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
advertisement

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)
- Tenley I'm a Fan of Tenley 15 fans permalink

Two problems: It's not libel if it's true (and the NYT is standing by its sources) and she has to show she's been financially hurt as a result (doubt it, probably the opposite)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:56 PM on 12/30/2008
- VailBeach I'm a Fan of VailBeach 4 fans permalink

What will hang them is the extensive efforts they made to prove the story their anonymous source told them. Since those efforts came to nothing, it was "reckless" as defined by the law to publish despite their failure to validate anything they thought they knew. If they'd just published the story without the research, ironically, they'd have a better case.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 12/30/2008
- Tenley I'm a Fan of Tenley 15 fans permalink

Um, don't know what legal world you live in but it's apparently not the press law/libel world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 12/30/2008

Presumably she is prepared to prove damages, and the Times will have to either prove the story is true, or convince the judge that they didn't intend to give the impression that Iseman and McCain were having an affair.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:06 PM on 12/30/2008
- Tenley I'm a Fan of Tenley 15 fans permalink

That's what this suit is about -- making the Times prove their case by unveiling their sources (McCain aides). Easy to prove they said what they did. What the GOP and Iseman and the telecom companies want is their names to blacklist them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:18 PM on 12/30/2008

"I did not have sex with that war hero!" LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 12/30/2008
- Tropiholic I'm a Fan of Tropiholic 20 fans permalink

boo hoo

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 12/30/2008
- NotMcCain I'm a Fan of NotMcCain 75 fans permalink
photo

She's certainly not doing McCain any favors, with an election in the not-distant future.

I wonder if the Republicans were paying for her silence during the election and now that it's over, she's angling for more.

Something about the timing here is just very strange.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 12/30/2008

Why is the timing strange? When do you think she should have brought her lawsuit?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:45 PM on 12/30/2008
- NotMcCain I'm a Fan of NotMcCain 75 fans permalink
photo

How about giving a press conference to flatly deny it all when the story broke?

Instead she disappeared. Who paid her during those months?

Has she received any GOP money for her silence until the election was over?

I'd really like to know. The timing--and amount, since no harm seems to have been done to her career at all--are very suspect.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 12/30/2008
- OtayPanky I'm a Fan of OtayPanky 74 fans permalink
photo

This should be fun.

Wait for the other shoe to drop vis a vis Cindy and her doings.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:36 PM on 12/30/2008

What has this got to do with Cindy?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 PM on 12/30/2008
- smallfish I'm a Fan of smallfish 4 fans permalink
photo

what a crock. even if she didn't have the affair $27 million is crap.
that's taking money from hardworking people.
she didn't work for that money.
even if she's right, 50k and get over it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:35 PM on 12/30/2008

The Times has libel insurance . But in determining libel awards, the judge -- or the jury, if there is one -- generally comes up with his own figure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:47 PM on 12/30/2008
- smallfish I'm a Fan of smallfish 4 fans permalink
photo

you can't just say they have insurance, so it's ok. that money doesn't come out of thin air. the cost gets passed on to other people. regular people.
she was not harmed to the extent that she deserves $27 million dollars.
get real.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 PM on 12/30/2008
- VailBeach I'm a Fan of VailBeach 4 fans permalink

But those "hard-working people" worked hard to ruin her reputation. You pity them? Why?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:01 PM on 12/30/2008
- TXfemmom I'm a Fan of TXfemmom 208 fans permalink

She can't win that lawsuit, and by suing, she has to go into depositions where she will have to answer questions about anything and everything, including her sexual history. She is stupid to do this, and it will be a knock out suit with the New York Times being permitted to investigate everything about her life and her relationship with all of her clients. STUPID HUBRIS ON HER PART.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 PM on 12/30/2008

She won't have to answer questions about her sexual history, as that has no bearing on whether she and McCain were having an affair. The rights of discovery are limited to information that is to the point.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:36 PM on 12/30/2008
- Tenley I'm a Fan of Tenley 15 fans permalink

Yep, and further, the NYT didn't say they were having an affair. They quoted aides of his as saying they had feared the relationship had taken that turn and might be a conflict of interest.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 PM on 12/30/2008

I want to know where Cindy McCain is? Not a peep since that picture appeared in the Enquirer..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 12/30/2008

Exactly. Unless she can prove malicious intent by the paper, she does not have a leg to stand on.

