Skip to comments.CNN's Sanchez: "We didn't confirm" bogus Limbaugh quote
Posted on 10/16/2009 1:18:56 AM PDT by GVnana
i've know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.nationalreview.com ...
is inexcusably divisive
What a pompous prick.
Who made this jackass the judge?
the damage has been done...sue his a$$.
What is inexcusably divisive is attributing quotes to someone that they didn’t say.
“Our bad” ... what a wuss
Especially the terrible racist quotes they falsely assigned to Rush. This Sanchez guy is a real sicko.
He needs to be fired . . pronto
Is this guy drunk again?
If true, it sounds like a strong case for Rush is being built. But why would he go public with this?
I’m not even going to tell Sanchez what I think of this sleezy journalism that he spouts.
If ya’ fight with a skunk, even if ya’ win, ya’ end up stinkin’.
So, is the ACTUAL hate-filled fraud (er, “journalist”) who started the lie going to ACTUALLY issue a real statement - Something, maybe, like a “full sentence” on letterhead and ON THE AIR?
Or am I merely skeptical of a cell phone text message by an anonymous behind-the-scenes generic producer/writer/cameraman/gofer source?
Is he allowed to tweet with such a high blood alcohol count?
I am so glad they don’t find Olbermann divisive.
It's not like them to waste another shot at telling a lie, even when they're saying that the lie was a lie.
Oh gee... that’s makes it all better, then?
Just a little “oppsie”?
I hope Rush sues them for everything down to the fillings in their teeth.
Sanchez is a small fish. Rush must go after the guy who controls the pond.
Limbaugh Targeted By Obama Official
Friday, October 16, 2009 1:01:53 AM · 25 of 27
“I wonder if Rush knew Soros was part of Checketts group when he agreed to join. I cant imagine that he did, not even for Soros political dealings but his financial crimes. Never in a million years would this have ended well for Rush with Soros involvement.”
I think Rush wasnt just targeted; I believe he was purposefully set up to be discredited - by George Soros and the White House.
Rush needs to go after Soros. He owns the pond and set up Rush.
Rick Sanchez must have had a few good drinks after admitting this. I hope he didnt hit someone and get another DUI when he drove home plastered. He’s been known to do that.
This is the official CNN apology for slandering Rush Limbaugh? Perhaps they should have asked someone who graduated from elementary school to write it.
I wonder if Sharpton and Jesse the racist shakedown Klan leaders are going to retract their slanders. Can they be sued for saying these false things about Rush?
I guess now CNN is competing with MSNBC for the cutting edge most slanderous news outlet.
No, Mr Sanchez, YOUR rhetoric is inexcusably divisive!
It’s a “tweet” - Rick’s big on those now - and maybe the basis of a lawsuit.
his rhetoric, however is inexcusably divisive..."and that's why we lied about what he said, and aren't really apologizing for it now."
sanchez: irresponsible idiot. libel and or slander. legal action pending i hope.
And don’t forget Obama is good friends with Mr. Rooney, who owns the Steelers. He appointed Rooney ambassador to Ireland. Maybe Rooney whispered in a few NFL ears.
So CNN does not wade in the waters of infamy by standing by bogus quotes, it climbs the high ground saying we should not sustain "divisive" characters. As you point out, all the divisiveness come from those who propagate bogus quotes.
This is a tactic abused by the left time and again against Republican or conservative personalities. First defame the man and brand him to be "divisive" because of a furor the left self-created, and piously insist that he should therefore be quarantined out of public discourse.
What a wuss. A twitter apology?
It happened on Dec. 10, 1990. Mr. Sanchez, seriously drunk behind the wheel, with his dad
as passenger, was leaving a Miami Dolphins game. He had barely left the stadium parking area
before he hit a man who was running between cars, and who (unfortunately) was also drunk.
Undoubtedly helped by invisible friends on the police force, Sanchez was not charged with
causing the accident, but was later charged with (and pleaded no contest to) DUI.
“Our bad”? That should be CNN’s new bumper slogan.
inexcusably divisive = too truthful too often
“The left is diabolical and Orwellian in how it clambers to the high ground while it defames its enemies. Sanchez concludes that Limbaugh is a divisive character and in the next breath confesses that the quotations attributed to Limbaugh which would paint him as divisive are bogus. Nevertheless Sanchez confides, “Limbaugh is a divisive character.”
AMEN!! Rush was SET UP by SOROS!! ANd the person who put the FALSE RACIST QUOTES MUST BE SUED TO HELL!!
Not bad from a person who has killed somebody with a car because he was drunk. This guy should be in jail, not spouting “wisdom” on CNN. (Did I just use “wisdom” and “CNN” in the same sentence? Sorry!)
