No, her 15 minutes aren't up.

Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.

Sherrod made the announcement in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention.

A couple of thoughts...

I'd love to see video of this. Did the assembled journalists applaud or react negatively to the idea of suing someone for trafficking in news?

As for the suit itself (all the usual qualifiers...I'm not a lawyer, add salt to suit your taste), she's likely got no chance. As a political appointee she's clearly a public figure so the standard for defamation is pretty high and damn near unreachable in this country.

(Added: I'm assuming it's defamation. As Gabe emailed to me, we don't know the cause of action yet so keep that in mind going through this.)

She'd have to prove that Breitbart maliciously went after her with a report he knew to be false or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. Again, that's an almost insurmountable bar for her to prove against him.

Where I think she might have a better, though still tough, case is against the person who did the edit and sent it to Breitbart. It might be possible to make a case that the story was taken so out of context and the text setting it up was so erroneous and misleading that it constituted a reckless disregard for the truth.

Of course, Sherrod isn't suing who ever that is because there's no publicity in that.

If she were serious about this, wouldn't she also be suing the Department of Agriculture for forcing her to resign? The problem there is she was a political appointee and therefore getting rid of those is only actionable if a Republican does it. And even then, not really.

On one level this will suck for Breitbart. It's going to cost time, money and effort.

On another level...jackpot!

Breitbart is on a mission to bring attention to this and to other acts of maleficence by Obama and the left. Sherrod is doing her part to ensure that he keeps getting booked on cable shows and talked about on both sides of the political divide. (Just to be clear, that's not a shot at him. Far from it. If you are fighting a battle for public opinion and support you need to have the public paying attention to you.)

My guess is he's salivating at the chance to get her under oath during a deposition.

Thanks to John Noonan for the heads up on the story.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:14 AM | Comments (313)
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh and by the way, the Afghans that help the coalition are probably criminals anyway, so if the Taliban kill them, well, whatever.

Julian Assange, the founder of the whistleblowing website, told The Times he would "deeply regret" any harm caused by the disclosures. But in an extensive interview yesterday he defended his actions.

He claimed many informers in Afghanistan were "acting in a criminal way" by sharing false information with NATO authorities and said the White House knew informants' names could be exposed but did nothing to help WikiLeaks vet the data.

Mr Assange insisted any risk to informants' lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information.

"No one has been harmed, but should anyone come to harm of course that would be a matter of deep regret -- our goal is justice to innocents, not to harm them," he said. "That said, if we were forced into a position of publishing all of the archives or none of the archives we would publish all . . . because it's extremely important to the history of this war."

...Mr Assange told The Times many Afghan informants, including those whose details had been potentially disclosed, were "telling soldiers false stories . . . creating victims themselves".

Asked if that justified releasing their identities, the former computer hacker replied: "It doesn't mean it's OK for their identities not to be revealed."

And yet, he did. Assange is a despicable excuse of a human being who either already has or likely will soon, have blood on his han

Those on the left who cheered this release really need to be held to account for what they supported. Andrew Sullivan, the various members of the Glenn Greenwald Collective, members of the MFM and the like need to be held accountable for what they are supporting...the exposure of those fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

I know they will demure and say that there should have been some controls in place and that Assange should have exercised more caution and they are sure he will in the future but we need the information and on and on.

Bull.

This is what you get when activists who aim to hurt this country take it upon themselves to substitute their judgment for those charged with making these decisions. Own it guys...blood and all.

Related: Since the CIA isn't going to 'take care' of Assange, Iowahawk is trying to bring Assange to the attention of people who will by releasing a number of interesting items including this...

Even tho I'm an atheist, I'm deeply troubled by Julian Assange's continual insults of Islam, his own former religion.

More at Iowahawk's Twitter feed.

Added: Spencer Ackerman is comfortable with false claims of racism against conservatives and throwing them through glass windows. What he's not all that comfy with is the idea of legal action against Assange.

