Andrew Breitbart Getting Sued by Sherrod Yesssssssssss!!!!!

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Can you tell that I am excited? FINALLY! These irrespossible Right wing lunatic opportunists are getting the attention they deserve...from a court of law! If they want to go around destroying other people's reputations, then they should be dragged before a judge and have the hell sued out of them. Can Fox News be far behind? Me thinks not!

Ousted USDA Employee Sues Conservative Blogger
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, AP


WASHINGTON — A former Agriculture Department employee who was shown in an edited video making what appeared to be racist remarks has sued the conservative blogger who posted the video that led to her dismissal.

Shirley Sherrod said Monday that she is "still reeling" from being ousted in a racial firestorm last July. USDA officials asked Sherrod to resign after blogger Andrew Breitbart posted an edited video of comments she had made in a speech earlier in the year.

The clip showed Sherrod, who is black, telling a local NAACP group that she was initially reluctant to help a white farmer save his farm more than two decades ago, long before she worked for USDA. Missing from the clip was the rest of the speech, which was meant as a lesson in racial healing. Sherrod told the crowd she eventually realized her mistake and helped the farmer save his farm.

She later received numerous apologies from the administration, including from President Barack Obama, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked her to return. She declined the offer, but she said at the time she might do some contract work with the department.

Sherrod's lawyer released a statement Monday saying she was suing Breitbart in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for "defamation, false light and infliction of emotional distress." The statement said Breitbart's video "went viral on the Internet, igniting a national media firestorm, costing Mrs. Sherrod her federal position" while damaging her reputation.

"This lawsuit is not about politics or race," Mrs. Sherrod said in the statement released by her lawyer. "It is not about right versus left, the NAACP or the tea party. It is about how quickly, in today's Internet media environment, a person's good name can become 'collateral damage' in an overheated political debate. I strongly believe in a free press and a full discussion of public issues, but not in deliberate distortions of the truth."

Breitbart has said he released the video to illustrate racism within the NAACP, which earlier had accused the tea party of having racist elements. A statement on Breitbart's website, BigGovernment.com, said he was sued but did not mention Sherrod by name. The statement said he is "confident of being fully vindicated."

"Mr. Breitbart categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech," the statement said.

The lawsuit names Breitbart and his employee Larry O'Connor, who the lawsuit claims posted the video. The suit also names a "John Doe" defendant described as "an individual whose identity has been concealed by the other defendants and who, according to defendant Breitbart, was involved in the deceptive editing of the video clip and encouraged its publication with the intent to defame Mrs. Sherrod."

Breitbart's original posting showed clips of a March 2010 speech to an NAACP group in which Sherrod talked about her reluctance to help the white farmer who came to her more than two decades ago when she worked at a farm aid nonprofit group.

She said the man was acting "superior" to her and she debated whether to help him.

"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with helping a white person save their land," Sherrod said in the speech. "I didn't give him the full force of what I could do."

Breitbart said at the time that the video showed the NAACP condoning racist comments from a government official.

What was cut from the video was that Sherrod was telling a story of racial reconciliation and explaining to the audience how she eventually became friends with the farmer and helped him save his land from foreclosure. His situation, she said, "opened my eyes" that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn't so much about race but was "about the poor versus those who have."

"We have to overcome the divisions that we have," she said.

In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Sherrod declined to talk about the lawsuit but said she is still looking for work. She said she had spoken with Vilsack in recent months but had not been offered any contract work from USDA.

"I'm not employed and no one's offered me a job anywhere, so I don't know where to look at this point," she said. "I'm just trying to survive."

Vilsack declined to discuss the lawsuit Monday during an unrelated briefing on the federal budget. But he said he hopes to work with Sherrod on a USDA effort to help disadvantaged rural residents apply for government loans.

___

Associated Press writer Ben Evans contributed to this report.

 

Pfffffffttt.. Big deal.

 

No one made you post a comment. The implications for all of these Right wing nut jobs is going to be a "big deal". No longer will they be able to doctor up tapes and present false accusations without being sued into the poor house. Zealots always get their comin' upin's in the end.

 

She later received numerous apologies from the administration, including from President Barack Obama, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked her to return.

"I'm not employed and no one's offered me a job anywhere, so I don't know where to look at this point," she said.


Huh?

 

You had better hope Sherrod loses. Elsewise, we might all try suing you - and winning.

 

No one made you post this thread.

 

Brietbart will win. He was fed doctored tapes, thats the part Moen is not telling you.

 

This is not a pretty picture. I can only hope Moen is typing with two hands..........Ewwww, I need to clorex my puter just thinking about it. Did you get a tingle up your leg?

 

Sorry you have to head for the gutter rather than realize the implication of this story. Maybe it wasn't all that far to go for you anyway eh?

It's always a tell when people refuse to talk about a major story like this one. They know how badly they look for being on the wrong side of the issue is my take. And guys, your prejudice is showing.

 

Let's get back to the facts- didn't Breitbart come into this story after the story & video were released?

 

The relevance of that being..........????????

Breitbart, who first posted the clip on July 19, 2010, at his BigGovernment.com site, had been under scrutiny after it was revealed the clip misrepresented Sherrod's message during a speech in March 2010 before a group of NAACP members.

 

Did the WH blast Sherrod prior to Breitbart posting the video or did the WH react only after seeing Breitbart's video?

 

I don't think that there is any question that there was an overreaction to the falsified video but who put the video out for the WH to overreact to seems like the real question.

If I go on TV and falsely accuse you of being a child molester and the company you work for fires you when they hear about the accusation, which party would you sue? The company for protecting itself or the person that made the false accusation that caused you to be fired? That is why your question has little relevance to the issue.

 

Absolutely the company that fired me without just cause - or at least that is what the unions would do.

 

Dr moen, you have presented a false equivalency and a very weak analogy. Breitbart didn't go on TV & accuse Sherrod of anything, he simply posted a video of her speech. I doubt BO would have come down on her as he did simply based on a video snippet from a right wing blogger. Seems like we should be able to expect more from the WH, right?

Oh, and to answer your question....no, my employer wouldn't fire me simply because you make an accusation on tv. He would talk to me first & hear what I had to say.

 

Oh yeah, you question the relevance of my post? Please re-read the title of your little thread. The wrong party is being sued...and when I use the word "party" it applies to the individual being targeted as well as "party" in the political sense. Breitbart is being attacked based solely on his politics.

 

No Breitbart didn't go on TV which is a silly point to make. He posted a doctored video and then Fox picked it up and ran with it. Media is media Duh! Secondly, Sherrod is a political appointee that serves at the pleasure of her boss Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. He can get rid of her for no reason if he wants, she is a political appointee! What part of that confuses you?

Lastly, I never asked if your employer should or should not fire you based on an accusation. I did ask who you would sue in the situation I described but you ducked the question.

 

Breitbart is being sued because he was the instrument of slander that got her fired. No matter how much you try to spin this, Breitbart is at fault. The reason you're defending his actions is because of your politics.

 

Sorry frat boy, unions can't fire the employees they represent.

 

Hey, elitist, how about posting a time line with who did what and when?