Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod
First Daniel Snyder, now Shirley Sherrod. Captain of the Bigs Andrew Breitbart has been sued by former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod for defamation. Larry O’Connor of BreitbartTV is also a defendant. Andrew tells me that he will zealously defend the lawsuit. The D.C. law firm of Kirkland and Ellis brought the case. Breitbart has been slowly pulling back the layers on the growing Pigford scandal. This seems like a dangerous play for Mrs. Sherrod, because now Andrew and the Bigs can depose her, her friends, get documents they couldn’t otherwise get, and conduct all manner of discovery on her. In other words, they have the power of the law to dig deeper into the scandal. In fact, it’s probably something Andrew has been dreaming about for months.
Go Andrew,go!
You mean ,”Go to jail Andrew” you unethical pig.
Oh yeah, that trick’s gonna work Shirley. I’ll bet a dollar they withdraw the suit before discovery.
Sorry, Charlie, I ain’t taking that bet… it’s too close to a sure thing that it’ll be quietly quashed once they realize what a can of worms they’ve opened.
Can’t Breitbart just counter-sue? Sherrod’s suit itself is defamatory, I’d think.
Ironically, you’re allowed to defame someone in a courtroom and pleadings without incurring liability.
True, edh. Any lies you tell in court, or in litigation documments, are privledged against defamation claims. But if I were Sherrod’s lawyer, I’d insist that she keep her big mouth shut about the case ouside of my presence. Breitbart could countersue if she runs her mouth in the press, for instance.
I love these people like Sherrod who think, “oh yeah, I’ll sue the SOB.” They don’t know (or forget) that Breitbart’s lawyers will be able to put her under oath and get to the bottom of the discriminatory activites she and her fellow bureaucrats undertook on the taxpayers’ dime. Jeez, I hope the judge doesn’t gag disclosure.
Requesting discovery and actually getting the evidence are totally different. Remember the Rose Law billing records, that showed up at the Clinton white house a day after the statute of limitations ran out for prosecution. Liberals rarely obey the law or court orders.
I’m glad she’s gonna sue him. You seem to be implying here that she must have something to hide. I watched the entire talk that was quote mined to make her look like a bigot and she was very forthcoming with her story & how she over came her childhood pain to be the better person she is today. I wish more people would be as open so that others can learn from them. Good for her!
I’m glad she’s suing him too. Discovery in this case is gonna be real fun… and when he uncovers the information he needs to show that he was right all along, she’s gonna have egg all over her face… and so will her supporters and his detractors.
Why yes, that is what we’re implying. Starting with the large sum she got from the Pigford settlement; then continue with her admitted unwillingness to help a white farmer — and remember, the only context Breitbart was missing was when she said she wouldn’t actively hurt the white guy, but wouldn’t help him either, and so sent him off to one of “his people” instead. And recall that the NAACP had control of the “full context” and was on the side of firing her.
So yes, I do assume she has something to hide — and she’s done a piss poor job of it.
As Mr. Breitbart had explained months ago, his reason for posting the unedited video was to show the bigotry and racism of the NAACP. If you will recall, the NAACP, at their convention in Kansas City had accused the Tea Party of being a racist organization. The accusation was unfounded. On the other hand, Mr. Breitbart exposed for all the world to see the racism of the members of the NAACP who attended the meeting at which Shirley Sherrod was a guest speaker.
Although Shirley Sherrod did express some remorse over her treatment of the white farmer while performing her Federal duties, she still told the farmer he’d have to go see his own kind for a remedy. That’s racism. That’s Shirley Sherrod.
Thank you Mark, my comments. Sometimes, it is better to sit down and shut up. The whole “just pay the ticket” thing. But Sherrod must think she has a good hand, or is out for revenge. Either way, there are wasp nests it’s best to leave untouched. Recall how Oscar Wilde was accused of being a sodomite by his lover’s father. Wilde sued for slander, and lost. The presiding judge was obligated to enforce the anti-sodomy laws and sentence him to years of hard labor. At the time, those laws were rarely enforced, but since Wilde had brought it to the attention of the court, the judge had little choice. I think this isn’t going to end well for Sherrod. What did Mark Twain say? “Better to have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
That’s the whole problem with leftist ideology. They are so blinded by their entitlement mentality (I’m gonna sue and get me some), that they never consider that their actions may have consequences.
The consequences are always described as unexpected or unforeseen, but for any rational person, the consequences are expected and obvious.
It’s not just the entitlement mentality… it’s also that lefties are incapable of believing that they can ever be wrong about anything. In the words of Thomas Sowell, they are “self-anointed.”
Why would you be glad she’s suing him. Do you know, and approve of, what she’s suing him for?
Breitbart told the truth about Sherrod (the whole, undistorted truth, as you can see if you examine Breitbart’s original post in its entirety). Do you disagree with that statement? Or do you think it’s good thing that a public official is suing a private citizen for telling the truth about her?
