Sarah Palin sued the New York Times for claiming that her "target" map spurred the shooting of Gabbie Giffords. She did not sue for the first time they falsely claimed that, back in 2011.

She sued when the New York Times again reasserted this lie in 2017, even after the New York Times had previously retracted the false claim.

As many pointed out: The New York Times doesn't even trust the New York Times' reportage.

"The Nation's Paper of Record," indeed! The New York Times isn't even the Paper of Record at the New York Times.

For a public figure to sue for defamation, he must establish "actual malice" -- the defamatory claim must not only be false, but the defaming party must have known it was false, or was in willful disregard whether it was true or false.

In this case, the New York Times itself previously reported their false claim was, in fact, false. Thus, the New York Times as an institution certainly knew it was false, and any NYT "journalist" "reporting" at a later date could (and should) just check the NYT archive to verify whether this claim was true or false.

Note: Reading the case, it appears that courts have imposed even further hurdles to find major media companies guilty of liable-- you can't just prove the institution as a whole knew the claim was false or was likely to be false. You also have to prove the specific individual working for that media company knew the claim was false or was likely to be false.

The biased Hawaiian judge created a weird new procedure in which he conducted his own "evidentiary review" during the trial and took the case out of the jury's hands, saying that he had decided, on his own, that, as a "matter of law," the Republican Loses and the Democrats Win, the way Satan demands it to be.

Sarah Palin Scores New Trial in N.Y. Times Defamation Case

Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over an editorial linking Palin to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was revived on Wednesday.

Several "major issues" during Palin's unsuccessful 2022 federal trial in Manhattan "impugn the reliability of that verdict," the Second Circuit said.

While the jury was deliberating, US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff tossed the case, saying that "as a matter of law," the news outlet wasn't liable.

That ruling "improperly intruded on the province of the jury by making credibility determinations," Judge John M. Walker Jr., of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said Wednesday.

Rakoff didn't inform the jury of his decision, but Bloomberg News reported that several jurors deliberating in the case learned from smart-phone push notifications that the judge had said he would rule in favor of the Times.

The trial was also marred by improperly excluded evidence and inaccurate jury instructions, the Second Circuit said.

...

The Second Circuit vacated the jury verdict finding the Times wasn't liable and vacated the district court's separate ruling dismissing the case. In vacating Rakoff's ruling, the Second Circuit said there's a sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Palin on the question of actual malice.

By the way: this biased, corrupt judge first dismissed the case on a 12(1)(b) motion, then, when that was reversed, he engineered this new way to dismiss the case, again.

And now he's reversed. Again.

Say, maybe it's time to take him off this case, huh?

And off the bench, too?

Charles Glasser writes at Instapundit:

I'm reading the case, here.

Did the court demand that a different judge take this case, rather than the one who has time and time again twisted the law to deny justice to Sarah Palin?

Of course not:

We do not find it necessary to remand the case to a different district judge.