Skip to comments.Checketts 'went to Rush' for deal; chickens out after lib smear of conservative
Posted on 10/15/2009 6:08:55 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
After showcasing the histories of the lib smear merchants last night, Mark Levin turned to Dave Checketts. The latter "went to Rush" with the deal and now has backed out after the liberals maliciously repeated lies. (After the jump: audio of Mark Levin plus a brief video about a small circle of jerks and evidence of what perhaps a civil court jury will find to be their slander.)
(Excerpt) Read more at marklevinfan.com ...
Mark Levin ping!
I wonder why there isn’t a push to implement the “Rooney Rule” WRT ownership in the NFL. Where is the minority, majority owner? Why entertain Checketts offer at all?
Rush should hire Marc Levin as his attorney to sue these people for libel and slander. Now THAT would be a trial to witness!
Levine is really good, but he would probably recommend that Rush retain someone who specializes in these things.
Did mark comment on this during his Weds night program?
Savage wants to sue the British for banning him from their country and now there’s talk of Rush suing for slander over this awful thing.
Is Rush stealing the publicity football away from Glenn Beck?
This is what really frusrates me. As soon as any conservative runs into opposition, they fold like a cheap pup-tent. The usual liberal empty barrels make noise and conservatives shudder ad cower inthe corner waiving the white flag. Liberals mock opposition and simply ride the storm out [think: Bill Clinton, Charlie Rangel]. How utterly disappointing that the badly out numbered liberals, yet again, gain victory with their small band of noise makers.
He did......Someone posted a link to his show from yesterday/last evening. If you go to Marklevinshow.com you can pick it up as well.
Go to ‘Audio’ and a list of archived shows are there.
I have no idea what the terms of the arrangement were; but it seems to me that if some sort of partnership agreement had been established, and then Rush was unilaterally dropped, he has a basis for action there.
Rush did not fold; Checketts broke the deal.
that’s a cynical thing to say. We should be glad that they are willing to stand up. And as far as Rush suing, I don’t think he has said it; everyone is posting opinion.
Interesting. I thought of Soros setting this up as well, as he can easily afford to lose whatever front money he had to put up.
Do you know Rush?
I think I know him but he’s sort of an inspiration for me to needle folks in my neighborhood.
I’m the “most dangerous man” in York County, Pennsylvania.
Read my homepage.
Yeah, I know, but surely Checketts did not think having Limbaugh in the deal wouldn’t generate leftist caterwaulling! Be a man for goodness sake.
On the flip side, I do realize that Goodall may have sent a message to Checketts to nix Rush. Would not surprise me.
The local host this morning at WHP Radio in Harrisburg speaks of Sharpton and Jackson as the spreaders of the lie that Rush is a racist.
If Rush goes after them I’ll be cheering him on.
But my inspiration is still a big Republican Party supporter.
Too much in my opinion.
I’m a Conservative before a Republican.
You apparently don’t listen to Rush on a daily basis. He has repeatedly said that he is Conservative first. Don’t know about his support for the Republican party at large but he does mention individuals of the GOP. He’s also been extremely critical of RINOs...
Instead of dumping Rush from the ownership team they should ADD Star Parker and Bo Snerdly. Maybe throw in Thomas Sowell for good measure.
Indeed, after the 2006 mid-term election, I believe Rush stated that he was sick of carrying the water for the Republican party when they won’t to anything to stick to the conservative principles.
Both he and Levin encouraged the vote for McCain, but only because they could see the incredible disaster that Obama would be at the helm of the government, with a Donk Congress to back him up.
Of course, the upside to all of this is that conservatism is on the rise yet again. If conservatism was in fact dying, no one on the left would be paying any attention to it; instead they are writing books and going on talk shows yakking about the “death of conservatism” and telling the GOP to move to the center. Because Donks and leftists are all about helping the GOP.
