Dig through your memory of the 20 trillion mini-scandals that defined the ceaseless 2-hour news cycle we called the “2008 Presidential Election” and you may remember a liberal New York Times story that was structured something like this: (a) [first few grafs] CORPORATE LIAR & ADULTERER JOHN MCCAIN VIOLENTLY BANGS THE HELL OUT OF THIS NON-WIFE CORPORATE LOBBYIST HARLOT, FOR BLOOD MONEY (b) [segue graf] Ha ha just kidding, well maybe, just that some dude told us that (c) [the final 95% of the story] There are a few modest ambiguities in John McCain’s Senate record, the end. The Times was attacked from both the left and the right for this needless, comical story. The lobbyist gal McCain was obviously boning befriending, Vicki Iseman, surely had her life destroyed, so now she’s suing the New York Times for a $27 million cash prize which will almost certainly bankrupt the newspaper. Vicki Iseman, ha ha, holy shit! Blast from the past! [AP]
John McCain’s Sexy Lobbyist Friend Sues NYT For $27 Million That It Doesn’t Have
Previous post: Wonkette Nominated For Yet Another Award, Is Running Out Of Shelf Space
Next post: Rod Blagojevich Is The New Obama
{ 77 comments }
Can you really put a price on lobbyist ass fucking?
But, like the Alaska State Police, she waited until after the election.
So, I guess if she wins her suit, she’ll be running the NYT: “Get me rewrite. I want more stories about what a great hero John McCain is”.
Yeah, honestly, if that wasn’t a textbook case of defamation, I don’t know what is. And they didn’t even retract or apologize. New York Times deserves to lose big on this.
“Ms. Iseman’s relationship with Senator McCain was entirely professional, ethical, and appropriate,” the lawsuit states, adding that it “was not different in kind from the cordial yet professional relationship that hundreds of lobbyists have with hundreds of members of Congress.”
An occasional blowjob for an occasional telecommunication reg is the profession.
let the depositions begin!
Oh noes! Then he would owe her something.
Maybe the NYT could offer to “make her whole” by publishing a Vicki Iseman calendar, in which she could sell the ad space.
$27mm is a little extreme for calling someone a “lobbyist”.
[re=207153]jagorev[/re]: Proving “malice” can be a real motherfucker for the plaintiffs in these situations though.
Jokes on her! The Times is almost broke! They’ll have to give her Bill Kristol as a settlement.
Just give her Obama’s Senate seat and save $26.5 million.
[re=207161]Jim Newell[/re]: Hell, it’ll be hard to prove the defamation. The original article just said that McCain’s people were so concerned about the appearance of an affair that they determined to keep him away from her. I think she’s got very little ground to stand on.
I do like the idea of a Republican lobbyist filing a lawsuit though — don’t they always complain about how that’s bad for business?
[re=207162]chascates[/re]:
Wouldn’t that just put them further in debt?
What is this strange power Walnuts has with peroxide blondes? Mind control techniques learned from the North Vietnamese? And yes to sayitwithwookies, what a great argument for tort reform!
[re=207161]Jim Newell[/re]: You speak from experience, once presumes.
[re=207153]jagorev[/re]: You haven’t read many textbooks on defamation, have you? The New York Times has some experience in this area, see Sullivan v. NYT, and that story was no doubt fully lawyered.
[re=207161]Jim Newell[/re]: [re=207153]jagorev[/re]: Don’t get me started on the legal bullshit. THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING RIGHT NOW AND NOT WHY I AM TALKING ABOUT buttsecks, of course. There is a rule that the defendant is not required to prove an absence of liability by a preponderance of evidence, but only to produce sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, is the same whether the people rely on testimonial evidence or on presumptions, except where the presumption is conclusive. While the plaintiff may rest on “libel” claims or whatever, it should also be taken into account that the defendant can raise a “public figure” defense, which pretty much makes her Britney Spears. In my wonderful state of California, that would put a large burden of proof on the plaintiff. In the State of New York (me thinks) there must be an 85% evidential prejudice AGAINST the defendant in order for there to be a determination of liability. LOBBYIST BUTTSECKS must also be taken into account. It can’t be disproved that it never happened in the first place.
