Stormy Daniels fully cooperating with federal investigators, while the Summer Zervos defamation case pushes forward. Update!

Stormy Daniels is cooperating with federal investigators probing 2016 non-disclosure agreement and $130,000 payment she received from Pres. Trump’s longtime personal attorney. https://t.co/gJagoFny4S - @NBCInvestigates

— NBC News (@NBCNews) April 10, 2018

Courtesy of NBC News: 

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels is cooperating with federal investigators looking into a $130,000 payment she received from President Donald Trump's personal attorney, multiple sources familiar with the proceedings told NBC News. 

The cooperation is in connection with a broader federal probe of the attorney, Michael Cohen, which triggered a raid on his office and hotel room on Monday.

Oh I bet Daniels is cooperating, and probably with a giant smile on her face.

It should also be noted that the investigation is focused on just on the $130,000 dollar payment to Daniels, but also the payoff that Playmate Karen McDougal received.

Courtesy of the Daily Beast:  

The FBI agents who raided Michael Cohen’s office were reportedly looking for “records about payments to two women who claim they had affairs with Mr. Trump,” and materials related to the "National Enquirer’s role in silencing" former Playboy model Karen McDougal, according to The New York Times. The raid—which sought materials related to Cohen’s $130,000 payout to Stormy Daniels and the $150,000 payment made to McDougal from the parent company of the Enquirer—was carried out by the public corruption unit of the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan. 

Ans while all of this is going on Summer Zervos is attempting to move forward with HER defamation lawsuit.

Courtesy of CNN: 

The lawyer representing former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos in her defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump filed a memorandum opposing Trump's attempt to have the case temporarily suspended until his appeal, which is pending, has been decided. 

In one of the exhibits attached to Tuesday's filing, Zervos details the harassment and threats she received after Trump denied her claims that he sexually assaulted her. 

"Immediately after he made each derogatory statement, I would get calls and people coming to my restaurant threatening me or my business," said Zervos, who runs a restaurant in California. 

"They would shout 'lying c--t' or 'lying b--tch' into the phone and say I should die, or say that they would drive us out of business," she said. "Several customers told me specifically that they would no longer come to my restaurant because I had lied. Other people called and placed fake take-out orders to hurt my business. I worried constantly for my safety, the safety of my family and the people I work with." 

"Because I'm a Republican and small-business owner and live among many supporters of Defendant [Trump], it was especially bad," Zervos said.

You know Donald Trump can fire Mueller, and bomb Syria until the cows come home, but clearly that is not going to make any of this go away.

Update: We are now learning that during that FBI raids of Cohen's office and residence, that they were also searching for evidence linking back to the Access Hollywood tape.

Courtesy of the NYT: 

The F.B.I. agents who raided the office and hotel of President Trump’s lawyer on Monday were seeking all records related to the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Mr. Trump was heard making vulgar comments about women, according to three people who have been briefed on the contents of a federal search warrant. 

The search warrant also sought evidence of whether the lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, tried to suppress damaging information about Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. 

It is not clear what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played regarding the tape, which was made public a month before the election. But the fact that the agents were seeking documents related to the tape reveals a new front in the investigation into Mr. Cohen that is being led by the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan.

Well isn't THAT interesting?

Judge presiding of defamation case against Bill O'Reilly refuses to keep his secret settlements secret.

Courtesy of CNN Money:  

A federal judge in New York has denied Bill O'Reilly's motion to seal settlement agreements he struck with multiple women who accused him of harassment, dealing a huge blow to the former Fox News host in a defamation suit brought last year. 

Deborah Batts, the judge presiding over the defamation suit, ruled Tuesday that O'Reilly "has failed to present compelling countervailing factors that could overcome the presumption of public access" to the agreements. 

Batts also said O'Reilly "has not even come close to rebutting this First Amendment presumption" that favors public access to documents. 

"Defendant O'Reilly asks the Court to resolve a dispute by relying on the very Agreements he seeks to shield from public view," Batts wrote. 

