Lee Whitnum, the Senate candidate who made Merrick Alpert look like a powerhouse, and who didn’t even get to go on stage with Merrick at the convention (among other things she went to the wrong place) has filed suit against Dan Malloy for calling her an anti-Semite.
Now, I am actually quite sympathetic to her basic premise: AIPAC drives our discourse on Israel, often contrary to our interests and sometimes contrary to Israel’s. And it’s quite true that one can be against AIPAC without being anti-Semitic. Lots of Jews disagree with its positions, and I think we can agree that there are not all that many anti-Semitic Jews. She may even have a case against Dan if he really said what she alleges. My recollection is that calling someone a racist or an anti-Semite is libel or slander per se, but I could be wrong about that.
But I must say I’m astounded by one thing. According to Connecticut News Junkie, the woman is about to publish a book about AIPAC. A whole book, by someone who could write this, taken from her self authored complaint against Malloy:
“At no time did Ms. Whitnum speak, nor write, disparagingly about any religious group therefore, the plaintiff seeks to define what it means to be ‘anti-Semitic’ and to make it defamatory to use the term to stifle much needed discussion as it related to the well-being of the United States of America,” Whitnum writes in her lawsuit.
A whole book, written in that style? My god. Maybe she thinks that’s the way lawyers write. If her whole book is like that, she’ll have to pay people to read it.
By the way, Whitnum makes a common mistake. She refers to Malloy as the “plaintiff”, when he’s actually the defendant. At least I hope she’s referring to Malloy, or her merely ungrammatical and tedious sentence becomes completely incoherent.
Post a Comment