In case you missed it, Leigh Corfman is suing Roy Moore for defamation. Corfman, who was one of the earliest women to accuse Moore of molesting her as a teenager, claims that Moore and his campaign have smeared her almost nonstop since she told her story to WaPo.
That raised a possibility that is so important it merits a repost from last night. It seems to my non-lawyer’s mind that another party ought to be added to that suit—Breitbart. Remember, Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow admitted that he believed all along that Moore was credible. And yet, Breitbart not only went all in for Moore, but was an active participant in the ham-handed effort to shame her and the other accusers.
It started just minutes before WaPo’s explosive story went live, when Breitbart preemptively tried to paint it as a hit piece by that far-out librul Jeff Bezos. It went downhill from there. At one point, Breitbart tried to claim that Moore didn’t violate any “social mores” even if he did pursue girls young enough to be his daughters. Breitbart also teamed up with Infowars and other far-right outlets to smear Corfman and the other women, and dispatched reporters to Alabama to discredit them.
Now, as I noted at Liberal America late last month, every story Breitbart wrote attacking those accusers deserves a giant asterisk by it. The man who is not only the operating head of Breitbart’s editorial side and who, at the time, was outranked only by Bannon and CEO Larry Solov openly admitted that this was not only a politically-motivated gambit to protect Trump, but one on which he embarked when he had reason to believe Corfman was telling the truth.
Looking back at my media law classes at Carolina, this looks like a textbook example of why the bar for proving libel and defamation is much lower for private people than it is for public figures. At the very least, Marlow admitted that Breitbart’s actions amounted to a classic case of failure to exercise ordinary an dreasonable care. Hell, you can make a really good argument that this is the definition of reckless disregard for the truth.
What makes it even worse is that Solov—himself an attorney—and Rebekah Mercer did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING after Marlow made this disclosure. And yet, when Bannon’s quotes in “Fire and Fury” broke, Mercer couldn’t push Bannon out fast enough. So speaking ill of Trump is a firing offense, but trashing a victim—especially when you are at least wondering if she’s telling the truth—isn’t? In what world is that acceptable?
It doesn’t sit well at all with me that you can engage in politically-motivated victim shaming, admit that you did so when you had reason to believe that one of the victims was credible, and not have to answer for it. The mere thought that Breitbart could pull a stunt like this and get away with it should send a chill down anyone’s spine. After all, this is far, far, far worse than the MSM punting on numerous attempts to blow the whistle on Harvey Weinstein.
Hopefully Gloria Allred is at least thinking about suing Breitbart, if it is legally possible to do so. At the very least, it will go a long way toward sending the message that victim blaming and victim shaming are now third rails. And if the chips fall right, it could potentially deal a crippling—possibly fatal—blow to Breitbart.