Surprise - Shirley Sherrod to sue Andrew Breitbart

H/T Hot Air
Alas, Sherrod's 15 minutes aren't over yet:

Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.
Sherrod was forced to resign as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.
Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would "definitely" sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department. She has not decided whether to accept.
Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one.
"He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.

It's a debatable point who is targeting who here. On the merits, Jonathan Turley doesn't think much of her chances in court beyond the potential to embarrass Breitbart in discovery.   It is equally plausible she is the one embarrassed.

Cross posted at Potluck

Much more on this at Memeorandum

Heh, Nice Deb adds this:

The woman does not make a credible plaintiff, but since she’s had amazing luck with the courts, she must figure, what the heck.
Exit question: Given the fact that the new media is now sniffing around that Pigford v Glickman case, wouldn’t you think there are some Bureaucrats at the USDA sort of  wishing this woman would just go away?

Ed Morrissey thinks the Obama administration is as anxious as anyone to see Miss Sherrod and her lawsuit safely out of the headlines

Andrew Breitbart on the Media

From Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit who is covering the Tea Party convention in Nashville. Andrew Breitbart really slams the MSM here and gets an ovation for his speech. Great stuff:

MSNBC Admits Shuster's Tweets "Inapproriate"

Politico reports though the network appears somewhat obsessed with covering the story of James O'Keefe's arrest, David Shuster has indeed crossed a line when he used his twitter account to attack O'Keefe:

Just before leaving for New Orleans to cover the story, Shuster used a Twitter message to tell conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe — one of the four men arrested by the FBI — that he’s “not a journalist,” that he “intended to tap phones” and that he “will go to prison.”

“The comments were inappropriate,” an MSNBC spokesperson told POLITICO Thursday. “We have talked to David about them.”

Inappropriate isn't exactly the word I would use to describe Shuster or his ridiculous attacks on conservatives on Twitter.  When I first opened a twitter account, Shuster called me a wingnut during one his attacks on people opposed to gay marriage.  I pointed out the President was opposed to gay marriage and asked if he was calling the President a "wingnut."    Shuster responded with, "It's an accurate description of the illogical arguments we sometimes hear from the right wing. So, get used to it. "wing nut."

Shuster has since deleted his response to me though I have saved a copy. I have to wonder how many others he has deleted.  Shuster was suspended from MSNBC in 2008 after characterizing Chelsea Clinton's activities while campaigning for her mother as being "pimped out in a weird sort of way."  As the Washington Post article points out, it is a wonder he has any career at all:

In case there was any doubt, using a prostitution metaphor for the daughter of a presidential candidate is not a good career move.

 Despite his history and inappropriate twitter comments, Shuster is reporting on the O'Keefe arrest from New Orleans.  How seriously should we take his reports on this subject?  The answer lies in Shuster's credibility to report the facts without bias.

Anyone believe Shuster doesn't have a horse in the race?

Pointing Fingers at Beck is Easier than Journalism

Ben Cohen at HuffPo is under some wild delusion that Rupert Murdoch might actually cut Glenn Beck loose because the lefty boycott has been so effective or something. If Beck is such a lunatic why does the left spend so much time and energy focusing on him? Conservatives can get riled up over an Olbermann report, but there has been no real effort by conservatives to boycott his sponsors. A quick google search shows a mention of a desire to boycott his show on a conservative forum SodaHead. The rest of the entries for boycotts against Olbermann come from liberals. Democratic Underground has discussions on three separate boycotts against Olbermann. The Clinton campaign organized another against fellow MSNBC host David Shuster. The liberals sure seem to enjoy a good boycott.

Fox cleans up in the ratings compared to MSNBC. Dan Riehl mentions that Joe Scarborough has recently outperformed Beck in the radio ratings in the New York market, however. I would point out though, Scarborough is a moderate while Mika Brzezinski, his co-host is quite liberal. That they might beat Beck in the New York market seems not terribly surprising. Beck has a large cable audience and has attracted quite a bit of media attention. Whether it is positive or negative that type attention drives viewers to Fox. Many advertisers have merely shuffled their ads from Beck's show to others. Murdoch is not losing a thing.

If liberals are so concerned about Beck, perhaps they should consider giving him less attention instead of feeding the Beck frenzy. Of course they will not and their fury will only draw more conservatives out of the woodwork to see what the fuss is all about. Those in the media, Joy Behar for example, love to point to Beck as insane, while they ignore it in their own backyard. Beck's association with the toppling of ACORN as well as the Van Jones and Yosi Sergeant resignations have infuriated the left and shown the main stream media to be asleep at the switch.

Beck hasn't done any of this single-handedly, Big Government has done quite a bit of the heavy lifting. As with Beck, the focus of investigation doesn't turn to the corruption they have called to public attention, the investigation instead focuses on Breitbart, Giles, O'Keefe and Beck. What an incredible waste. If the left would like these people to shut up, they could start by cleaning their houses. It is an entirely Democratically controlled government right now. Screaming about Beck or focusing investigations on Breitbart reveals how seriously they take that responsibility.  There is a sure fire path available to the leftist media and liberals to silence Beck; leave him nothing to talk about or prove him wrong as he challenges in the following clip.  I doubt Beck is holding his breath 



H/T: Memeorandum

ACORN Gives New Meaning to the Old Adage "A Fool For a Client"

Here is a copy of the lawsuit filed by Acorn against Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe and Breitbart. The first page has been removed to protect personal information of all parties:


Click on the arrow in the top right corner to expand PDF
Zero Sheep's  has a full analysis of the law involved and assesses ACORN's case.  I won't summarize, it is best to read for yourself.  His conclusion:

My first thought was that ACORN would have some trouble showing standing and damages. After looking at the text of the complaint, my thought changed to, “Are you freaking kidding me?”

My original thoughts are still valid, I think, but the complaint is so bad that I am having a hard time believing that this isn’t all just a joke (albeit a dry and not very funny one only a lawyer would get).

Zero sheep mentions the analysis at NRO that was also linked by Ace.  Zero disagreed on a minor legal point, but agreed on most points.   It's an interesting analysis and worth a read, here is the bottom line:

In short, Learned Hand once said that he feared a lawsuit more than death or taxes. With good lawyering from the defendants (which I'm sure their going to get), ACORN is about to find out what Hand meant. ACORN has very little to gain and a lot to lose.

Far from believing the defendants have anything to fear, Greta Van Sustern actually wishes ACORN would file such a suit against her. She, of course, is thinking as a journalist here but is informed by her legal background:

By filing a lawsuit, ACORN just opened itself up for FULL DISCOVERY!! They are going to get hit with interrogatories, requests for production of documents, depositions etc. And who will get deposed? Just about everybody! And if discovery produces evidence of a crime? You can be sure that the evidence will be fed ex'd to the Justice Department!

As a journalist, she relishes the thoughts of what full discovery of ACORN might produce.   She did have a moments pause, however, when first reading the suit.  Greta was torn as to who was the bigger idiot, "the ACORN official making decisions for ACORN about a lawsuit? or the lawyer who is advising ACORN and who filed suit? or is it a tie?"

I will admit that my first impression was that the defendants may have broken the law but ACORN had more to lose than they would ever gain from a lawsuit. After reading the legal opinions I linked above and hearing Greta Van Sustern literally LOL'ing for 5 minutes tonight with Tucker Carlson over the sheer stupidity of the suit, I changed my opinion. This is only going to give Giles, O'Keefe and Breitbart a higher profile and bring some well deserved self-inflicted heartache to ACORN. Please weigh in with a comment, I would love to hear predictions on the outcome.