Author Topic: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart  (Read 1607 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39462
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #25 on: July 30, 2010, 05:00:50 AM »
I watched the entire video. 

She called everyone against health care racists.   ::)  ::)

Her husband is a race baiter as well. 

Montague

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #26 on: July 30, 2010, 05:29:27 AM »
What did Breitbart accuse her of? 

Absolutely nothing.
I think that his motive behind posting that particular snippet is obvious, but let’s be honest - assumptive deductions did the rest.

Although, what is it they say about the guilty?
Something about how they yell the loudest and are the most defensive?


There is a limit to free speech. Every time someone acts like an ass or modifies another's words to alter the context "Free speech" isn't an unassailable defense.

Nothing was modified, Doc; they're her own words.
Nor was the context altered. It was omitted all together!

It was the responsibility of the Dept of Agriculture (or whoever gave the termination orders) to confirm the facts.
Shame on them for firing someone over a 9-second sound bite.

Even if she's guilty of the accusations, that clip doesn't prove it.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39462
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #27 on: July 30, 2010, 05:31:15 AM »
How about the NAACP coming out against her while they had the damn tape!

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #28 on: July 30, 2010, 05:37:09 AM »
I watched the entire video. 

She called everyone against health care racists.   ::)  ::)

Her husband is a race baiter as well. 
see, so I gather that's the only thing worth mentioning out of the 43 minutes?  I mean that's the message you just sent.  QUOTE, I watched the whole vid and she called everyone against healthcare racist....  I mean on topic, the point of the whole controversy, you don't have anything to add after listening to it other than that?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39462
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2010, 05:46:07 AM »
Shirley Sherrod's $13mil win in lawsuit against USDA
Posted 07/21/10 Read all 16 comments +9

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/shirley-sherrods-13mil-win-in-lawsuit-against-usda/blog-382245/

________________________ ________________________ ___


It seems Shirley Sherrod was a co-founder of a minority group that filed a $1 BILLION law suit against the USDA. The largest lawsuit ever filed against the US government by a minority group. Her group settled for $13mil plus $300K for Mrs. Sherrod personally to be split with her husband. Tom Vilsak was Governor of IA at the time as well as the loser in the suit. Did he have a hidden agenda for firing Sherrod yesterday?

(YBH) – Shirley Sherrod, the now former Georgia Director of Rural Development for the Obama administration, was part of an historic settlement with the U.S. Government recently. Ms. Sherrod is co-founder of a group, New Communities, that took part in a lawsuit that successfully sued the government over the rights of minority farmers. An article at the website www.ruraldevelopment.org discussed the case and the $13 million dollar settlement and Ms. Sherrod’s own $150,000 settlement from Uncle Sam.

From the article:

In 1969, New Communities received a planning grant from OEO and was encouraged to expect substantial funding for implementation, but Governor Maddox would not permit further funds for the group to come into the state.

Nevertheless, New Communities built up farming operations to help retain the land. They had highway frontage where they had a farmer’s market to sell their crops. They raised hogs and sold the processed meat in a smokehouse they built on the highway. Their sugar cane mill on the highway also attracted customers. New Communities was ahead of the times in raising eight acres of Muscatine grapes, which are now widely grown in the area. They also farmed 1,500 acres of row crops, including corn, peanuts and soybeans.

Over the years, USDA refused to provide loans for farming or irrigation and would not allow New Communities to restructure its loans. Gradually, the group had to fight just to hold on to the land and finally had to wind down operations.

The cash award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. (President Reagan abolished the USDA Office of Civil Rights when he became President in 1981.) New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers’ law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

Ms. Sherrod came under fire yesterday when it was revealed that she made remarks to the NAACP where she talked about withholding help from “white” farmers who she thought acted “superior” to her. Ms. Sherrod sent the farmer to “one of his own,” as she put it. The remarks were caught on videotape and discovered by Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website.

Ms. Sherrod told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that in the end she wound up working for the “white” farmers for two years. She states that she learned that race is less important than wealth from the episode which occurred over 23 years ago. Full video of Ms. Sherrod’s remarks at the NAACP dinner are unavailable at this time.

EDITED: To correct Vilsak's governship to IA where Sherrod's lawsuit was filed, not GA.

Related Topics: obama, naacp, constitution, debt


drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2010, 05:53:31 AM »
Absolutely nothing.
I think that his motive behind posting that particular snippet is obvious, but let’s be honest - assumptive deductions did the rest.

Although, what is it they say about the guilty?
Something about how they yell the loudest and are the most defensive?


Nothing was modified, Doc; they're her own words.
Nor was the context altered. It was omitted all together!

It was the responsibility of the Dept of Agriculture (or whoever gave the termination orders) to confirm the facts.
Shame on them for firing someone over a 9-second sound bite.

Even if she's guilty of the accusations, that clip doesn't prove it.

A judge still needs to rule. I'm not the least bit interested in the politics of crap like this. We're basically talking about the boundaries and if the definition of free speech has been changed. It's patently obvious most feel personal responsibility for any blogger is out of the question, LOL! We should at least know to what extent using the words of someone else can be claimed as protected speech.

Hall didn't write"I disapprove of what you repeat, but I will defend to the death your right to repeat it,", FFS!

Danny

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4630
  • The original Superman
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2010, 11:58:57 AM »
free speech = one thing, defamation=totally different. Especially when it's done in the media and TV and it is clearly evidenced with video clips meant to deceive as oppose to something volatile and hard to prove like "he said, she said". She might have a case.
"What we do in life ECHOES in eternity "

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39462
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2010, 12:00:22 PM »
free speech = one thing, defamation=totally different. Especially when it's done in the media and TV and it is clearly evidenced with video clips meant to deceive as oppose to something volatile and hard to prove like "he said, she said". She might have a case.

