENT #78 [Permalink]
...
Bluebear2
said on 7/6/2009 @ 7:47 pm PT...
Steve #55 the Constitution is "just a piece of paper"
No no - you've got that wrong - It's a "Goddamn Piece of Paper"! G.W.B.
COMMENT #79 [Permalink]
...
Bluebear2
said on 7/6/2009 @ 7:51 pm PT...
#60 Palin could trounce him in 2012, when Americans would vote for the Gipper-in-Heels in droves- while begging for lower taxes, free enterpise, a defense posture with some backbone… an end to the radical, anti-American nightmare we’ve got now.
ROFLMAO LOL LOL LOL LOL
COMMENT #80 [Permalink]
...
Phil
said on 7/7/2009 @ 2:36 am PT...
There's one single outstanding reason I wouldn't ever vote for Sarah Palin, Massive Security Breech. How she even maintains any security clearance at all has got to be due to straight up corruption at the highest levels of government. Frankly she's a HIGH RISK.
Remember how she wasn't supposed to have a yahoo webmail ack!!! Yuck!!) account being used for government business. She was TOLD not to. Yet did it, and then denied it (lied) and then got caught by account crackers and exposed. The simple fact she was using WEBMAIL and not pop3 is an egregious act all in itself. Did you know that government employees are NOT ALLOWED to use webmail at all currently?! There's a reason for it, it's hell of insecure and can cause your entire network to be compromised.
Ignoring the whole Republican vs. Democrat bullshit nonsense, Why a single person would vote for such a security risk is beyond me.
Oh and since we are discussing security.
I'd like to point out a couple of free tools that might help you to find things on your box you might not be aware of. (You don't use webmail or ftp do ya? Gopher? Telnet? Old gtk libraries?)
Since, I recently got ALL MY DATA DESTROYED by an extremely nasty plethora of virus's, trojans, rootkits, and worms, and considering I had several firewalls (Soft and Hardware), several anti-virus, I subscribe and take action on several security mailing lists, I don't use webmail, and generally watch my logs, and even network traffic and packets on a daily basis, apt-get, etc. (cough usually have backup see below) and yet STILL I GOT HIT..
1. Secunia (PSI) Vulnerability Scanning - Secunia.com (Download Website) note: be sure to use the "advanced interface mode!!!!!!!
2. Protector Plus - Windows Vulnerability Scanner
(Download Website)
These two things will probably keep you busy for awhile, hopefully the next couple of days. I doubt one person reading this could pass both these tests on a windows platform. And even if you did, yet you would already KNOW, there's still an exploit for internet explorer.
The other thing, (which I had, but didn't have at this time I got hit--long story, big fuckup) is a pair of matching hard drives (same size) which you mirror back and forth. After the mirror is written you unplug the backup drive. Yeah yeah yeah yeah all you got raid, who cares. I don't. I Hope both your all raid drives DONT get infected at the same time. ;o)
Look just MIRROR your drive then UNPLUG IT. If I help ONE PERSON out there with this advice--I'm good. It won't help you change all your passwords, but it will get you back up and running fast. You really don't want to be where I am at...Day 9, and and I am no slouch or idiot.. Did my whole network get destroyed? Were my Bank Accounts emptied? NO. only the one box. I caught it quickly, and used another box to change passwords. Am I stupid and keep network netbios and other microsoft shares open, or do I force all traffic through ssh, iptables, SPA (Single Packet Authentication) like port knocking? A: No. I use ssh, iptables, SPA knocking.
You can't get a virus when there isn't any electricity, well maybe the pig flu, or west nile but those aren't computer related... o;)
Yeah it's people *like* Sarah Palin who compromise government networks, bringing in their rootkit/worm CD's or USB's, etc. when they were told not to. You literally have to glue the ports shut and disable the drives and put a lock on the case. Yet even if one tries to be safe there is danger, better to have people who at least show they have some grasp of security, instead of doing what they were told not to do.