I'm tempermentally uncomfortable with prosecuting leakers or leak-recipients. Not sure how far to take it

Behold liberals and their priorities.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:33 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 529 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:22 AM | Comments (272)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy H-Day all.

Redneck Landscaping

Here Steve McGranahan who calls himself the World's Strongest Redneck shows how he trims his hedges using his lawnmower on a stick. Probably not recommended for those with weak arms or a need for all 10 fingers.

And lest you think Steve is a one trick pony, he's also developed his own style of martial arts. But do not confuse him with the original Redneck Ninja.
(thanks to CDR M) more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:45 PM | Comments (878)
Post contains 760 words, total size 8 kb.

ArthurK, who does a bang up job in the headlines, has this in the sidebar but it's too fun to ignore.

Seems the most competent administration ever, let BP set up the compensation fund in a way that they can write about half of it off.

But the issue may raise red flags among federal officials, particularly in light of recent efforts by various other entities that have settled with the U.S.

One notable example is Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which agreed last month not to seek deductions for $535 million in penalties as part of its settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC had sued Goldman Sachs, alleging that it hid critical information from investors in mortgage securities.

SEC officials had come under fire from Congress for previously allowing tax deductions from penalties in other cases.

Another wrinkle, though, is that it appears no other entity in hot water with the U.S. has incurred costs on the scale that BP has. The company has agreed to put $20 billion in an escrow account to pay claims for oil-spill damages.

A goof?

But half of that may now come out of government coffers, and it could prove to be embarrassing for the Obama administration, presuming the president and Hayward did not discuss the issue at their recent meeting, says David Desser, managing director of Juris Capital, which invests in corporate litigation. It was after that meeting that Hayward announced the $20 billion escrow fund.

“You would have thought in advance of that meeting, they would have thought of all of those issues,” Desser said. “How do you un-ring that bell?”

"It looks to me like maybe the administration goofed here," he added.

By going on The View of course.

How connected do you have to be to get better treatment than Goldman Sachs, which is after all the company that runs the country or something?

I'm sure there's a distinction to be made between settlements where the party admits guilt and the BP case where they are setting aside money ahead of formal charges but the politics of it look awful for Team Obama.

Bestest Administration EVER!

Posted by: DrewM at 01:00 PM | Comments (338)
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.

I swiped this from Hot Air's headlines last night and posted it on my Facebook page, where it got a few choice comments, particularly from some female Morons. With that in mind, I thought I'd throw this out for your consumption.

Over at PoliticsDaily, Andrew Cohen (a legal commentator for CBS News) pens a love letter to an ex... and prints it on the day of her wedding.

My initial reaction to this was to be impressed by the real emotion behind it- thinking that this was one he didn't move on and regretted it later- but after a second read of the piece, noted as well that he'd already asked her to marry him and she shot him down.

I encourage you to give this a read- I couldn't help but come away from it with the impression that Cohen bathes daily in Massengill, and then washes down his bitter wimpiness with a bubbling pint of Summer's Eve. I can't quite bring teh crushing funneh that Ace- or many of you creative morons- can, so please, leave your remarks.

No word as yet as to whether or not Cohen has a warrant out for immediate surrender of his man-card, but updates will be made available ASAP. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:18 PM | Comments (361)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Other than the Arizona ruling, it's a pretty slow day, so tawk amongst yerselves.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:33 AM | Comments (128)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not overturned but an injunction against the most important parts of the bill until a full trial takes place.

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that those sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.

..."There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

Legal Insurrection has the decision.

Possibly Related: Obama's Hispanic support has been dropping lately. Will they be happy with this or will it seem like table scraps compared to Obama's inability/disinterest in passing immigration amnesty?

Meanwhile, the Arizona law enjoys 55% support nationally, which is probably better than any politician in the country. Well, we always knew Obama was bad at math.