In other words all cards are in play, and why not? This would be the sort of case that Motions in Limine would decide. Literally. It should make for an awesome battle in Discovery though *snort*.
$27M does seem kinda high. How many whore diamonds did she have again?
Although if she takes the stand, the trial could finally solve the mystery of whether McCain just says “HEHNGNN? HEHNGNN? HEHNGNN? HEHNGNN? HEHNGNN?” over and over during the intercourse.
Could someone please leak it to the Times that I am banging some important politician? It wouldn’t be true, and I oould use a bailout.
[re=207169]Tommmcatt[/re]: Good question. Is Kristol an asset, a debit, or just an ass?
So what if the Times finds the used condom or a semen splattered dress?
Could be loads of embarrassment for Walnuts as well. As if losing the election and his last shreds of political capital were bad enough.
$27 million in damages? Really? I would think a story like that would practically guarantee her lucrative work in the lobbying field.
[re=207161]Jim Newell[/re], [re=207173]V572625694[/re]: That’s an interesting question: has Wonkette ever been sued? Why the fuck not?
[re=207175]shortsshortsshorts[/re]: k nobody’s winning any awards with comments like that. back to snark pls.
Whore Diamond rating as #1 Concubine to President J McCain: priceless. Giving blowjobs out the back of the Wasilla Tavern to supplement Snowbilly calendar-marketing wages: one lump of coal.
[re=207174]Gob[/re]: Didn’t Sullivan v. NYT apply only to public officials/figures, which Ms. Iseman obviously is not? Also, it sez that the plaintiff has to establish that information was published with “reckless disregard” of whether it was false. I’d say this one meets that standard
Whether it will hold in court, I don’t know. I’ll only say that any journalistic institution worth its salt would have fired the editor who approved that story.
[re=207185]j6n[/re]: It’s called VENGEANCE j6n, VENGEANCE. What isn’t there to understand about that?
[re=207184]facehead[/re]: No because we are CAREFUL ADULTS who just call people insulting names instead of dealing in so-called “factual claims.” More importantly, if you sink far enough into immaturity and toilet humor, then acknowledging our very existence would be an idiotic move for people. Can you imagine if, say, Lindsey Graham sued us for calling him gay, which he SO is? Lindsey Graham would not want to open that Pandora’s Box, as they say.
I just went back and re-read the NYT piece. They didn’t even say they did have sex, they just said the aides were worried because THEY thought they were getting romantic and also, oh fuck, McCain can’t be seen escorting a lady lobbyist to the clam bake! Everyone hates lobbyists!
Sorry probable sex lobbyist, you won’t get a red cent. And now she is just reminding people of how big of a ho a lot of people thought she was.
Look at that hair! It just SCREAMS sloppy suburban parking lot blowjob, doesn’t it?
Note: the standard of defamation is considerably easier to meet if plaintiff is a private person.
Also, I can’t be sure, but I think that being drunk is a perfectly good defense, which would explain why Jim Newell still roams free.
[re=207175]shortsshortsshorts[/re]: stop working and go home.
[re=207192]Origami[/re]: Inserting weasel words like “some people say…” may work in high school when you’re writing unsourced bullshit, but I think the courts might see through that gambit…
I hope Walnuts Punished it!
um she should be sued for being desperate/stupid/ridiculous enough to get within a mile of a naked walnuts; that kind of thing ought to be some kind of crime.
[re=207196]jagorev[/re]: [re=207194]shortsshortsshorts[/re]: There will be no call for defamation lawyers in the hoboconomy. But big opportunities in wire-straightening and string-saving.