The judge's ruling means that certain terms of the settlements are coming to light for the first time. On Wednesday, Neil Mullin and Nancy Erika Smith, the attorneys representing the three plaintiffs, introduced to the court settlement agreements between O'Reilly and women who had sued and settled with him. The agreement struck with Andrea Mackris, a former Fox News producer who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against O'Reilly in 2004, required all parties in the case to disclaim any of the evidence "as counterfeit or forgeries" should it be made public. 

As Smith and Mullin put it in a separate filing on Wednesday, the provision required Mackris to "lie -- even in legal proceedings or under oath -- if any evidence becomes public, by calling evidence 'counterfeit' or 'forgeries.'"

A former Fox New host had a legal settlement written up that forces a former co-worker to lie about factual information if it becomes public?

Let's chalk that up to the least surprising news of the day.  

Man I used to love to hate on Bill O'Reilly back when he actually mattered. (Might have something to do with the fact that he attacked me on national television.)

But now that he is a fucking nobody, I just enjoy watching him sink slowly into oblivion.

Alex Jones is being sued. Again.

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

On Monday, attorneys for Marcel Fontaine ― a 24-year-old Boston man whom Jones’ website, Infowars, incorrectly identified as the Parkland, Florida, school shooter in a Feb. 14 article ― filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones and his publication. 

What’s more: Fontaine plans to take his case against Jones’ conspiracy-laden site to a jury instead of settling the matter behind closed doors, Fontaine’s lawyer Mark Bankston, of the law firm Farrar & Ball, told HuffPost. 

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Travis County, Texas, names Jones, Infowars, Free Speech Systems and author Kit Daniels as defendants in the case. 

Daniels’ Infowars article featured a photo of Fontaine and incorrectly identified him as the gunman who killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. 

“Another alleged photo of the suspect shows communist garb,” read part of the article, later removed from the website, that showed a photo of Fontaine wearing a popular shirt from 2005 depicting communist leaders partying. 

Good for this guy.

Look people make mistakes, it happens to the best of us, but to purposefully  accuse somebody of a crime like this, with no evidence to back it up, is indefensible.

Which I am guessing is something that Alex Jones is about to learn the hard way.

Stormy Daniels is now suing Donald Trump's lawyer for defamation of character.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

Stormy Daniels ramped up her legal battle against President Trump on Monday, alleging in court that his personal attorney Michael Cohen defamed her by insinuating that she lied about an affair with Trump more than a decade ago. 

Daniels amended her existing lawsuit against Trump, adding Cohen as a defendant in the pending case. The expansion of the lawsuit in a California federal court comes one day after the adult-film actress’s widely watched interview on “60 Minutes.”

Now this is very problematic because Trump is also being sued by alleged sexual harassment victim Summer Zervos for defamation of character as well.

That would be two different women, with two entirely different experiences, suing Trump, or a Trump lawyer, for defaming them.

And at this point I should add, so far.

Now interestingly enough Michael Cohen's lawyer sent off a cease and desist order last night essentially accusing Daniels of defaming HIM by suggesting that he sent the thug that threatened her back in 2011.

Cohen’s lawyer fired back almost immediately after the Daniels interview with this letter saying allegation of goon threatening her was false >> pic.twitter.com/TWH2djrFPq

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) March 26, 2018

The problem is that she never made any such allegation.

As proven by a transcript written by Think Progress:  

Stormy Daniels: I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. T– taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin’ all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, “Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.” And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, “That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.” And then he was gone. 

Anderson Cooper: You took it as a direct threat? 

Stormy Daniels: Absolutely. 

Stormy Daniels: I was rattled. I remember going into the workout class. And my hands are shaking so much, I was afraid I was gonna– drop her. 

Anderson Cooper: Did you ever see that person again? 

Stormy Daniels: No. But I– if I did, I would know it right away. 

Anderson Cooper: You’d be able to– you’d be able to recognize that person? 

Stormy Daniels: 100%. Even now, all these years later. If he walked in this door right now, I would instantly know.