Ms Sherrod is still a racist who thinks that whites should work with their “own kind” …
Divinity33372- Sorry, but no. We should all agree to examine the entire context of her speech that day, but one also needs to do so without hoping for one result or another. You are as guilty of that than many in your opposition. The fact is that Sherrod clearly admits to being a racial bigot and intended to use her position of power to wholly discriminate against that caucasian farmer. She admits this even as, yes, she later explains that she eventually changed her mind. Changing one’s mind about doing osmething corrupt or immoral may be a noble and just end result- but it is by no means exoneration. Suppose a hooded monster approaches a person with a noose and secretly strings it around their neck with the intent on hanging them simply because of the hatred held for the victim’s color or creed- but then the culprit stops before they commit the crime or even making the victim aware of their original intention. Would you still trust this person and say they are to be given a pass because they thought better of their original intent? I would say nonsense. just as I say it is nonsense that this woman is suing Breitbart (claiming troubles now in finding employment) for simply exposing the woman who enjoyed a large sum of money as part of that same pigford settlement. Kudo’s Andrew, and I look forward to discovery of all the facts.
unreal! I saw that “edited clip” that Breitbart posted. it contained all the so-called exculpatory parts. she she wants to sue someone she should sue the people who fired her, the Obama administration. screw Sherrod, go Andrew!
This is a typical “shakedown” lawsuit. Sherrod expects Breitbart to pay up rather than go through a lengthy legal battle. But since she’s part of Pigford, this opens the Pigford closet, and Andrew will find all the skeletons he needs….
Popcorn, anyone?
Sherrod’s attorneys will seek indulgent protection from the court on discovery related to Pigford. It is such a potential political liability for the Administration and the DC bureaucracy that I expect the presiding judge will oblige. What do you see as the relevance of Pigford to her defamation claim? Even under the “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” standard, I’m not at all sure a federal judge will take a hands off approach on that subject. I suppose one might speculate that she was only hired by the USDA in the first place because of Pigford. One might also speculate that Breitbart spooked the USDA with his expose, causing them to cut her lose in hopes of killing the story before bigger problems came to light.
I hope Breitbart’s attorneys will be able to use her suit as a vehicle for discovering more about the inner workings of Pigford, but I don’t take it to be a foregone conclusion.
And every time Breitbart gets turned down, he gets another reversible error to appeal, and more headlines asking why she’s reluctant to be open and honest.
It seems to me every action she took at the USDA is fair game because the central issue is whether she treated white farmers differently from black farmers.
I don’t think Sherrod was working at USDA when she made took the actions described in her recorded statements?
Nevertheless, Pigford and USDA evidence is likely relevant to the suit because they go to the cause and quantum of damages for her eventual employment termination.
If Sherrod does withdraw the suit before discovery can Breitbart continue the discovery by:
1. countersuing for his attorney’s fees?
2. Or alternatively can he countersue for defamation given that she has accused him of same.
3. Can he countersue on the grounds that her suit was baseless to begin with and intended only to harass and intimidate?
I don’t know the law so the answers to these questions may be obvious to someone who does. I also don’t have Breitbart’s resources but given that she’s opened this can of worms, I hope that he doesn’t let her close it.
Typically in federal court a plaintiff can withdraw a suit without prejudice anytime before an Answer is filed, and a defendant can’t do anythng about it (though one could argue that Breitbart would now have a reasonable fear of being sued such that he could make use of the Declaratory Judgment Act to file a claim on his own). I wouldn’t recommend that Breitbart sue for defamation; he’s a public figure, and proving the actual malice standard would be difficult. If she withdraws, one could move for Rule 11 sanctions, but since it’s Kirkland representing her, I don’t see the judge likely to award them. You wouldn’t be able to get discovery if she withdraws.
Where I could see Breitbart getting discovery re Pigford is that if she continues with the suit, it would be relevant (or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence) to seek documents and testimony re the Pigford settlement because (1) it would show her lack of credibility in general; (2) would show that her firing from USDA occurred not because of Breitbart, but because USDA wanted any excuse to get her out b/c she was so toxic; and (3) would show that her reputation isn’t “damaged” by any alleged defamation by Breitbart because her own reputation was so crappy to begin with as a result of Pigford. My 2c.
In other words, if Breitbart is smart, he’ll file an answer as soon as humanly possible, so that she can’t withdraw the suit. Did I get that right?
Breitbart clearly stated from day 1 that the video was released to show the NAACP’s racism. The video was not edited to make Sherrod look worse that she actually is, it was edited to show that the NAACP was as racist as it actually is. Sherrod’s over-praised epiphany that poor (and ONLY poor) whites might be as human as blacks is in the shorter video.
The full video is, if anything, more personally damaging to Sherrod than the shorter one. Sherrod appears to devote her entire being to race and class grievance. She is drowning in her own bigotries.
Have fun with this, Andrew, but avoid a D.C. jury trial if you can.
Please, have your attorney ask Sherrod under oath to describe precisely what she thinks of whites who are not poor. She will either lie or she will melt down in a way that makes Reverend Wright sound like a piker.