Checketts was an abject failure with the Knicks and still is a coward. If I hear his “aren’t I wonderful” story about his dead dog one more time I’m gonna hurl!
“Hello, Rush was set up, all part of the plan by Dave Checketts to be rid of Rush from NFL once and for all, never had any intentions of allowing him in, even Soros was in on it.”
How about some links of proof instead of conspiracy theory?
Without other evidence it just seems like a business partnership that didn’t want the hassle of being associated with Rush (fair or not)
I would hope Rush goes on the attack letting this slide would be giving in to all the anti-constitutional nonsense Rush preaches about fighting.
It’s time to put up! and fight!
I agree with your interpretation. As for “fighting,” a)you can’t fight the NFL-—they get to decide who owns a team, period; and b) you can’t get far with libel/slander against Jackson or the others because Rush is a public figure who would have to prove intent, malice, and veracity. He can prove he didn’t say those things-—or expose them as having no evidence. But intent and malice are pretty slippery. It has been done in the past, but almost always with National Enquirer and something printed.
Have a link to the dead dog story?
Yes! I remember that now too. He was extremely adamant about it. Good memory!
The group knew what would happen, so why back out, why invite him to Hollywood for Family Guy, why invite him to judge Miss America, why this NFL group, they don't want Rush, never have, never will, what they all want is to hurt him, take him down.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it:)
“you cant get far with libel/slander against Jackson or the others because Rush is a public figure who would have to prove intent, malice, and veracity. He can prove he didnt say those things-or expose them as having no evidence. But intent and malice are pretty slippery.”
I’d take in on. The case to me seems pretty clear that Sharpton/Sanchez, etc were promoting falsehoods for the specific reason to destroy Rush’s chances at legally purchasing into the Rams. Proof - they succeed. Damages - the hundreds of millions he will lose not being an owner
I’m no lawyer, but you can’t claim they are falsehoods if you are trying to say “I didn’t ever say that.” You’re proving a negative. I think that would be extremely hard. And remember, once you get in court, relevant or not, EVERYTHING can come out. Does Rush want to revive his whole drug thing? Divorces? No, it’s not relevant, but that’s what happens.
“And remember, once you get in court, relevant or not, EVERYTHING can come out. Does Rush want to revive his whole drug thing? Divorces? No, its not relevant, but thats what happens.”
At some point, people need to stand up and fight. Most of us don’t have the resources to fight similar injustices. Not only does rush have the resources, he preaches about just that every day on the radio - about the loss of freedoms, etc, etc.
Rush is in the perfect position to stand up not just for himself, but for all of us. Screw his divorces and painkillers, that stuff is already out their.
IMHO if RUSH slinks away from this fight he undercuts his entire mission - it becomes just a schtick.
Better then to look towards Beck, Savage or others to carry the torch
This has nothing to do with Glenn Beck...other than the dems are smearing him, too.
With Rush what you see is what you get... all those other stories are already out there and he has personally addressed them, in this case he was smeared for something he never, ever said.
He was being called on the carpet regarding the problems of the Knicks and Rangers when his phone rang. It was one of his kids. The family dog had died. He blew off the meeting with the owners (Cablevision? Can't remember) and went home to console his kids.
Nice story, but although he ostensibly told it to show which priorities are most important, he also cast himself as a moral hero. What a great guy. He should have kept this story to himself.
I'm thinking that he won't be holding himself up as a model of virtue and honor in regards to this recent act of cowardice.
In many ways I’d like to see a case come up, like this one, through the ranks to give SCOTUS a chance to modify or overturn Sullivan v. New York Times. There is no reason in the world why if you’re famous, there should be a different standard for libel and slander. And I’m fed up with that whole “malice” label, too. If it’s slander, why isn’t malice implied with it?
This WAS slander and libel. Everyone went to a known questionable source for these quotes, and did not verify them. It is not up to Rush to prove that he didn’t say it. It is up to those who are proferring the statements as having been made to prove that he did.
