AP: Sherrod to sue Andrew Breitbart
July 29, 2010 12:12 pm ET by Media Matters staff
The Associated Press reported today that former USDA official Shirley Sherrod says she plans to sue Andrew Breitbart.
As Media Matters documented, Breitbart released a heavily edited video purporting to show "proof" of Sherrod's "racism" against a white farmer while serving as an Obama administration official. After Breitbart's post, Sherrod lost her USDA job, and numerous media figures attacked Sherrod as a racist. The full video of Sherrod's remarks, however, vindicated her.
After his smear story dissolved, Breitbart falsely claimed that his story was "not about Shirley Sherrod," and attempted to redirect the conversation to the NAACP by incorrectly claiming Sherrod's audience was "applauding racism." In recent days, many in the media have criticized Breitbart's tactics, called on him to apologize, or pointed out how this episode has depleted any credibility he may have had.
Previously:
Breitbart still insists Sherrod video "shows that she's the racist"
Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear
Breitbart flounders as his Sherrod story collapses
CNN's Cooper detonates Breitbart's NAACP applause falsehood
Media denounce Breitbart's tactics, highlight his loss of credibility
Just watch. If this case goes to trial and he loses, it will turn out he is judgement proof - no assets. Certainly no ability to pay $100K, let alone the damages Ms. Sherrod is going to be awarded...
Never give Breitbart a moment's rest because he's going to lose this lawsuit, and lose it badly.
She also needs to add Faux News onto the suit.
I want to suggest that's not merely malice, but premeditation.
The only way he'll understand the gravity of his actions is if he's forced to, and nothing sez "gravity" like having a lien placed against one's bank account.
I'd like to see her go after a remedy that in some way makes it harder (if not nearly impossible) for him to pull these stunts again. Hell, I don't think she should sue Brietbarf alone--I think she should go after any site or outlet that took part in the smear.
Or, even better, be forced to admit that he had the full video the whole time and that he or his employees were responsible for the editing.
Now, that would be entertaining!
But, the discovery process would be epic. Breitbart had this video for how long - 4 months? - who knows how much he's gonna have to turn over.
There have been damages to her reputation, as most people that I know currently still think she's a rampant racist, no matter what evidence is shown.
Jonathan Turley here says as well Breitbart's bigger problem is the discovery process, I think in terms of the overall burden to him, let alone what reputational damage he could suffer.
If Sharrod accepted a new job from USDA it would sharply curb her ability to show damages in a civil suit vs. Breitbart. She's far better off taking a separation package from the government, retiring, then pursuing her legal action against Breitbart.
I would LOVE to be the one working on the discovery in this case . . . I'm sure that there a bunch of folks who are sweating bullets right now.
She was offered a different job.
And since Sharrod was quickly bounced from her USDA job, and humiliated on international TV due to Breitbart's video, that seems to demonstrate said damage in a nutshell - which is why I think Breitbart's going to fight this case as a would-be defender of free speech rights, lose it very badly, then flee to Costa Rica.
Because he played her own words, even though they were edited to change the context, it might fall under the "false light" laws rather than full defamation.
She should be able to prove damages, but I don't think the monetary damages will be that large. I don't think she's doing this for the money she will be rewarded though.
I guarantee that Breitbart is scared to death and that there's a team of lawyers over at Fox doing LOTS and LOTS of research on WestLaw or Lexis/Nexus.
Not to sound overly litigious, but I think the entire NAACP should sue Breitbart as well since they were also wrongly portrayed. Even in Breitbart's attempt to defend his Sherrod smear, he continued to smear the NAACP crowd/organization. His edited video was aimed at the entire NAACP organization as well as Shirley Sherrod personally.
Since this was a public venue with a public employee, it is nearly impossible to expect any judge to give credence to her claim of defamation. It should be dismissed as frivolous.
