Jonathan Stempel and Jody Gooy

NEW YORK, (Reuters) – Sarah Palin was a victim of the New York Times’ power after it published a 2017 editorial that linked her to a mass shooting from six years prior. A lawyer representing Palin stated Friday during her defamation case against the paper.

Palin’s lawyer Kenneth Turkel demanded that jurors ignore politics during his closing argument at Manhattan federal court.

Turkel objected to Palin’s testimony regarding her mother and grandmother who still live in Wasilla. Alaska. Turkel said that the newspaper is “keen” about “turning blind eyes” to facts.

Turkel explained that power and the lack thereof are at the heart of the disagreement. The Times has resurrected an awful, false accusation that (in its simplest form) accused Governor Palin inciting six murders.

The Times will present a closing argument on Friday by a lawyer.

It is now in its seventh day.

Palin indicated that she will use her case against New York Times v. Sullivan if she loses, the 1964 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that provided strong legal protections for American news media outlets from defamation claims made by public figures.

Palin is suing over “America’s Lethal Politics”, an editorial published June 14, 2017 that addressed gun control and deplored the rise in incendiary rhetoric.

This incorrectly connected Palin to the Tucson, Arizona shooting that resulted in six deaths and one injury.

After a shooting at an Alexandria congressional baseball practice, where Republican U.S. senator Steve Scalise was injured, the editorial was created.

Bennet added language to make an inaccurate connection between Giffords’ shooting and Palin’s map of Palin’s political action committee. The editorial claimed that this put Giffords among 20 Democrats in danger.

The editorial stated that “the link to political incitement is clear.” This was changed the next morning.

Palin, aged 58, testified for three and a half hours over the course of two days. She compared herself to David, the Biblical underdog, to the Times’ Goliath. Palin said that the Times editorial made her feel “powerless and mortified” which caused her to lose her sleep and led to people being less fond of her.

Palin’s public image has been lower for years than it was in 2008. However, when David Axelrod asked her questions about the Times editorial she did not give any examples as to how that might have affected her reputation.

Axelrod also addressed Palin’s various television appearances.

Jurors will be deciding whether Palin provided convincing and clear evidence that Bennet or the Times had acted with “actual Malice.” This means they either knew of the error in the editorial, or recklessly ignored it. Palin will not be able to receive punitive damages.