At no point in her answers to Anderson Cooper does Stormy Daniels suggest that the thug was sent by Cohen.

The attorney for Stormy Daniels also responded with this to questions about whether threats are still being directed at his client: 

"Absolutely. She receives threats on a near-hourly basis. Now, we don't have anything tying those to Mr. Cohen or Mr. Trump, to be clear, but she's certainly scared for her safety and the safety of her family."

You know it seems more and more like this attorney for Stormy Daniels just casually sets up a tripwire for Donald Trump and his attorneys, and they clumsily stumble into it every time.

There are a lot of trolls out there working overtime to convince us that this is a nothing burger, and that it will have no impact on Donald Trump whatsoever, but I disagree.

In fact this story seems to be metastasizing. and public interest remains high.

In fact the Stormy Daniels 60 Minutes interview brought in the show's highest ratings in nearly a decade.

And things may continue to ramp up from here. According to one of Daniels' best friends, there is a dress:

During a much longer interview with CNN's Jim Sciutto, Stormy's friend Alana Evans told him she was unaware of any texts, pictures or video but there was one thing. One little thing. 

"All I know is that Stormy still has the dress that she wore from that night," Evans told Sciutto

They may come to this story for the sex, but they leave recognizing that the guy in the White House is vulnerable to blackmail, and is almost certainly compromised by foreign agents.

Two women who reached sexual harassment settlements with Bill O'Reilly have now filed new defamation lawsuits after being called liars.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

Two women who reached sexual harassment settlements with Bill O’Reilly joined a defamation lawsuit against Mr. O’Reilly and Fox News on Wednesday, asserting that statements that he and the network made depicted them as liars, political operatives and extortionists. 

The women are Andrea Mackris, a former producer on Mr. O’Reilly’s show on Fox News who sued him for sexual harassment in 2004, and Rebecca Gomez Diamond, a former host on Fox Business Network who reached a settlement with Mr. O’Reilly in 2011 after coming forward with sexual harassment allegations against him. Both women had recorded conversations with Mr. O’Reilly, and he paid both settlements, according to people briefed on the matter. 

They joined a lawsuit filed earlier this month by Rachel Witlieb Bernstein, a former Fox News employee who reached a settlement with Fox News and Mr. O’Reilly in July 2002 after she repeatedly complained about his behavior to the network’s human resources department and other executives. Ms. Bernstein is also suing for breach of contract. Her allegations did not include sexual harassment.

Andrea Mackris was the one that O'Reilly tried to seduce by offering to rub a "falafel thing" all over her.

I would imagine that Fox New is probably going to want to buy them off again, but I'm really hoping hey refuse the offer.

Personally I would love to see this whole thing argued in court so we can actually get a chance to hear what a pervert O'Reilly was to these women  on those recording, and of course to watch him get thoroughly humiliated again.

And you may have guessed I really do not like Bill O'Reilly.

Sarah Palin is appealing the dismissal of her defamation suit against the New York Times.

Sarah Palin is appealing the dismissal of her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. Prev: https://t.co/aQKodTao4P pic.twitter.com/dVXjHUpk1w

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) November 21, 2017

Okay for any of you who doubted that this lawsuit was being bankrolled by somebody else, you can put those doubts aside now.

Palin simply does NOT have the spare pennies to be fighting a losing case like this on her own.

Somebody is paying the bills.

Somebody who hates the New York Times, and probably mainstream media in general.

Anybody want to hazard a guess?

Sarah Palin's lawyers attempt to reopen her defamation case against the New York Times.

Just a goldurn minute.

Courtesy of Reuters: 

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan devised an extraordinary procedure this summer in Sarah Palin’s defamation case against The New York Times, calling an early-stage evidentiary hearing to obtain testimony from Times witnesses. The judge said he called the hearing to give Palin, the former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate, a fighting chance to establish that the Times acted with actual malice, a requisite for defamation claims against a public figure. Rakoff concluded not long after the evidentiary hearing that Palin couldn’t plausibly allege the Times’ ill will, even with the procedural bootstrap he had provided. He dismissed her case with prejudice. 