[re=207158]villageatrois[/re]: $27m was used because it is substantially more lucrative than the alternative: a tell-all book about her life with 3 pages about blowing Walnuts for 5 and a 1/2 minutes, Alan
Isn’t that Cindy, with class and sans the snake-eye cowgirl makeup? Wait, did I just repeat myself?
[re=207191]Jim Newell[/re]: Well if you got away with saying “Bobby Jindal fucks little boys, all the time, including his own”, you can clearly get away with anything Jim!
[re=207193]jagorev[/re]: This bimbo is, at a minimum, a limited purpose public figure under the USSC Firestone decision and subsequent line of cases. (One could make a very good argument that, as a “lobbyist” who consorts with high profile pols, she’s an all-purpose public figure.)
So she is going to have to allege and prove “constitutional malice” under NY Times v. Sullivan: Actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Also, if the jurisdiction has anything like California’s Anti-SLAPP law, she’s going to get hit with attorneys fees and costs.
I’d file a motion to dismiss. After I deposed her in detail about her other “lobbying” activities with Republicans on behalf of her telecom “clients.” If she answers, she’s either unemployable and/or a perjurer.
If she refuses to answer, her case is dismissed and you hit her with an attorney’s fee motion.
Either way she takes it up the butt — which is the whole point.
If she did fuck McOldster but only figuratively, would the NYT have a reasonable defense? I mean, it’s possible, because she’s a lobbyist, and she’s probably already fucked most of the rest of us.
[re=207209]Neilist[/re]: I’d file a motion to dismiss. After I deposed her in detail about her other “lobbying” activities …”
You make it sound pretty hot.
*fapfapfapfap*
[re=207209]Neilist[/re]: *fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap*
[re=207206]wheelie[/re]: Err . . . I should say I was kidding just now in that I misquoted Jim there, and the context was clear that the spurious ‘allegation’ was purely satirical in his original intent, etc etc.
Wait, I thought that pic was Cindy. Pre-several facelifts, of course.
[re=207212]shortsshortsshorts[/re]: [re=207211]jagorev[/re]: Well, she’s not really MY type.
But I’d do her.
I know I would.
But I’d want the anal.
True “GOP Style Men’s Room Sex.”
Yeah!
Man, thanks to all for the CLE course on libel/defamation. I will totes use this to check off my “training” during annual review season next month.
That said, she looks enough like Cindy that I’m sure staff thought the “old man” would think it was her and try some “henngghh hennghhh” on her after hours (or on the Str8 Talk Express).
2008 just keeps getting better
Has anyone questioned how in the fuck Walnuts gets it up? I know, I know, “Viagra”, but like, HOW MUCH? I’d rather fuck Anna Nicole’s husband, even post mortem.
[re=207226]smellyal8r[/re]: *fapfap-ow-fapfap-ow-fapfap-ow-fapfap-uhhhh* This is, of course, the sound of a boot heel repeatedly smacking against my skull as I try frantically to beat this image from my mind.
What if you can prove she fucked some other grinning bald geezer war hero? Then it’s just mistaken identity.
She doesn’t need a handsome libel case settlement figure. If she actually was engaging in naked (or clothed) boinking with McCadaver, she’ll need the entire PTSD wing at Walter Reed devoted solely to her rehabilitation. After which time, I might hit that.
Nobody sues Wonkette because you can’t get blood from a stone. I mean, geez, y’all are down to ‘Get your BA or MA in 24 months’ ads. When will we see Super X-Ray glasses?
I suppose someone could sue Wonkette for its weight in TruckNutz.
It’s a lot easier to get a libel conviction in the UK. If the Times had it in the International Edition, or in the International Herald Tribune, she should file suit there
[re=207252]TGY[/re]: If Wonkette is sued, I will provide representation pro bono.
I have always felt that Jessica Cutler’s attorneys did not understand fully, or argue effectively, the “Buttsex Public Interest Defense.”
(The public’s interest in lurid descriptions of savage anal pounding being a paramount concern, as addressed in detail in The Federalist . . . and as practiced by many members of The Federalist Society.)