Brietbart hoped to expose the racial hypocrisy of the left, especially the NAACP, and he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. The Obama Administration and the President look like the KKK in blackface - by their own stupidity and cupidity.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/yaki/detail?blogid=68&entry_id=68441
----------------------------------
IMHO
--------------------------------------------------
LOL
If she really is bringing this suit to win it, I don't like the odds. If she wants principally to create a lot of headaches for Breitbart, that's another thing. Go for it. The case is colorable, she has a longshot chance at victory and that's what we have a legal system to decide about.
Given Breitbart's track record, recklessness towards the truth and outright lying seem to be his SOP.
Unfortunately, regardless of this case's outcome, Breitbart "wins" as Sherrod was fired creating a firestorm of controversy. Even though he was ultimately proved wrong, just as with ACORN, the damage was done before anyone bothered to learn the truth.
I might add that Paula Jones had NO case at all when she sued Bill Clinton [as noted by the federal court which granted summary judgment dismissing her lawsuit.] Look at all the mess THAT little non-case created.
Then they tie their boat to his sinking anvil and get dragged down.
Perhaps a further opportunity of fortune (not dollars; destiny) in this might be Media Matters dot ORG's internet means and manner of verity being granted standing in Court as credible qualified evidence.
I'm not a lawyer either, yet a reasonable argument could show the researched material documented here is 'expert testimony,' presented by experts on topical media; or show qualifying for courtroom presentation as 'eye-witness testimony,' since Media Matters posted challenges invalidating the instrument of defamation, (i.e., edited video, going to argument by 'wrong light'), and Media Matters maintained archives in credible and exemplary curation of the complete 'rap sheet' listing defamations and slanders by the charged Breitbart (as good as any police records-keeping), and especially Media Matters conspicuously acted first, while injuries were ongoing, before any others contradicted the source and style for the libels spreading contamination through the media.
Particularly relevant in Summary is the precise Timeline of damaging developments compiled by Media Matters, including the latest point that hours before the broadcast time when the programming scripts are read in-camera and tape-recorded is the presumptive (though nonpublic) moment at which the injury occurred, since real-time events following then during the delay-time interval might and can cause producers to retract portions or make corrections of the harmful tape before it is broadcast.
- - -
Someone should, (and probably will), direct the legal discovery detectives to review evidence here at Media Matters. I trust that Sherrod's attorneys are going to visit this site and learn much. Let me add a new tip in this comment directing possible investigation in another avenue.
Breitbart broadcast a pre-announcement promotion on Friday (July 16), during a guest appearance on the (ostensibly) 'national' Lars Larson radio programming, (syndicated by Compass Media 'network'), of the premeditated smear and defamation (then-known but naming withheld, of Sherrod) set to begin Monday (July 19).
I emailed a news tip to alert Media Matters (mm-tips@mediamatters.org) a few hours in advance of, and about, Breitbart being said (in promotion) to be scheduled to appear on Larson's programming, July 16.
Discovery should subpoena tape recordings of Larson's programming on July 16. Later, continuing July 20 and 21 (which I heard on-air) and perhaps more, Larson stated "(Sherrod) is a racist bigot." Larson repeated such and similar false defamations during both his 'local' programming, (Portland, OR, 12:00 - 15:00 PDT), and his 'national' programming, 15:00-18:00 PDT.
Like a snake in the grass, the existence of Larson's radio programming goes on mostly unnoticed. Therefor I bring it here for discovery. He has a history of crime-laced ignominy in broadcasting.
Please, discovery on behalf of and pursuant to Sherrod's lawsuit, please attach Lars Larson, (in the local market his nickname is 'Liars'), and FOX/O'Reilly/Beck/Hannity et al., in additon to Breitbart and take them all, together, down to bankruptcy, destitution, and out of our media. Please.
-
Here is an interesting WSJ opinion piece by John Taranto.
Puffington Host is reporting that Obama slammed the media for Sherrod's firing! What brazen arrogance! The Obama administration fired her!
Obama lies better than Lenin! Better than Stalin! We've just got to quit believing these lying ears of ours and put our faith in the Presidissiah.