In a new motion for reconsideration, Palin’s lawyers at Bajo Cuva Cohen Turkel and Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe suggest that Judge Rakoff’s usual process went awry, leading the judge to speculate – and reach speculative conclusions – about what Palin might have asserted in an amended complaint. 

The article really gets into the weeds about the legality of how the judge made his decision, and the chances that Palin can successfully re-litigate this case (Spoiler alert: Not a snowball's chance in hell.), but ultimately it seems more of like an act of desperation to keep her name in the papers than a faithful attempt to get "justice" for Palin.

Most people recognized at the very beginning that Palin had no case here, so the idea that they would fight for a different verdict seems quixotic at best.

However this also reinforced my initial belief that this whole thing is being bankrolled by some conservative backers who are looking for a way to attack the New York Times and damage their reputation.

Palin would NEVER spend this much money on a lost cause.

Hell she wouldn't even spend this much money on one of her kids. Or is that essentially the same as a lost cause?

Judge rejects Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against New York Times! Update!

Judge Rakoff has dismissed Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. Story soon.

— Sydney Ember (@melbournecoal) August 29, 2017

Courtesy of The Daily Beast:

A Manhattan judge on Tuesday threw out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against The New York Times. Palin sued the newspaper for defamation earlier this year over an editorial that tied an ad featuring crosshairs denoting anti-gun politicians, produced by her political action committee, to the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The Times was forced to append a correction to the editorial, noting the fact that “no such link” was established between the Palin group’s ad and the shooting. The judge said Palin was unable to prove on a “plausible factual basis” that the Times’ mistake was “malicious” in nature.

Hah!

I knew this thing was going to blow up in Palin's face!

Well I think we all know what expressions she is wearing now.

Yep, that's the one.

Update:

U.S. Judge in Manhattan has dismissed Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times "with prejudice," meaning case is over.

— Benjamin Weiser (@BenWeiserNYT) August 29, 2017

Well good for the judge.

I think most of us dismissed Sarah Palin with prejudice years ago. 

Editor called to testify in Sarah Palin defamation lawsuit says that article wanted to illustrate charged political rhetoric's connection to violence, not accuse Palin of directly influencing the shooting of Gabby Giffords.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

The editor of The New York Times editorial page testified on Wednesday that he did not intend in an editorial to blame the former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin for a 2011 mass shooting, but was instead trying to make a point about the heated political environment. The editorial is the focus of a defamation lawsuit brought by Ms. Palin against the news organization. 

The editor, James Bennet, said he had wanted to draw a link between charged political rhetoric and an atmosphere of political incitement after a gunman opened fired in June on a baseball field where Republican congressmen were practicing, injuring several people including Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana. But Mr. Bennet said he was not trying to make a direct connection between a map of targeted electoral districts that Ms. Palin’s political action committee had circulated and the 2011 shooting in Arizona by Jared Loughner that severely injured Representative Gabby Giffords. 

“I did not intend and was not thinking of it as a causal link to the crime,” Mr. Bennet said. During cross-examination, he said he did not know if Mr. Loughner had seen the map and “did not know if the map incited him to his conduct.”

I think that what Mr. Bennet wrote is a valid observation on the effects that violent rhetoric has on the behaviors of certain individuals.

We just saw that same thing take place in Charlottesville, where people reading White Supremacist postings online showed up ready to incite violence and kick ass.

We have seen this happen time and time again, what SarahPAC did with that map is nothing new, but it DID help to create an atmosphere of hostility that could be tapped into by people with certain violent tendencies.

The judge is still considering the idea of throwing this whole thing out, and if he does I really hope the Times counter sues Palin for everything she still has left.

Well Sarah Palin will get at least one New York Times journalist to testify in her defamation lawsuit.

Courtesy of the New York Times:

The author of a New York Times editorial will have to testify under oath in a defamation lawsuit filed by the former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. 

