I'll get to Sarah Palin. I wrote a message of the day on Bill O'Reilly.com.

Anybody can read that. You don't have to be a premium or concierge member to read the message.

It's posted every day, every morning.

And in the message, I basically said, look, we don't have a civil justice system.

And if you have ever been in it, you know that's true.

So in order to bring suit against somebody who harms you grievously, you got to have a half million dollars to pay your lawyers.

At least you get into a child custody, a divorce, go into the millions.

Okay?

And then there are these arcane rules that Sarah Palin ran up against.

So there's no question that the New York Times defamed Sarah Palin.

That's not a question. All right, you can't link the former governor of Alaska to a horrendous

shooting in Arizona and say you are not defaming her. It's absurd. So here's what I said partially in the

message. Quote, a New York City jury rejected Palin's lawsuit unanimously saying the New York Times

did not act with malice. The threshold famous people have to prove in order to win damages in

civil court.

Not act with malice?

What other reason would there be to link the conservative Palin with the shooting?

What motivation would a liberal newspaper have to connect a totally innocent person with a heinous act, if not to be malicious."

Unquote.

I am a simple man. I see it in a very straightforward way.

Of course, Sarah Palin was defamed.

But because the civil law says you have to prove a media organization

...