As for the ruling itself, not being a lawyer I don't want to get too in the weeds but given that the standard for an injunction in this situation is the plaintiff (in this case, the US Government), "must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits [i.e. win at trial], that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” it doesn't sound good.

AZ Governor Jan Brewer can appeal the injunction but Arizona is part of the 9th Circuit, so, good luck with that.

Lesson reiterated...never read too much into what questions a judge asks at a hearing for clues about how they will rule.

If you'd like to get into the legal weeds, Andy McCarthy has you covered.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:34 AM | Comments (564)
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

I suppose something the keeps Chuck Shumer or Dick Durbin out the majority leader's spot isn't all bad. Hey, I'm trying to find the pony in the pile of crap here.

While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is barely ahead of challenger Sharron Angle, the fact that he has the advantages of incumbency and that Barack Obama won the state by twelve percentage points helps tip the balance towards the incumbent.

With three months to go, Rasmussen Reports polling shows that Republicans are poised to pick up Democratic-held Senate seats in three states— Arkansas, Indiana and North Dakota. Two others are leaning that way--Delaware and Pennsylvania. Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln is the only incumbent senator currently projected to lose a seat. The others are open-seat races following retirements by Democratic incumbents.

At the moment, no Republican-held seats appear headed for the Democratic column.

Currently, there are just six states in the Toss-Up category. Outside of the Toss-Ups, projections indicate that Democrats can probably count on having 50 Senate seats after Election Day, while Republicans will hold 44.

This will of course ignite a chorus of 'the tea party is killing the Republicans!' stories in the MFM and the leftysphere.

I think it's pretty clear that Angle is not the ideal candidate for Nevada.

What’s hurting the Republican? For starters, an astounding 58 percent find Angle’s positions “extreme.”

Yeah, that's not good.

There's no need to indict the whole tea party movement as 'too extreme' or on balance bad for Republicans but like any mass movement, it's going to come with some baggage and what appeals to the base isn't going to appeal to everyone. Also, let's not kid ourselves, Sue Lowden didn't turn out to be the greatest candidate ever either. Still, she was the safer choice and probably wouldn't suffer from 58% of Nevadans saying she was too extreme.

Before we start killing Republican primary voters, let's remember that the professionals in Washington are the folks that were touting the likes of Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist right up until the moment they bailed on the party.

Still, there is no denying that Reid is/was in a desperately weak position and the Republican's choice of candidates may cost them not only a pick up in a purple state but a nice trophy scalp as well.

BTW- His son Rory, who doesn't appear to have a last name, is still getting killed in the race for Governor.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:07 AM | Comments (193)
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

My first reaction to the reports on the Afghan war logs was pretty much the same as most people...not much new here. My second thought was, if we all are having the same reaction, there's a good chance we are wrong.

Turns out the documents could be quite harmful if you are an Afghan who provided information to US forces.

In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times of London found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to U.S. forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their fathers' names.

U.S. officers recorded detailed logs of the information fed to them by named local informants, particularly tribal elders.

...

A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, who declined to be named, said: "The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."

If, really when, one or more of these people turns up dead should* Afghanistan charge WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange with complicity in their murder? I say yes. The same goes for Army Private Bradley Manning if it turns out he's the leaker.

There's always a tension in a free society between the need to keep secrets and the need to have an informed citizenry. There is never a need for the release of the names of people who risk their lives not only to help us but their own country fight terrorists.

Anyone celebrating and reveling in the release of all these documents is simply cheering the death of people fighting to live free from the tyranny of the Taliban. We shouldn't let the likes of the Greenwald collective and St. Andrew of the Heartache weasel out of what they have supported here.

The war in Afghanistan is a fight for the people. The first battle in that war is for their trust, trust we won't abandon them and trust that they can support us by providing information. Assange and possibly Manning are simply fighting on the terrorist's side. We should act accordingly.

* I changed "will" to "should" because I was thinking about the propriety of it not the likelihood of it. I doubt they will.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:46 AM | Comments (166)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.