The Times filed a motion last month seeking to dismiss the case, and the judge, Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, said the testimony was necessary to help him determine whether to grant that motion. Judge Rakoff set the hearing for Aug. 16. Judge Rakoff said last month that he would rule by the end of this month on the motion to dismiss the case. 

A spokeswoman for The Times said in a statement that the news organization would provide the testimony the judge had ordered. David McCraw, deputy general counsel for The Times, said the witness would be James Bennet, The Times’s editorial page editor.

As you may remember Palin was blocked from bringing in almost two dozen New York Times reporters by the judge in this case, and instead only the journalist who wrote the op-ed will show up to testify.

There is of course a strong chance that once this individual explains the thinking that went into the piece, and points out that the portion Palin objects to was later retracted, that the judge will go ahead and throw the case out completely.

We're sorry about this and we appreciate that our readers called us on the mistake. We've corrected the editorial. https://t.co/t1FZ3iEYQJ pic.twitter.com/k7WW5uJIQO

— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) June 15, 2017

Personally I hope that the paper counter sues Palin since she is clearly being used as a conservative canary in the coal mine trying to find a chink in the Times' armor so that others can follow after and also file suits against the paper  which has caused their president so much grief.

Remember Palin has not spent one minute in this courtroom, and I believe that if she were subpoenaed by the Times she would quickly fall apart under cross examination and the Times' might quickly learn who is bankrolling this bullshit.

That seems like something which would be in the public's best interest to report.  

Judge blocks Sarah Palin's plans to perform opposition research on two dozen reporters for the New York Times.

Courtesy of the New York Post:

A Manhattan federal court judge will decide by the end of this month whether to dismiss a defamation lawsuit Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times for accusing the former Alaska governor of inciting gun violence. 

In the meantime, Judge Jed Rakoff suspended discovery, blocking Palin’s lawyers from grilling two dozen Times reporters to prove the Gray Lady is biased against her. 

Clearly the judge recognized this as a fishing expedition and that the entire point of this case is to embarrass and bully the New York Times and its reporters. 

I still think that this case will get thrown out, but if it doesn't I seriously doubt its outcome will prove satisfying to either Palin or her lawyers.

Sarah Palin wants to subpoena close to two dozen New York Times reporters for her lawsuit.

Courtesy of the New York Post: 

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin plans to subpoena close to two dozen New York Times reporters, editors and other workers as part of her defamation lawsuit against the newspaper, it was revealed in court documents Wednesday.

In a motion arguing that the case be dismissed, lawyers for the New York Times complained that Palin’s legal team has served notice that she plans to subpoena “twenty-three non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees – most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial at issue.” 

The subpoenas are part of Palin’s effort to obtain “documents that might reveal, among other things, their ‘negative feelings’ toward her,” The Times told the judge. 

Palin’s legal team also intends to ask the paper to produce “every internal communication it has had about her since 2011,” they said. 

The Times complained about Palin’s discovery requests in a Manhattan federal court filing reiterating its request to have Palin’s defamation lawsuit tossed.

Well this is clearly a fishing expedition.

My new theory is that somebody is bankrolling this lawsuit in the hopes of finding embarrassing information about these reporters in order to smear them and undermine their credibility.

And that sounds like something well heeled Trump supporters might be willing to invest in.

Donald Trump's lawyers are desperately trying to get the Summer Zervos defamation case thrown out.

Courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter:  

Donald Trump is looking to end a defamation lawsuit brought by season-five Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos — or at least delay it until he leaves office. 

The dispute arose after tape was published of Trump boasting to Access Hollywood's Billy Bush about grabbing women's genitals. As Trump was under fire for his comments, Zervos came forward to accuse him of kissing her twice in 2007 and attacking her in a hotel room. “I never met her at a hotel,” responded Trump, who would also attack allegations from his accusers as "100 percent fabricated and made-up charges, pushed strongly by the media and the Clinton campaign." 

Zervos claims she's been branded as a liar, and while she's only seeking $2,914 in actual damages (though potentially more in punitive damages), her attorney, Gloria Allred, has expressed that she is looking forward to taking “far-reaching” depositions and asking "many questions he may not wish to answer, but will be required to answer."

