I have this post over at Rule of Law how the wicked Shirley Sherrod is now pursuing Andrew Breitbart’s lovely widow Susie Breitbart in court. Her lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis have filed this pleading, seeking to drag Susie into the lawsuit Sherrod filed in 2011.
But Sherrod’s lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis filed this pleading seeking to drag Susie into the lawsuit. They are trying to bore into her own personal estate, the estate which will be used to raise her four fatherless children. The pleading coldly notes:Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Mr. Breitbart was timely filed, survives his death, and may be continued against his successor. See D.C. Code § 12-101; . . . .(“Except as provided in Sections 11446, 13552, 13553, and 13554, upon the death of a married person, the surviving spouse is personally liable for the debts of the deceased spouse chargeable against the property described in Section 13551 to the extent provided in Section 13551.Kirkland & Ellis lawyers Thomas Yannucci and Michael D. Jones shamefully top the complaint, and the effort to drag Susie into the case.
So who’s paying Sherrod’s legal bills for the litigation against Susie Breitbart? Wouldn’t the media have asked by now? Curiosity about funding is not an equal opportunity question.The callousness of someone to go after a widow with four children to take care of and threatening the means of caring for them is just beyond words and sickening.
And it's misguided too. As Robert Stacy McCain points out:
Tom Vilsack demanded Sherrod’s resignation in July 2010 because Democrat political operatives at the White House panicked after Breitbart released the video of an NAACP audience’s enthusiastic approval of Sherrod’s story about how she denied assistance to a white farmer. The political panic occurred after that video got played in edited form on a Fox News broadcast, but Breitbart was not responsible for how Fox News depicted the story, nor was he responsible for Tom Vilsack acting as a political hatchet-man:
White House officials were in close contact with the Agriculture Department in the hours leading up to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s decision to fire USDA employee Shirley Sherrod in 2010, according to nearly 2,000 pages of internal emails released by the administration.
[T]he White House and Agriculture Department officials were sharing information and advice from the first minutes after the scandal began to emerge until Sherrod submitted a resignation hours later at the request of a senior USDA official.
And here’s the key fact:
Vilsack apologized and asked her to return to the department — an offer she declined. President Barack Obama also offered an apology after her ouster created a racial firestorm.
In other words, Vilsack and Obama admitted they wronged Sherrod.
In fact, from everything I remember when the story broke, the gist of Breitbart's story was NOT Shirley Sherrod, but instead the reaction of the NAACP gathering to her words of not wanting to help a white farmer. Keep in mind the Sherrod video came out after the NAACP and the aptly named Ben Jealous had brought about a resolution attacking the Tea Party for allegations of racism based on a claim proven to be false that the "n-word" was yelled at black Congressmen in March 2010.It wasn’t Andrew Breitbart who did her wrong, it was two Democrats, and she would still be employed at the Department of Agriculture if she wanted a job. Instead, she’s suing Susie Breitbart.
In fact, no one called for Sherrod's resignation until Bill O'Reilly did on his Spin Factor. And he only did it just hours after Sherrod resigned.
But there was more to the whole Sherrod story. Lee Stranahan first wrote about this at the Huffington Post and is following up at his blog on this with several stories. Check out his website for more. Keep in mind too the Sherrod involvement in the Pigford Scandal, which Stranahan and Breitbart exposed and discussed at CPAC 2011.
MORE: Allergic to Bull: Shirley Sherrod’s Malicious Pro-Bono Suit Against Andrew Breitbart’s Widow