Despite her years on reality television and as a Fox News commentator following her high-profile stint as the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, Palin said she felt she lacked a platform in 2017 to rebut the Times’ claim that there was a “direct” link between her PAC and the Tucson shooting.

“I felt powerless,” Palin said. “I knew I was up against Goliath and I felt … that I was David. … You’re up against those who buy ink by the barrel and I had my No. 2 pencil on my kitchen table in Alaska.”

The Times corrected the editorial within hours, but Palin noted that the corrections did not use her name or even specifically identify her PAC.

Palin, who majored in journalism in college and worked briefly as a sports reporter for a local TV station in Alaska, said she felt compelled to sue the Times because it is “the be-all and end-all in media.”

The former governor was vague about where the idea for a lawsuit was first raised, saying simply that she discussed her response “with those whom I trusted to advise.”

During a little more than an hour of questioning by her attorney, Palin said little to detail any financial impact in terms of lost business or contracts as a result of the Times editorial. Indeed, her lawyers have waived any right to recover such damages. Instead, she spoke about the emotional impact of the editorial on her and what she asserted was a drop-off in requests for endorsements and campaign appearances after the 2017 editorial.

“Well, it’s hard to lay your head on the pillow and have a restful night when you know that lies are told about you, a specific lie that was not going to be fixed,” the former governor said. “That causes some stress anyone would feel. Yes, tough to get a good night’s sleep.”

During cross-examination, Times attorney David Axelrod noted that Palin’s response back in 2010 to initial criticism of the targeting map was to rile up her supporters further and try to capitalize on the response.

“Don’t Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!” Palin wrote on Twitter then, referring readers to her Facebook page.

The map showed the districts of 20 Democrats, including Giffords, and called for their defeat for voting for Obamacare. Some Palin allies have disputed that the markings on the PAC’s map looked like gunsights, with one witness earlier in the trial saying they were simply Google Maps location markers. But the former governor did not quibble much Thursday with the idea that the map’s markings looked like crosshairs or rifle sights.

“They do,” Palin said “They also look like other things. You could perceive those as surveyor markings.”

In addition to disputing the Times editorial’s claim of a link between the 2011 shooting and the Palin PAC’s map, Palin’s lawyers allege that the editorial’s use of the word “incitement” also implied a causal link between the map and the shooting. A mentally ill Arizona man, Jared Loughner, pleaded guilty to that crime and no evidence ever emerged that the map was seen by Loughner.

The Times’ 2017 editorial was prompted by a shooting at a congressional GOP baseball team practice in Alexandria, Va., in which Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) was gravely wounded, and three other people were injured. The shooter, James Hodgkinson, was shot and killed at the scene by police.

The editorial page editor at the time of the 2017 editorial, James Bennet, testified earlier this week that he inserted the word “incitement” in the text. He said he did not intend to convey that the Palin PAC map played a direct role in the shooting, but rather that the map fueled an atmosphere likely to prompt unsettled minds to violence.

However, after the editorial came under fire, the Times changed that wording to refer instead to “heated political rhetoric.”

Axelrod noted that in an 1,141-word statement issued following the Giffords shooting in 2011, published in full in POLITICO, Palin warned journalists tying her to the crime not to “incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.” The Times attorney suggested that usage was virtually identical to what Bennet testified he meant.

Palin seemed to agree. “I like to think of it more as stir up,” she said. “I actually think you can have rhetoric that you would call incitement even if nothing happened afterwards.”

Asked why she didn’t ask for a retraction or apology after the 2017 editorial, Palin said she thought it would be pointless.

“They’d just accused me of inciting murder. I didn’t think I was going to get a friendly response,” she said. “It’s common sense….It wasn’t going to mean anything.”

Palin also acknowledged she’d not seen a counselor or sought medical help over the sleeplessness. She said she addressed the stress “holistically,” turning to running and hot yoga.

Both sides rested in the case Thursday, soon after Palin completed about three and a half hours of testimony.

Palin sought not only compensation for damages to her reputation, but also punitive damages against the Times and Bennet for their conduct. However, Judge Jed Rakoff ruled Thursday that the jury would not be permitted to award punitive damages. He said no reasonable juror could conclude that the allegedly libelous statements were prompted “solely by a desire to injure” Palin.

“The evidence, frankly, that Mr. Bennet harbored ill will towards Ms. Palin is quite modest, indeed,” said Rakoff, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

The judge’s skepticism about the legal merits of Palin’s case became clear in 2017, after he threw the suit out. But a federal appeals court reinstated it two years later, faulting Rakoff for using an expedited procedure not authorized under federal court rules.

Rakoff did not immediately rule on a new motion by the Times to throw the case out before it reaches the jury. After the evidence concluded, a Times attorney argued briefly that no reasonable juror could conclude Palin had met her burden to show that the Times and Bennet acted with knowledge that assertions in the editorial were false or recklessly disregarded indications that the statements were likely false.

At times during the questioning Thursday, Palin raised Clintonian quibbles about some of the queries put to her. When Axelrod asked the former governor if she was being paid as a spokesperson for a financial company, she said no.

After the Times attorney noted that Palin had appeared in a video for a financial services firm called “American Prosperity Summit,” Palin acknowledged she had but insisted the earlier question was imprecise.

“You said ‘are you being paid?’ in the present,” the former governor said.

Jurors also saw some glimpses of Palin’s folksy demeanor on Thursday. While under cross-examination, she briefly used a hockey metaphor, describing herself as being in “the penalty box.”

Palin also cracked wise while being questioned about her paid appearance in 2020 on the Fox television program, “The Masked Singer,” where she sang disguised as a fluorescent-colored bear.

“Objection!” Palin quickly chimed in, prompting laughter as she usurped the roles of the lawyers in the hard-fought case. “I saw that one coming.”

“What’s the objection?” the Times lawyer asked.

“I just thought it was funny,” Palin replied. “It was the most fun 90 seconds of my life.”