And as for Rush’s substance abuse problem, and divorces, that game cuts both ways. Sharpton can explain his slander against the Duke LAX players, his lies and slander during the Tawana Brawley episode, etc. Jackson can be called for his shakedowns of corporations, and Rick Sanchez can tell us all about how he ran from drunk driving hit and run.
I'm not aware of his history with the Knicks, was he involved when Isiah Thomas was the head coach? I ask because I seem to be the only person on the planet who recalls that back in 1987 during the playoffs between the Pistons and the Celtics, Thomas gave an interview in which he complained about how the media fawned over Larry Bird, "... if Bird were black, he'd be just another good guy." His contention, the press was hyping Bird due to race and not ability, the same kind of comment Rush made about McNabb.
There was no hue and cry, no one, no *white celebrities* attempted to have Thomas kicked out of the NBA, he was not denied his chance at a championship ring later, he was not barred from being head coach of the Knicks. Once again it is demonstrated, racism only goes one way.
You aren’t listening. A court case takes years: whatever the original issue is/was is totally forgotten by the time it comes up. But all the dirt, in the meantime, isn’t and Rush may very well still have legal exposure on the drug thing that he doesn’t want to reopen. It would be foolish, and that is probably why you haven’t heard him say ANYTHING about “suing Jackson or Sharpton.”
I agree on testing the law. But I’m guessing Rush still may be legally exposed in the drug thing, and possibly be placed in double jeopardy. His deal would be reopened, and it might possibly be broadened through depositions. Again, I’m no lawyer, but I’m betting Rush’s FL lawyer has told him absolutely not to file any suits over this.
Stay tuned for the attacks on Rush regarding the Miss America Pageant, with several black contestants running to mics to whine, "If he is a judge, I'm dropping out!"
I'm beginning to wonder if all this is a huge set-up myself, orchestrated by Rahm Emanuel and George Soros to bring Rush down.
Having been on civil jury, “everything or anything” is not necessarily admitted as it still has to have some thread of relevance. Only Denny Crane gets to play a case your way.
Checketts was President and CEO of the Knicks from 1991 to 1999 (I think). During his tenure he was also made CEO of Madison Square Garden which covered the Knicks, the Rangers, The New York Liberty, Radio City among others. He was generally criticized for not winning much regardless of the very high payrolls of his teams. He has also been attacked for his somewhat callous firing of GM Ernie Grunfeld, a NY favorite.
Bookmark and Save.
Much of our society has been brain washed and lack self reasoning skills!
Elementary School Indoctrination
Sand Hill Venable Elementary Indoctrination Camp
I Pledge Allegiance to Obama?? - January 29, 2009, 07:36 PM
Outright egregious slander “published” against a public figure doesn’t hold. Truth is the best (and only) defense. And “they” don’t have the truth on their side. Media Research Center put out a release, showing they’d written MSNBC and CNN, offering the opportunity to ‘put up or shut up’ and they didn’t put up.
Remember the CNN story that ended up with several producers fired? (I’m thinking Peter Arkett, among others) .. the parties named in the story got significant out of court settlements, and CNN had to run a retraction every hour for a couple of days.
Ask Alger Hiss or OJ. And I’ve served on juries too.
Yeah, but Rush has to prove a negative-—impossible. Even if he proves it, he then has to prove malice, and Jackson et al will say it was nothing against Rush, just politics. Then you have to prove that they didn’t know it was false, and they just say, “I thought the source was credible.” It’s 180 degrees different than a tabloid that says “Wayne Newton has mob contacts.” There you can make the defendant prove what he DID say, not try to make a defendant prove what the PLAINTIFF says. I think it’s a can of worms, but let’s have some lawyers weigh in on this.
Rush now discussing the situation, not only did Checketts approach him, but told Rush he was well aware of the kind of flak a Limbaugh-inclusion would bring.
Sounds like a set-up from the gitgo.