This reminds me of the Duke lacrosse case. There was no crime at all committed, yet these boys were subjected to a terrifying legal and social ordeal. All have suffered severe damage as a result of these campaigns composed of total fabrications. It’s anti-white hatred in both cases, for one thing. It’s also a means that the left uses to deny success and/or opportunity to people whom they (the left) perceive as conservative and white.
I can’t understand, though, why anybody would want anything to do with the NFL. But each to his own.
Would this be the same Rick Sanchez that had a “sexual incident with a young boy”? Wow, sure glad he was able to put all that behind him (for the most part).
But it is not Limbaugh who has been damaged here, it is the media. It is now obvious that the claims of what he said were totally false. It is Limbaugh who is the victim here and the media who are the bullies.
Perhaps the loser left won't admit it but don't think for a moment they aren't aware of what this has cost them among the folks in the middle.
Because part of the basis for the suit is the negative impact the claims and decision have had on Rush’s public reputation.
In their zeal to deny Rush this opportunity, the left has really stepped into the weeds.
It’s not the “drive-by” media any more, it’s the “get-drunk-and-run-over” media.
The slimely left has gotten a free ride on out in out slander. It is time to hit them in the pocket book.
Rhetoric isn’t driving drunk, hitting and killing a pedestrian, and leaving the scene of the crime.
But perhaps Sanchez still doesn’t get it!!!
I think the “our bad” was a deliberately sarcastic “in-your-face” nose-thumbing reply to avoid admitting the truth.
The rats’ success in these efforts depends almost wholly on the joe-sixpack public’s ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills.
"Our Bad" or "My Bad" is so 1995.
Rick won’t know bad until Rush owns CNN
Sanchez is a pompous lying Leftist Bigot. Sue him till his next meal requires him to walk fifteen miles to the nearest soup kitchen. Because he’s so broke he can’t afford to ride the bus. Sue him till he has no job. Sue him till he has to sell his house. Sue him till he has to sell his car. Sue him till he has to sell his pension. Sue him till he has to sell all his valuables. Sue him till he is penniless. Sue him till he’s sleeping in a refridgerator box. Sue him till he truly is a full fledged product of the DemoGenerate System.
Actually Dan Rooney, the primary owner, (the old man who ‘thanked’ Obama when he received the Lombardi Trophy) is now safely ensconced in the US Embassy in Dublin. Dan Rooney also may be experiencing some health issues (very frail looking).
His son, Art Rooney runs the day to day operations (with a group of others, both family and non family members).
The other owners of the Steelers are the other Rooney Brothers (they would be Art Rooney’s uncles). That group is solidly conservative, Catholic (own race tracks and other sporting franchises).
Could Dan Rooney have interceded? Possible. Could any of the actual operators of the Stillerz interjected themselves into the Limbaugh issue...not likely...but again we don’t know. Would any of the other Rooney brothers (the other owners of the team) acted. Highly doubtful...Dan was the lone loose liberal canon.
This was predictable.
Character assasination filled with bald-faced lies. ‘
Followed by “um, sorry, my bad.”
BOR said that Rush was a public figure and he could not sue. Many public figures have sued and won. Rush has the best case I have seen yet.
Finally, there is evidence that the Times published the advertisement without checking its accuracy against the news stories in the Times' own files. The mere presence of the stories in the files does not, of course, establish that the Times "knew" the advertisement was false, since the state of mind required for actual malice would have to be brought home to the persons in the Times' organization having responsibility for the publication of the advertisement. With respect to the failure of those persons to make the check, the record shows that they relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation of many of those whose names were listed as sponsors of the advertisement, and upon the letter from A. Philip Randolph, known to them as a responsible individual, certifying that the use of the names was authorized. There was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable under the Times' policy of rejecting advertisements containing "attacks of a personal character"; their failure to reject it on this ground was not unreasonable. We think the evidence against the Times supports at most a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice.
I think Limbaugh's case against CNN is MUCH stronger than Sullivan's case against NYT. There is no question that CNN's reports were against Limbaugh (Sullivan was not personally named in the advertisement that he sued on), and CNN's "reliance on the good character of the source" argument is weak, in light of the statement in Wiki that the report about Limbaugh (in Wiki) is described (in Wiki) as being contested! CNN made specific, direct statements - incorrectly attributed to Limbaugh - and if they used Wiki, they were given notice that the "fact" was contested.
CNN needs to use the minuscule amount of restraint necessary to prevent that the rumors they sell from having the concurrent qualities of being false (while CNN asserts they are true) and damaging to the people they name. That is not too much to ask, under the law.
I would also sue certain people within CNN personally, even though CNN is bound to pay their defense and any judgment.