Thanks for listening to Reasonable Doubt on Podcast One.

This is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt with your hosts, Mark Garagas and Gary Smith.

Welcome to BRD Thursday. How you feeling, Gary? Is this the last day of the longest week of your life?

I sure hope so, Mark. I'm feeling well. Thank you for asking. The whole family is moving in the right direction, but I am ready to get out of this house. I am so tired of being stuck in quarantine.

Just one more day and you'll be there. What do you think?

There you go. That'll be it. We'll do the big show tomorrow from the studio.

That's the goal.

When in last week for the show, just because I felt bad about leaving Adam there. I know. I know. And you know, you're starting to have a little bit of the same symptom that I'm having. That was only two days ago. That wasn't even last week.

You were just in there two days ago. So you think like the longest week, quickly. I say, you know, speaking of the longest week, a story that really interests me because, you know, sometimes it's hard to prognosicate what's going to happen in the trial.

But there is a possibility that the Sarah Palin versus New York Times trial could be almost legally very significant. I won't say earth shattering, but it could be very significant.

And for those of you who don't know, there was a, an editorial by the New York Times after the Gabby Giffords shooting was a lot.

Correct. And it entailed a commentary on an image that had existed before the Gabby Giffords shooting where Sarah Palin had disseminated, I believe via social media, an image that depicted several different districts that she wanted to people to target as we've got to, you know, take over these districts and win these house seats.

And she had little bulls eyes on several different spots in America, one of which being Giffords, you know, home county of Pima, Arizona, or Tucson is located.

And what's come out is, is that the New York Times, at least so far as this is unfolding. And by the way, this case had been dismissed by the judges presiding over it went up to the court of appeal.

I believe the second circuit was reverse came back down because I was trying to figure out how this ever got to trial because generally these are insurmountable cases to get past the 12 be six or emotion for some rejuvenate.

I'm sure enough, when I said that somebody told me it was filed dismissed and then appeal reversed and came back. So the editor, New York Times ex editor, who basically tried to fall in the sword at the same time testified and I will tell you basically said the words he wrote didn't really mean the words that he said.

It did not and based on the kind of the real time reporting in a pretty good job of it of what was being said, the questions and the responses.

It seemed rather implausible. She got on the stand yesterday was testifying again today. And basically, I believe she waived any lost opportunities or damages along those lines.

And this was going for the emotional distress. And so the New York Times. Basically the cross examination was well, did you ever seek treatment? Did you ever do counseling? And she said that she responded holistically by doing hot yoga and running.

Apparently she got off a couple of good jobs, got some laughs from the jury. I'm always a big fan of that fact there's a case it's being tried in LA right now where we may have the guy on next week if he's acquitted.

Where the last of the jury was the key. So just remind me next week if the guys acquitted we're going to bring it on.

So anyway, if she gets a verdict and I believe that her lawyer is the same guy who did the whole code in case if she gets a verdict of a significant amount, it really is going to change kind of the BS that the New York Times LA Times goes through.

...