Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Lobbyist files Defamation Suit against NYT
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, December 30, 2008

If she wins, she may end up being the new owner (and I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing):
Washington lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman has filed a $27 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for a February article about Iseman and her relationship with Sen. John McCain.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond on Tuesday, alleges the article falsely communicated that Iseman and McCain had an illicit “romantic” relationship in 1999 when he was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and she was a lobbyist representing clients before Congress.

The suit also names the executive editor of the Times, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters who wrote the story as defendants.
Given what I know at the moment, this seems entirely justified. I mean, other than court, where does she go to get her reputation back?
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

The times will try to cover it up with a retraction.

Hopefully she wins and gets to burn the damn thing down.
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
It could be an interesting case. For instance, is she a public figure? Or, better, can the Times attorneys establish that she is a public figure, especially in DC, where the defamation would presumably have damaged her reputation and career? If it can be established that she is a public figure, then a different standard applies, where she would have to prove "actual malice" on the part of the Times.

But the most likely outcome is a settlement where the Times admits nothing and both parties agree to not discuss the terms. The Times is probably insured against such claims, so it might be that the worst that will happen to it is that its premiums will increase.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
That crappy paper will now have to explain to a jury in Virginia why they printed a story about a woman having an affair with John McCain. They will have to show more than "she knew him" or "she worked with him."

They will have to show pictures, or a report from a PI, or something substantial. Otherwise, they printed rumor as news.

If the jury finds that they did that, the creeps who run that fish wrapper better open up their wallets for a fat, fat payday.

I personally hope she takes them to the bank and cleans their clocks.
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
coM7ew qcmjdllghgjn, [url=]ynwppdlckshs[/url], [link=]mckoazjcjxyr[/link],
Written By: ygzahvc
I guess the real issue... and it’s one that’ll never get used as a defense.... does anyone take the Times seriously, anymore, when they take out after Republicans?

Written By: Bithead
does anyone take the Times seriously, anymore, when they take out after Republicans?
Bithead — I understand why you ask. Unfortunately the answer is yes.

I’ve been corresponding with a dear college friend about politics this past year (and I’m not sure our friendship will survive) but the NYT is her favorite source of information, even though she will grant some liberal bias.

She thought I was a crackpot for attacking the Times a year ago when it reported that "the news from Iraq keeps getting worse." Readers of Q&O know that was when it was becoming clear that we had won.

She still demeans Bush as dumb and incurious, no matter what accomplishments of his I enumerate.

She’s a bright, decent person but blind to how one-sided and near-bigoted she is to those on the right.
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
I am hoping that she doesnt settle out of court but instead goes all out and drags them through court. But if I had to bet my first born I would say she will settle out of court.

Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Well, look, Hux....

I don’t question the woman has a case. The only question in my mind is what happens when she wins? Does the Times have a new owner? One can only hope.

Normally, I’d suggest that this would end up being settled out of court for about half the money in the suit…, but Pinch hasn’t got the spare coin to be settling, right now. SO, ya gotta wonder a bit how this is gonna fall out.

As to your friend, I can only say this; it’s almost axiomatic now that such people consider themselves to be the center of the political spectrum. ( As if being in the center was any great shakes.) So what you’re telling me doesn’t surprise me at all. I can help but wonder how much of that blindness that you describe is intentional. Indeed; You may be correct about your friendship not surviving the discussion; one of the hardest things in the world for any Liberal to wrap his mind around is that his judgments about everybody else’s bias, are themselves biased on his own myopic worldview.

Witness, Erb as an example.
Written By: Bithead
She’s a bright, decent person but blind to how one-sided and near-bigoted she is to those on the right.
Tell me about it. It seems to be a serious hazard for those whose life is centered in New York City.

I sat next to a NYC resident at dinner a couple of months ago. A smart guy, well respected in technology. He ranted about how Bush was so dumb that he must have a really low IQ. When I told him that Bush’s grades at Yale were better than Kerry’s, we looked at me with his jaw dropped.

I don’t think he believed me, so I told him to look them up. I doubt that he will.
Written By: Billy Hollis
3P00EU knyrxjacjgzm, [url=]xgwtpxqzqyxs[/url], [link=]ycbamfhiytvr[/link],
Written By: switwtxp
Written By: dramarama

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks