Vicki Iseman Suing New York Times Over McCain Affair Story

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Vicki Iseman Suing New York Times Over McCain Affair Story stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DENA POTTER | December 30, 2008 05:44 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

RICHMOND, Va. — A Washington lobbyist sued The New York Times for $27 million Tuesday over an article that she says gave the false impression she had an affair with Sen. John McCain in 1999.

The newspaper stood by the story.

Vicki L. Iseman filed the defamation suit in U.S. District Court in Richmond. It also names as defendants the Times' executive editor, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters.

Iseman represented telecommunications companies before the Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain chaired. In February, as McCain was seeking the Republican presidential nomination, the Times reported that McCain aides once worried the relationship between Iseman and McCain had turned romantic.

The article said that both McCain and Iseman denied any romantic relationship, but the lawsuit says most readers would find that obligatory.

"That The New York Times would make such aggressive and sensational allegations and insinuations in the face of on-the-record denials by Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain only reinforced the message to readers that The New York Times in fact believed that Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain had indeed engaged in an `inappropriate relationship,' a relationship that was romantic, unethical, and a conflict of interest," the lawsuit says. "Otherwise, reasonable readers would conclude, The New York Times would never have printed the story at all."

The Times maintained its defense of the story in a statement Tuesday.

"We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail," the statement said. "As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest."

Story continues below

Richmond lawyer W. Coleman Allen Jr., who represents Iseman, said she waited until after the presidential election to file the suit because she didn't want it to become a distraction.

The lawsuit claims that other media outlets were investigating McCain's ties with Iseman and that the Times was so concerned about being scooped that it printed a story "to pack the maximum sensational impact with the minimum factual support." The lawsuit contends she suffered an "avalanche of scorn, derision, and ridicule" that damaged her health.

The lawsuit cites accounts from other media, political pundits and the Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, that interpreted the article as meaning that McCain and Iseman had an affair.

In what the lawsuit calls the most damaging passage, the article said two former McCain associates had warned him that he was risking his career, and that he "acknowledged behaving inappropriately" and "pledged to keep his distance" from Iseman.

The story also pointed to a fundraiser that Iseman and McCain attended in Miami in 1999, when they flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients.

"Ms. Iseman's relationship with Senator McCain was entirely professional, ethical, and appropriate," the lawsuit states, adding that it "was not different in kind from the cordial yet professional relationship that hundreds of lobbyists have with hundreds of members of Congress."

Keith Werhan, a constitutional law professor at Tulane University, said key to Iseman's case will be how the court defines her _ as a public figure or a private figure. Public figures have to meet a higher standard of proof, and show malice by a news outlet.

Werhan also said the Times could be protected if it accurately quoted McCain's former aides about their perceptions of his relationship with Iseman.

"If all those statements are true, then it seems to me the Times is not at fault for reporting that," Werhan said.

"It's essentially hard to win a defamation suit," Werhan added. "The idea is the First Amendment has its thumb on the press' side of scales."

Iseman's lawsuit was first reported by Virginia Lawyers Weekly.

___

Associated Press Writer Steve Szkotak contributed to this story.

RICHMOND, Va. — A Washington lobbyist sued The New York Times for $27 million Tuesday over an article that she says gave the false impression she had an affair with Sen. John McCain in 1999. Th...
RICHMOND, Va. — A Washington lobbyist sued The New York Times for $27 million Tuesday over an article that she says gave the false impression she had an affair with Sen. John McCain in 1999. Th...
Filed by Danny Shea  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
392
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
- cityspeak I'm a Fan of cityspeak 5 fans permalink

She has every right to sue.

The NYT has every right to stand by the story.

The romantic relationship was being questioned by McCain's own people as noted by NYT(the case hinges on this). The NYT put the question to both parties involved and they denied it, The NYT published that response.
For all we know maybe it was just a flirtation, an inappropriate lobbist/politcal connection, a physical relationship, all, or none of these. It is interesting to note that she disappeared off the screen after the story broke only to resurface with this frivolous lawsuit now.
This is what a paper does in a free society, questions people in power.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 12/31/2008
- sueno I'm a Fan of sueno 14 fans permalink

Everybody but "Vicky" knows the story's true-

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 AM on 12/31/2008

How would she know?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:15 PM on 12/31/2008
photo

Relationships between a lobbyist and a politician are fair game. Sorry, Vicki, looks like you'll have to earn your money the old fashioned way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 12/31/2008

Sure they are, just not their personal relationships, unless you have proof.

She is going to win, it is just a matter of how much. They crossed the line and probably will have to pay her a small seven figure settlement.

Remember, if she goes to court all the NYT's sources are no longer confidential.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 12/31/2008
- toocoldout I'm a Fan of toocoldout 22 fans permalink

It's fair game only if it's true. The NY Times has published so many fake stories that who knows what to believe. They really lost my trust after publishing a phoney letter smearing Caroline Kennedy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 12/31/2008

How did the letter "smear" her? It didn't offer any information. All it said was that in the writer's opinion, she should not be given the appointment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 12/31/2008

the smear was actually a true smear. CK is not qualified

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 PM on 12/31/2008
- Jo Manning I'm a Fan of Jo Manning 2 fans permalink

My lord, you'd think she would want this over and done with! Why is she bringing it up now? Most everyone has forgotten this.