>>”Please, have your attorney ask Sherrod under oath to describe precisely what she thinks of whites who are not poor. She will either lie or she will melt down in a way that makes Reverend Wright sound like a piker.”
Not sure what that line of questioning would accomplish.
Assuming this suit ever reached the point where Sherrod herself were deposed (which I’d say is unlikely), and she were actually compelled to answer this specific question (again, unlikely), she’d probably just say that she holds no animus against white people.
Maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t, but I doubt she’s so stupid as to answer any other way.
Kudo’s for Andrew . . . this is going to be like a
nice juicy steak. Yummy!
I’m not entirely clear what the grounds for Sherrod’s suit are.
Sherrod was “defamed” because Breitbart posted a video of her speaking at a public event?
Perhaps she should be suing herself.
I don’t recall Breitbart saying anything derogatory about Sherrod.
In fact, to the contrary, he was quite clear at the time that his posting the video wasn’t about Sherrod, but rather to draw attention to the NAACP audience that seemed to be hypocritically applauding racially discriminatory behavior directed at a white person.
Not incidentally, if Sherrod didn’t feel that she did anything wrong, then why did she resign her position from the US Dept of Agriculture?
Yes, the Obama administration may have asked her to resign out of political expedience, but she’s an adult, and she didn’t have to agree. She could have simply said “I didn’t do anything wrong and I’m not resigning over comments at the NAACP function that were taken out of context. Feel free to fire me if you have cause or no longer have confidence in me”.
I agree, what harm is she claiming that Breitbart did her?
He simply broadcast her speech…her own words and in her own voice.
She might have grounds to sue her superiors at USDA for compelling her resignation, but she was publicly offered reinstatement to her job…and SHE turned it down.
So where are the damages attributable to Breitbart et al?
It ain’t libel if it’s the truth.
I2ANAL, but I’d guess this will be thrown out of court.
And given what has been alleged about Sherrod and her husband’s involvement in “Pigford”, I’d be mighty leery about getting anywhere near any adversary who might themselves get power of discovery.
She went under the bus once, and this looks to me like she might be essentially crawling back into the road so that she gets run over by that same bus on its return trip.
Actually, the MSM is gonna sweat bullits on this one. If somehow she gets a ruling against Breitbart for his trivial editing of that video, the rest of the MSM is gonna get their asses sued off.
Breitbart has said that he was sent the video already edited, and that’s how he posted it. I’d imagine he can probably prove this, too.
So a claim that Breitbart edited the NAACP footage specifically to make Sherrod look bad probably isn’t going to go anywhere.
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that to prove libel (defamation) the plaintiff has to show that the statements in question were defamatory, false, and malicious.
Sherrod probably can show that her reputation was damaged by this incident. But I think she’s going to have a hell of a time making the rest of her case, specifically that Breitbart deliberately lied about this in an effort to hurt her.
Again, I don’t see how a video excerpt of Sherrod speaking could be considered “false” even if the clip were lifted out of context. So long as Breitbart believed the clip to be authentic at the time he posted it (and this is not in dispute by anyone), the case ends there.
Breitbart never asked for Sherrod to lose her job, or even for anything bad to happen to her, and given the circumstances surrounding his posting I think its going to pretty hard for her to prove that he acted with malice.
So I don’t think this suit is going to go anywhere, and I don’t think things are even going to get to the point where examination of Sherrod is going to disclose anything interesting about Pigford or anything else.
The excerpt had popped up in it’s edited form.on a site concerning agriculture, two weeks before Breitbart aired it.
Perhaps she can sue the manufacturer of the bus Obama threw her under. She can’t sue Obama himself, lightworkers are immune from lawsuits don’t you know?
Does anyone know where and in what court the suit was filed? I want to follow filings via the court’s online docket. Thanks.
So how will the DOJ hamstring Breitbart? We know they hamstring FOIA requests from conservatives and lawlessly pursue a racist agenda against whites. I’m sure that this is the ace in Sherrod’s pocket and they’ll be playing dirty pool, which is business as usual for these radicals. If the lamestream media wasn’t a pawn of the far left the corruption would have been nipped in the bud a bit more, but thank God for conservative blogs, which have become about the only source of real news in a sea of leftist propaganda, a sea that is fortunately receding quite rapidly as more people turn away from them. I’m rooting for truth and rule of law, go Breitbart!
You can’t always get discovery. Look at Lt. Col. Lakin’s case. What a travesty of justice.
Breitbart should protect himself at all times. That he will gain discovery into Pigford is not guaranteed. This will not be a cake walk and will be very expensive. Good Luck Andrew. You are going to need it. I do think the slander/defamation thing doesn’t fly.
Poor Shirley. You and your ex black panther “Rev” hubby(jeez, how many black “revs” are either phony or corrupt?)are about to find out the hard way what its like to take on a real man, not a DC girlyboy. Hope you dont enjoy the FACT that you two are about to get em bare assed.