What did he accuse her of?

Danny

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4630
  • The original Superman
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2010, 12:07:42 PM »
What did he accuse her of?

he doesn't have to "accuse" her of anything. 
"What we do in life ECHOES in eternity "

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2010, 12:34:20 PM »
Do any of you guys even know what needs to be proven in order to make a defamation case on its face?

I'm telling you, this case is a loser any way you slice it.

Michael Moore has played selective soundbites and video clips of politicians (among other people) completely out of context in order to portray them in a negative manner. You can go on youtube and dig up 6000000000000 videos where others have done the exact same thing Brietbart did. There is no defamation case here. Whether or not you think he was wrong is one thing. From a legal standpoint though, I think the prospects of this woman succeeding in a lawsuit are very weak.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39462
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sherrod plans to sue blogger Breitbart
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2014, 05:17:40 AM »


New emails show White House role in Sherrod ouster

By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press
 

 
 
AP Photo
 AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
   

 
Politics Video
 

 

 
   

 
     






 
   
   
 
         
   
   
 
Buy AP Photo Reprints
 


 
 
 
   

 
 
   
   
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A 2010 email from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says his department was "waiting for the go-ahead" from the White House before accepting the resignation of employee Shirley Sherrod, according to newly released documents, despite Obama administration assertions that her ouster was Vilsack's decision alone.

The email, which was made public Friday in an ongoing federal court case over the matter, shed more light on the evening of July 19, 2010, when the USDA hastily asked Sherrod to resign after a video showing her making supposed racist remarks surfaced on a conservative website. Her dismissal turned into a racial firestorm after it became clear that the video had been edited and her remarks were meant to tell a story of reconciliation.

Both the White House and Vilsack have repeatedly said the agriculture secretary made the decision to ask for Sherrod's resignation without White House input. The emails, along with earlier emails obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act in 2010 and 2012, make it apparent that Vilsack wanted Sherrod to leave the department and ordered her resignation. But a newly-released email sent by Vilsack himself suggests he was awaiting a decision from White House officials on how to proceed.

"She has offered her resignation which is appropriate," reads an email from the initials "TJV" to Dallas Tonsager, then the USDA undersecretary of rural development and Sherrod's boss. "The WH is involved and we are waiting for the go-ahead to accept her resignation. I suspect some direction from WH soon."

The USDA would not comment on the email and a spokesman, when asked, did not dispute that Vilsack wrote it. The email, sent at 5:37 p.m. on July 19, is in reply to an earlier email from Tonsager addressed to "Mr. Secretary." Vilsack's middle name is James.

The correspondence is evidence in a federal defamation case that Sherrod filed in 2011 against the late blogger Andrew Breitbart, who posted the video, and his colleague Larry O'Connor. The Justice Department has been pushing to keep the emails sealed, but lost Friday afternoon when U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled they did not have to be kept private.

Vilsack's email was brought up at a court status hearing earlier last week. According to a transcript, a lawyer for Breitbart's wife, who was substituted as defendant after the blogger died unexpectedly in 2012, said the email was "extremely telling" and "contains a statement that is arguably inconsistent with the public statements."

Justice Department lawyer David Glass replied to the judge that "when there is a reference to the White House was involved, what it means is the White House liaison was involved."

USDA's White House liaison, Kevin Washo, was in touch with the White House through the night, according to the documents. In another newly released email, a White House aide writes to Valerie Green of the White House presidential personnel office, saying "USDA is looking for direction - can someone contact Washo?" Green replies that she is "reaching out now."

Green writes Washo asking him to loop her in, "Please. Please. Please."

The department that night accepted Sherrod's resignation as a USDA rural development official in Georgia. When her full speech came to light the next day, it became clear that Sherrod, who is black, was speaking about overcoming her initial reluctance to help a white farmer decades ago.

As the administration came under fire, Vilsack reversed course, apologizing and asking her to return to the department - an offer she declined. President Barack Obama also offered Sherrod an apology.

White House officials acknowledged weeks later they had been more involved than they initially let on and had stayed in close touch with USDA that night. They still maintained, however, that the decision to seek Sherrod's resignation was Vilsack's alone.

The newly released emails also reveal for the first time missives between White House officials that night. By law, members of the public and the press cannot request internal White House documents directly from the White House.

In one email, then-White House Director of Presidential Personnel Nancy Hogan writes to other White House officials that Sherrod has offered to resign and says they will "need to determine what we say about resignation."

After the full video came out the next day, frustrated White House officials vented to one another through emails. Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett wrote then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that "I would not have fired her for it. We just don't need any of it."

"Agreed," Gibbs replied.

In another e-mail to Gibbs that next day, Jarrett notes that then NAACP President Ben Jealous had apologized for condemning Sherrod before knowing the whole story. "We need to do the same and this will do (sic) away. Even Fox said we railroaded Shirley." In another copy of the same email released by the court, Jarrett's same words are redacted, citing a FOIA exemption for "deliberative process."

Lawyers for Breitbart colleague O'Connor filed the emails in court to bolster their argument that government decisions were the reason for Sherrod's dismissal, not the blog post. The emails show that the officials were made aware there might be a longer video, and that they were concerned about political fallout from her comments. O'Connor's lawyers argue that the "deliberative process" exemptions prove their point.

"The government cannot assert a privilege to shield the production of decision-making communications, while simultaneously claiming to have had no role in a decision," the lawyers wrote in their filing.

---

Follow Mary Clare Jalonick on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mcjalonick

© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.