Trump's lawyers are using a number of tactics to get this case thrown out, such as accusing Zervos' attorney Gloria Allred of being politically motivated, saying that you cannot sue a sitting president in a New York court, and finally that Trump's statements are protected by the First Amendment,

No seriously, the 1st Amendment:

"The allegedly defamatory statements were made during a national political campaign that involved heated public debate in political forums," writes Kasowitz. "Statements made in that context are properly viewed by courts as part of the expected fiery rhetoric, hyperbole, and opinion that is squarely protected by the First Amendment."

So essentially the lawyer is suggesting that Trump just said controversial things to attract support and did not necessarily mean any of it to be taken literally.

So when he accused Zervos of being a liar, that was just political hyperbole?

Somehow I don't think that is going to pass the smell test.

Also keep in mind that though this is a defamation case the initial accusations were that Trump sexually assaulted this young woman, and the fact that he is hiding behind the 1st Amendment to keep that from being discussed in open court is pretty damn despicable.

New York Times comes out hard for dismissal of Sarah Palin's frivolous defamation lawsuit.

Courtesy of the New York Law Journal: 

Lawyers for The New York Times came out swinging on July 7 in Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the paper over an editorial linking her to a mass shooting, arguing the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate could not show The Times acted with actual malice. 

Palin filed her suit against The Times last week, alleging that she was defamed by a June 14 editorial called "America's Lethal Politics," which she said ties her to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, that resulted in six deaths and a gunshot wound to the head of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who survived the attack. 

At the first conference for Palin's suit, David Schulz, a partner at Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, told Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff that his firm could file a motion to dismiss Palin's suit in one week. He also said there was no intent by The Times to put out misinformation. 

"The complaint mentions very clearly that a mistake was made," Schulz said, saying that The Times corrected the editorial in about 12 hours.

I am still not sure who convinced Palin that this was a good idea, but I really feel that the Times is going to squash this thing like a bug, and leave her looking like an idiot.

Not that such a thing would be new to her, but still you would think at some point you might want to try and regain a little dignity.

I'm sorry, did I say dignity?

I forgot who I was talking about.

Sarah Palin will not appear at the opening day of her defamation case against the New York Times.

Courtesy of the New York Daily News: 

Conservative activist Sarah Palin won’t be attending the first court proceeding in her defamation case against The New York Times, according to her lawyer. 

The former vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor filed a lawsuit on June 27 alleging The Times ran a “fabricated story.” The initial conference in the case is set for 11 a.m. Friday. 

Asked Thursday whether Palin will be in the courtroom, her lawyer, S. Preston Ricardo, replied “No” in an email to the Daily News.

"Conservative activist?" Well I guess that sounds better than "failed reality show performer," or "political has been."

I love this part of the article: 

Palin wants The Times to pay up for “falsely stating to millions of people that she, a devoted wife, mother and grandmother, who committed a substantial portion of her adult life to public service, is part of a pattern of ‘lethal’ politics,” the suit contends.

"Devoted" wife, mother, and grandmother? 

If the court will indulge me I'd like to make an objection. Or vomit in my mouth, whichever is the more convenient.

And who is she kidding with this "committed a substantial portion of her adult life to public service?"

The only public that Palin ever served was her the public that looked back at her from a mirror every morning.

Remember this case is only seeking $75,000 in damages.

And since the Times has declared they are planning to aggressively fight this thing Palin could end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Planned Parenthood to sue organization that tried to destroy their reputation with those doctored videos.

Courtesy of  The Hill: 

Planned Parenthood on Thursday filed a long-awaited federal lawsuit against the anti-abortion activists who have targeted the group with undercover videos for the last year. 

The formal complaint marks the first time that Planned Parenthood has taken legal action against the group, the Center for Medical Progress. 

