Sarah Palin tells defamation trial jury that Times editorial ‘kicked the oomph’ out of her

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin testified Monday at a defamation trial that an editorial about gun control in The New York Times in 2017 was devastating and “kicked the oomph” out of her.

The former Republican candidate for vice president answered questions in Manhattan federal court at a trial of her libel claims against the newspaper. She seeks unspecified damages.

“This was the gamechanger,” Palin said of the effect on her life after the newspaper in June 2017 published an editorial about gun control. “I felt defenseless. It just kicked the oomph right out of you.”

The editorial was created after U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, was wounded when a man with a history of anti-GOP activity opened fire on a congressional baseball team practice in Washington.

In the editorial, the Times wrote that before the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona that severely wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others, Palin’s political action committee had contributed to an atmosphere of violence by circulating a map of electoral districts that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

In a correction published less than a day later, the Times said the editorial had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting” and had “incorrectly described” the map.

But Palin said the correction didn’t name her or restore her reputation, leaving it hard to overcome “when the loudest voice in the room, the most credible, biggest publication, was making things up about me.”

Last week, former Times editorial page editor James Bennet cried as he apologized to Palin from the witness stand, saying he “blew it” when he inserted the incorrect information in the editorial.

He said he was “really upset, and I still am, obviously.”

In February 2022, a jury found against Palin’s libel claims, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan last year revived the case, citing errors made by the trial judge.