But, good for the NY Times, standing by its story!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 AM on 12/31/2008
photo

She probably lost all her money thanks to all those McCain-supported policies and needs cash.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 AM on 12/31/2008

If she feels the need to clear her name, then she obviously doesn't regard the matter as "over and done with." Apparently folks here believe she was having an affair with McCain because of the story the Times ran. So if she wasn't, this is the way to sort it out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 12/31/2008
- kevinw I'm a Fan of kevinw 12 fans permalink

Money

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 12/31/2008
- pahpah25 I'm a Fan of pahpah25 6 fans permalink

SHE LOOKS LIKE SHE COULD BE HIS WIFE'S TWIN............MAYBE THE OLD GUY SIMPLY GOT CONFUSED.............

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 AM on 12/31/2008
- solarian I'm a Fan of solarian 14 fans permalink

gold digger

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:03 AM on 12/31/2008

She's entitled to every penny she gets.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:17 AM on 12/31/2008

You're right 'she deserves every penny she gets' which will be nothing - exaclty what the little gold digger deserves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 AM on 12/31/2008
- FawkesNews I'm a Fan of FawkesNews 6 fans permalink
photo

Vicki Iseman to the NY Times: "What kind of a woman do you think I am?"

NY Times to Vicki Iseman: "We both know what kind of woman you are. Now we're just negotiating the price."

http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/vicki-iseman-is-suing-ny-times-for.html#disqus_thread

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 AM on 12/31/2008

Sadly, the New York Times is not nearly as clever as George Bernard Shaw was.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:19 AM on 12/31/2008
- gifu I'm a Fan of gifu 14 fans permalink

If you still have the cash, in this economy, to hire big gun lawyers to salvage your tarnished "reputation".......and your occupation is what??? Oh, yeah, a wealthy, sleazy DC lobbyist........good luck finding any American to empathize with your sense of outrage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:18 AM on 12/31/2008

She has requested a jury trial, so clearly she is optimistic that she will find Americans who will empathize with somebody wrongly accused.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 12/31/2008
- Truby I'm a Fan of Truby 6 fans permalink

All the s.e.x. that is fit to print.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:06 AM on 12/31/2008
photo

Hey Vicki! Welcome back! Where ya been hiding?

No, I mean it literally.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 AM on 12/31/2008
- merrill1 I'm a Fan of merrill1 7 fans permalink

Ms. Iseman wants it both ways, access to 100's of public figures for the purpose of influencing public policy and being paid handsomely for it, and the protected privacy of a non public figure when it does not turn out well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 AM on 12/31/2008

One rule of thumb to determine who is a public figure and who isn't, would be to count the number of times that person's name appeared in the media, before the alleged libel took place.

You may have heard of Vicki Iseman before the Times article appeared, but I doubt that anybody aside from her professional contacts -- strangers, in other words -- knew who she was.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 AM on 12/31/2008
- kevinw I'm a Fan of kevinw 12 fans permalink

You have to count the times their alleged paramour was in the press as well. Like the John Edwards case. She had not been in the press, but her boyfriend had.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:22 PM on 12/31/2008
- tel8034 I'm a Fan of tel8034 93 fans permalink

Seems as if Vicki Iseman is trying to create a "stimulus package" for herself................... If Bristol Palin can get a $300,000 stimulus package then why shouldn't Vicki get one for $24 million.

But the question remains why wait now to sue ...................... The didn't want an election distraction doesn't hold water ......................... the NY Times printed the story Vicki and McCain both denied the affair and that was the end of that.................... So why sue now? ..................... Methinks Vicki is looking for attention now that the Washington lobbyists will all be banished to no-man's land under an Obama administration.

Why do all of the women around McCain (and also the plumber) have a fascination with getting their 15 minutes of fame ................................ Cindy, Sarah, Bristol, Mama McCain, Wife # 1, and now Vicki

Is being a Republican that boring and mundane whereby the only way to feel that they have a life is seeing their names in print? ............................... It's too bad that only embarassing situations get them the headlines.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 AM on 12/31/2008

Perhaps she should be careful in her quest? Something buried may come to the surface...not saying an actual affair took place, but sometime's it's best to leave things alone, undisturbed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 AM on 12/31/2008
- JZ735 I'm a Fan of JZ735 22 fans permalink

Vicki, the Times can't even pay its way out of a paper bag...GOOD LUCK!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 AM on 12/31/2008

The Times -- like all newspapers -- carries libel insurance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 AM on 12/31/2008

WTF! This woman disappears off the face of the earth then shows up with a
$27 million lawsuit?! Something is fishy here.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 AM on 12/31/2008

Yep, she is going bankrupt. Remember what P E Obama said about lobbyist? She is just trying to get money before she loses all of hers. (ha,ha)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 AM on 12/31/2008

"(ha, ha)"

Why is that funny?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 AM on 12/31/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect