When she initially discovered that a 2017 New York Times editorial indicated her campaign rhetoric helped instigate a mass massacre, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told a jury she felt like she was at the mercy of a “Goliath.”

Palin used her second day on the witness stand to accuse the Times of creating lies to harm her image, which is the basis of a libel case against the newspaper that is now being heard in federal court in Manhattan.

“To read a baseless charge that I had anything to do with murder was upsetting,” Palin stated. “I felt helpless, as if I were up against Goliath.” David was among the people. “My name was David.”

“When you know lies are being spoken about you,” she said, “it generates considerable worry.” “It’s difficult to obtain a decent night’s sleep.”

Palin filed a lawsuit against the New York Times for undisclosed damages in 2017, over a decade after she made her national debut as the Republican vice presidential contender. She claimed the editorial promoting gun control published after U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, was injured when a shooter with a history of anti-GOP activism opened fire on a Congressional baseball team practice in Washington harmed her career as a political analyst and adviser.

Palin’s political action committee contributed to an atmosphere of violence by circulating a map of electoral districts that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs, according to the Times’ editorial. Palin’s political action committee contributed to an atmosphere of violence by circulating a map of electoral districts that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs before the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona that severely wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others.

“The New York Times, the be all and end all, the loud voice in the media,” Palin remarked on Thursday, “had… made a knee-jerk response and sought to make political points, attempting to politicize awful tragedy.”

The New York Times issued a clarification two days after the editorial was published, saying the column “incorrectly suggested that a relationship existed between political discourse and the 2011 massacre” and that the map was “incorrectly represented.”

When he substituted the disputed phrase into the piece, the jury will have to decide whether former editorial page editor James Bennet acted with “actual malice,” meaning he knew what he wrote was untrue, or with “reckless disregard” for the truth.

Bennet said Wednesday that he messed up the cut – “I’ve regretted it pretty much every day since” – but that he didn’t mean any damage.

Palin’s brand has not harmed as a result of the encounter, according to the Times attorneys, who point out that she still appears on Fox News, is hired for speaking engagements, and has infrequent paid appearances on TV series like “The Masked Singer.”

“It was the most enjoyable 90 seconds of my life,” she claimed during cross-examination on Thursday when questioned about the program.

Palin, 57, admitted that she never sought a correction, retraction, or apology from the Times before filing the lawsuit. “It was common sense,” she claimed, explaining why she didn’t bother. They were quite aware that they had printed a lie.”

Both sides took a break shortly after Palin’s testimony ended. The date for the closing arguments has been scheduled for Friday.