The national organization, along with its California affiliate, is accusing the Center for Medical Progress and its organizer David Daleiden for unlawful behavior ranging from secret taping to trespassing. The group said the Center for Medical Progress has violated the laws of three states as well as federal law. 

“Today, Planned Parenthood is going on the offense,” Kathy Kneer, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California said in a call with reporters. 

In response, Daleiden released a statement that said “game on.” 

“I look forward to deposing all the CEOs, Medical Directors, and their co-conspirators who participated in Planned Parenthood's illegal baby body parts racket,” he said.

Well I am looking forward to this as well. 

However I do not think that the outcome will be quite as this Daleiden guy predicts.

By the way just to be clear asking for compensation to cover costs while providing fetal samples to scientists is not illegal.

The only thing that would make it illegal is if Planned Parenthood was attempting to profit off of those parts.

Those videos showed no such thing.

Former investigator files suit against House Benghazi chairman Trey Gowdy for defamation of character.

Courtesy of MSNBC:

A former investigator for the House Benghazi Committee filed a federal lawsuit against the committee Monday, opening a new chapter in legal skirmishes over the Benghazi attacks and subsequent investigations. 

Last month, Brad Podliska, an Air Force Reserve major, alleged the Benghazi committee terminated him based on his military obligations and his refusal to advance an agenda targeting Hillary Clinton. Now, Podliska is detailing those charges in court in a new filing that alleges Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy broke the law by defaming him in their public battle over Podliska’s firing. 

Gowdy previously said Podliska was terminated partly for mishandling classified information. 

The suit cites Gowdy’s claim from a press release and an interview with NBC News, and argues it was a damaging line of attack, since allegations of such a “serious crime” have “ended the careers of many professionals in national security-related industries.”

As many of you no doubt remember Podliska claimed he was fired because: 

“The Committee’s investigation had changed to focus on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department,” the complaint states, “and deemphasize the other agencies that were involved in the Benghazi attacks,” which was Podliska’s initial assignment. He found staff leadership viewed him as “naïve” for taking an “objective, professional” approach to the investigation, the complaint states, when the predetermined goal was actually to “target” Sec. Clinton. Podliska argues that agenda contributed to his firing.

Well this is certainly not going to help the Benghazi committee shake its reputation as a tool for a partisan witch hunt against Hillary.

Bummer.

While promoting his new show "Off the Grid" Jesse Ventura labels "American Sniper" Chris Kyle a liar, and pokes Sarah Palin with a sharp wit.

Courtesy of the Examiner:  

To open his show on Feb. 3, Ventura simply asks, "What do you get when you combine delusion, performance art, and a desperate need to remain relevant?" The former governor gives a quick response, "Sarah "the quitter" Palin, of course." 

The beef between Ventura and Palin started when Palin attacked Ventura over his recent lawsuit against the estate of Chris Kyle. Claiming in his book to have knocked Ventura out, the former Minnesota governor sued Kyle and the book company for slander and defamation. After the jury found that there was not enough credible evidence to back Kyle's claims, Ventura cleared his name and was awarded $1.8 million. Following the jury's decision, Palin defended Kyle, who she says is a hero, and criticized Ventura, calling him a "jacka**" for suing a "military widow and her fatherless children." 

When asked if he thought Kyle was a hero, Ventura didn't hold back. "My definition of a hero; a hero has to have honor. Unfortunately if you are a liar, you can't have honor," Ventura said. 

"I'll be blunt. Chris Kyle is a liar and I proved it in court. And so there for, he can't have honor, so it disqualifies him from being a hero." 

"Sarah Palin hinted at a 2016 run, trashed Michael Moore, and took aim at Hilary Clinton," Ventura points out, but questions what her motives really are. The former pro wrestler and actor noted that if Palin was to run and win the presidency in 2016, it would be important who her vice president was. Ventura brought up that Palin only served a half a term as governor of Alaska, after media scrutiny took a toll on her and her family.

I am not always a fan of Ventura's but I have to say that he is certainly in the catbird seat these days. 

With all of the controversy surrounding Chris Kyle Ventura is the one person who can say that he proved that the man was a liar in a court of law.