“Your Honor, the Defense RISES!”
I still say she looks like Admiral Akbar wearing a blond wig.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/AckbarStanding.jpg
[re=207194]shortsshortsshorts[/re]: FUNNY
How do you damage a lobbyist’s reputation?
Yeah, honestly, if that wasn’t a textbook case of defamation, I don’t know what is.
You don’t know what is.
Unless you’re from the UK, which has different libel laws. She will never win this case in a US court.
Why isn’t she going after the New York Post and their “Bigfoot fathered my baby” story on her?
… and the litigators all filled their briefs.
When your old and rich it’s a different story. All of us were made fun of at some point in middle school, or had rumors spread about us er whatever, but if any of you know a good adult bully with a paper that circulates an entire continent, please let me know.
There is a surprise waiting for them.
[re=207262]sarahconnor[/re]: I TRIED AND FAILED THROW ME IN THE SALEM RIVER FOR FUCK SAKE. I will float.
[re=207188]jagorev[/re]: Yes, John McCain is a public official. That’s who the story was about. And registered lobbyists probably get included too since that standard has been expanded and now essentially includes any person of public interest. What’s a person of public interest? Not clear, but basically if the media is writing about you, you are. Also, they never said BUTT SEKS. They said, “People worried about BUTT SEKS.” They also said both McCain and Iseman deny the affair.
The essence of the story is that people think there might have been an affair. It’s a poor story, but lost in the battle over how bad a piece of journalism it was, is that people thought and still think there may have been an affair.
Summary judgment for the NYT.
Per the pic, does this mean we will finally see W on a witness stand? “Heh heh, yeah, she lobbied me real good. *snort* *snork*”
The Gray Lady will scat in Vicki’s mouth. She will fail.
[re=207258]Neilist[/re]: Pro bono representation? That sounds fucking hawt.
The 27 million equals: loss of income, the cost of inventory of unused black leather toys and 26,999,990 dollars in punitive damages. But such is justice.
Soon “punitive damages” can be assigned a number instead of a possibility.
For instance:
“Jimmy hit me with a football” would have previously meant “ouch.”
Now “Jimmy hit me with a football” actually means “Jimmy hit me with unspecified damages.”
[re=207322]S.Luggo[/re]: Sluggo: In the old country, we call your comment an absolute fucking win.
How about ten dozen or so Wonkette commenters HIRE her to lobby John McCain for Butt secks?
Think of the web hitz…
How great would it be if this went to trial? It would give the NYT the chance to intro the stuff they couldn’t put in the paper. And there’s no chance they would ever have to pay. McCain would pay this hooah off before it went to court to make her go away. (Of course, he might have her killed instead). The end.
The best thing about this is that now that she’s brought this up again, hopefully some blogs will compare the Times coverage of the McCain/Iseman ‘news’ with the paper’s haughty ‘we don’t cover that kind of thing’ when asked about the rumours of a Sulzberger/Kennedy affair last week.
After she wins the suit, look out for her spread in Playboy.
The actual complaint is hilarious, an awful pleading that reads more like a summary judgment motion.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1230082times1.html
The firm Vicki hired is Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen. You can’t make shit like that up.
[re=207375]slavojzizek[/re]: That’s nothing. I heard Caroline fucked some Jew named Schlossberg. That’s enough to make all Ireland weep…
Trollop.
Man oh man, I loves me some legal issues threads on teh wonkettes! It’s when I get to rediscover that everyone here is a lawyer except me (and possibly Jagorev).
[re=207191]Jim Newell[/re]: Also! Entities such as Wonkette with very little in the way of money, ipso facto, not really worth suing. Also.
The actual complaint is hilarious, an awful pleading that reads more like a summary judgment motion.
Oh, my God. Her attorney used the word “communicated” wrong in the first sentence. (“Wrong” as in in the ordinary sense, not the legal sense.)
Too much inbreeding among the Allens?
Comments on this entry are closed.