It is not enough to go into court on a libel case and say, it's not true. You must show that the story was told in order to damage reputation. And if she cannot do that, she cannot win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:31 PM on 12/30/2008

The entire point of running a story like that was to damage the reputations of McCain and Iseman. I think it was done maliciously. I think the Times stretched the truth to make McCain look bad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 12/30/2008
- Tropiholic I'm a Fan of Tropiholic 20 fans permalink

mc*cas*ket doesn't need anyone to help him look bad, he does a fine job all by himself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 12/30/2008
- NotMcCain I'm a Fan of NotMcCain 75 fans permalink
photo

No. I think the point was to point out how ethically compromised he was by his relations with lobbyists. The added part about his -personal- relationship with Iseman was a small part of the main point (which, imo, is completely true.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 PM on 12/30/2008
photo

She can't possibly win this lawsuit unless the Times maliciously created the "aides" comments and fears and - and it can be proven. Tough row to hoe. She would be more apt to join Bugliosi's pet murder indictment against Bush. I actually think that one has merit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:00 PM on 12/30/2008

If she can show that the Times exhibited reckless disregard for the truth she can prevail.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 PM on 12/30/2008
- brt929 I'm a Fan of brt929 71 fans permalink
photo

Gloria, to prove that is impossible. The article is completely true- there is not one false allegation in it. The letters to the FCC, the rebuke by the FCC, all prove that there was some kind of relationship there.

Two staff members provided the information about the confrontation and limiting the woman's access to McCain.

Where is their reckless disregard for the truth?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 PM on 12/30/2008

Exactly. Unless she can prove malicious intent by the paper, she does not have a leg to stand on. It is not enough to go into court on a libel case and say, it's not true. You must show that the story was told in order to damage reputation. And if she cannot do that, she cannot win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 PM on 12/30/2008

It is enough to go into court and say "it's not true," if you are not a public figure. But in order to collect money, you have to show damages.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 12/30/2008
- NotMcCain I'm a Fan of NotMcCain 75 fans permalink
photo

She probably just wants a couple of million in an out-of-court settlement.

Personally, I hope they fight it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 PM on 12/30/2008

I hope it's adjudicated rather than settled. The newspapers -- all of them -- need to be put on notice that you just can't print any GD thing about people you don't happen to like. If Iseman loses this case, you can be sure that there will be further misrepresentation and innuendo.

The Times thought they were being clever, by dancing around actually saying that an affair took place, but the law looks past these cute constructions and will assess what the story actually communicated, and how widely it was believed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:41 PM on 12/30/2008
- Clayton139 I'm a Fan of Clayton139 25 fans permalink
photo

She was a Lobbyist... She would sell her soul...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 12/30/2008
photo

I remember this article but sure don't remember anywhere in it that the Times claimed McCain had an affair, only that his aides were concerened about the appearance of one. Seems to me there is a big difference. I'm not going to bother to lookup the story again to check it so correct me if I'm wrong.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 12/30/2008
- quadman I'm a Fan of quadman 7 fans permalink
photo

The NYT did not explicitly say that there was an affair but strongly suggested it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:16 PM on 12/30/2008
photo

I'm no lawyer but I can cleary see that strongly suggesting something in a news article and stating it as fact are two different things. Had the NYT come out and said the two were engaged in an affair and it was untrue then I can see the basis for a law suit, frivolous as it is. No, this is just another Republican trying to enrich themselves and you know it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 12/30/2008
- kellygrrrl I'm a Fan of kellygrrrl 642 fans permalink
photo

oh, hai, Vickster! where you been, girl?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:58 PM on 12/30/2008
photo

Apparently she's alive!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 PM on 12/30/2008
- kellygrrrl I'm a Fan of kellygrrrl 642 fans permalink
photo

cannot imagine where they had her stashed

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 12/30/2008
- bazokbros I'm a Fan of bazokbros 16 fans permalink

Good for her. Hope she wins.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:57 PM on 12/30/2008
- deeppeace I'm a Fan of deeppeace 55 fans permalink
photo

Vicki who?

Aside from being thought to exhibit horrendous taste in men, what exactly does she claim are the damages?!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 12/30/2008
- nikto I'm a Fan of nikto 18 fans permalink
photo

She's ALIVE!!!!
She's alive! She's alive, I tell you!

No missing body, no skeletal remains.
No sir, this honey is ALIVE!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 PM on 12/30/2008
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