But you know, the Corporate media won't ever tell you about her past history with security. There's a reason, they won't allow the PRESIDENT to have a fucking off the shelf blackberry.
It's one thing when you try to do everything right and follow your security plan which is setup withing your existing budget, it's another when your arrogance openly flaunts set rules, because your just an rotten corrupt jackass to begin with.
Full Disclosure, I have nothing to do with any of the tools mentioned, no stake, no stocks, no employment, and I don't get paid to tell you anything.
COMMENT #81 [Permalink]
...
Shirley
said on 7/7/2009 @ 6:43 am PT...
I support you 100+% Shannyn! sarah is the worst thing that has happened in politics since george bush.
You speak loud and clear for me.
Shirley
COMMENT #82 [Permalink]
...
matt
said on 7/7/2009 @ 8:27 am PT...
The threat to sue anyone who even discusses the possibility of illegality on the part of Palin is laughable and chilling in its implications for how these people perceive the First Amendment.
This threat is also understandable when one looks at who two of Sarah Palin's biggest supporters are. Greta van Susteren and her husband John Coale are both Scientologists. Not just "here, take all my money" Scientologists, but apparently movers and shakers within that particular group.
For the past several years, Scientology, the corporation, has aggressively used SLAPP suits to intimidate critics. This was the first thing that crossed my mind when I heard Palin's spokeperson talking about suing people who were even considering talking about what investigations might be underway.
As for some of the rhetoric on the comments here, if the people making outlandish statements about how un-American the current administration is are really serious and actually believe this we are in serious trouble as a country. And all the back and forth about SCOTUS "law" and whether Sullivan applies think of this: would the current members of the Supreme Court, the ones who unconstitutionally interfered with an election, hesitate for one moment in ignoring stare decisis and overturning Sullivan if it suited their purposes?
COMMENT #83 [Permalink]
...
Damail
said on 7/7/2009 @ 1:08 pm PT...
Shannyn Moore...it is you who is the bully and cowrd. You speak in ominous tones about scandals about to break; then when Gov. Palin exposes you, you scream "Whaaah! I just said there were rumors, whaah!"
Hey Christine Craft, are you still hurting emotionally from the fact that your lawsuit against KMBC-TV was shot down in flames? Sounds like it. And then you go off and pose nude, for crying out loud. Talk about unhinged.
COMMENT #84 [Permalink]
...
Dan
said on 7/7/2009 @ 2:04 pm PT...
Shannyn Moore is the one that is the bully, and what an arrogant bitch too !
I hope that Palin cleans her clock !
COMMENT #85 [Permalink]
...
Dan
said on 7/7/2009 @ 2:09 pm PT...
Did Moore actually say "Shannyn Moore will not be muzzled " ? If so, gawd she thinks highly of herself doesn't she ?
COMMENT #86 [Permalink]
...
Dan
said on 7/7/2009 @ 2:13 pm PT...
Moore is gutless. She deletes any negative comments on her board, only posters who have their nose up her ass get displayed.
COMMENT #87 [Permalink]
...
Dan
said on 7/7/2009 @ 4:40 pm PT...
The arrogant Moore brags about all the lawyers she has, but if she has been wrongfully defaming Palin, no judge is going to give a shit how many lawyers she has. Hopefully Palin will carry through with her threat to sue, and clean out fat ass Moores wallet.
COMMENT #88 [Permalink]
...
JH
said on 7/21/2009 @ 2:15 pm PT...
Shannyn Moore want's moore publicity and moore attention..Who funds you has everything to do with false charges! Your Soros-Acorn-Obama Rules for Radicals FALSE LITIGATION has been STRATEGICALLY FUNDED in the past, and many of us have NO DOUBT that people like you have been funded for these "FALSE LAW SUITS"...Shannyn.."What does a man profit to gain the world only to lose their soul?" Perhaps you might consider writing a book on the benefits!