And as for Palin well by taking on Ventura she was clearly punching above her weight class again.

And that line about the importance of Palin's running mate if she were to run for President?

That line is gold.

Judge rules that defamation suit against Glenn Beck can proceed. Is it Christmas already?

Courtesy of Salon:

A federal judge on Tuesday denied Glenn Beck’s request to dismiss a libel lawsuit that accuses the conservative talking head of defaming a Saudi man Beck falsely accused of funding the Boston Marathon bombing last year. 

As Josh Gerstein explains, Beck sought to have the lawsuit tossed out on the grounds that Abdulrahman Alharbi, the man who brought the suit, was a public figure because of his presence near the finish line of the marathon, where two bombs exploded, killing three people. As a public figure, Alharbi would have had to clear a difficult hurdle in order for the lawsuit to proceed, proving that Beck intentionally lied or acted with malice in making the accusations. 

But in ruling that the lawsuit could move forward, U.S. District Judge Patti Saris rejected the argument that the mere act of attending the event made Alharbi a public figure. 

“Choosing to attend a sporting event as one of thousands of spectators is not the kind of conduct that a reasonable person would expect to result in publicity,” she wrote. “Quite to the contrary, a spectator at an event like the Boston Marathon would reasonably expect to disappear into the throngs of others, never attracting notice by the press. Because he did not ‘assume the risk of publicity,’ Alharbi does not meet the definition of an involuntary public figure.”

Of course the argument could also be made that Beck essentially MADE Alharbi a public figure when he plucked him from obscurity and essentially blamed him for the terrorist attack.

For those who may not remember Beck claimed to have information from a government source and proceeded to completely manufacture a relationship between the innocent bystander and the Tsarnaev brothers: 

The broadcaster eventually called Alharbi an al-Qaeda “control agent” and the “money man” behind the attacks. “You know who the Saudi is?” Beck asked. “He’s the money man. He’s the guy who paid for it.” 

“Is this speculation or are you reporting something?” a co-host asked. 

Beck ignored the question. “He’s the money man.”

I hope this Alharbi guy takes Beck for millions. 

Jesse Ventura responds to Sarah Palin's insults.

As you all well know Palin lashed out at Ventura after he won an anti-defamation lawsuit against the estate of sniper Chris Kyle who had claimed in his book that he punched Ventura out in a bar fight.

Here is what she said:  

“Hey tough guy, Jesse Ventura, your feelings were hurt because you perceived your reputation was besmirched by words in a book?” 

“So you turn around and sue, expecting $2 million from a military widow and her fatherless children? Yeah, like that is going to help your reputation, jackass.”

So that was two weeks ago but Ventura must have finally heard about it because she said it on her pa-per-butch channel, and nobody pays any real attention to that. 

Here was his response:

"Well you know what I've got to say to Sarah "the quitter" Palin? At least I finished my term, Sarah, and didn't lie to the people. You lied to the people. You told the people of Alaska that you wanted to be their governor. Then all of a sudden fame and fortune came your way, and being governor wasn't that important was it, to the money. So you dropped out early. You quit your job as governor. You didn't fulfill your obligation and promise to the very people who elected you. You chose fame and fortune, Sarah. I have no respect for you because you made a choice. You took the money over your obligation. So who are you to criticize me?"

Now I am not really a big fan of Ventura, though I do agree with him on some things, but he has every right to defend himself against this unnecessary verbal attack because it was really NONE of Palin's business.

I mean if a court of law found that what Kyle wrote in his book was defamatory, then what right does little miss buttinski have to say anything about it?

Besides Ventura filed the case in 2012 when Kyle was still alive (After all how did he know the guy was stupid enough to take guys suffering from PTSD to a gun range?), and the estate was only named as the defendant after Kyle got himself killed, so it is not like he was targeting a widow and her children out of spite.

Or perhaps its simply that she is jealous Ventura is now 1.8 millions dollars richer, while Palin realizes that if SHE were to try and sue for defamation that she would surely lose.