Posted on 11/10/2014 8:54:02 AM PST by Hojczyk
Radio host Rush Limbaugh has threatened to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for defamation, The Daily Caller has learned.
Limbaugh retained the services of lawyer Patty Glaser and demanded that the DCCC “preserve all records in anticipation of a lawsuit for defamation and interference” after the Democratic Party group led a campaign against Limbaugh based on out-of-context statements the host made about sexual assault. Limbaugh’s legal team delivered a letter to DCCC representatives Monday informing them of the legal threat. Limbaugh has also demanded a public retraction and apology.
The Limbaugh team is currently proceeding from the standpoint of litigating and has not yet made a decision as to whether the DCCC could make any concessions at this point to prevent the lawsuit.
The DCCC “has intentionally disseminated demonstrably false statements concerning Rush Limbaugh in a concerted effort to harm Mr. Limbaugh, and with reckless disregard for the resulting impact to small businesses across America that choose to advertise on his radio program” according to the GlaserWeil law firm’s letter to the DCCC, which was obtained by TheDC. “Mr. Limbaugh clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically condemned the notion that ‘no’ means ‘yes.’”
“Let’s be clear: Rush Limbaugh is advocating for the tolerance of rape” the DCCC stated in a September fundraising email after Limbaugh mocked Ohio State’s new mandatory sexual consent guidelines.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Go Rush!
.
Limbaugh’s team said that the DCCC’s campaign against Limbaugh provides grounds for a defamation case, based on legal precedent.
“The DCCC may believe it to be immune from liability by quoting words, taken out of context. This is untrue,” Glaser said. “There is significant on point precedent in the 9th Circuit for holding an organization responsible for falsifying meaning through selective quoting. In Price v. Stossel, the court held that, if a party accurately quotes ‘a statement actually made by a public figure, but presents the statement in a misleading context, thereby changing the viewer’s understanding of the speaker’s words,’ that constitutes defamation.”
Look for the Rush thread to get very popular, this coming from the person who posts the thread. :) =^..^=
Ditto Rush!
Win, Rush, win!
Take them to the cleaners, and then clean out what’s left and burn the remains.
Die libs, die.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Good, let’s get Wasserman Shultz to testify.
Get ‘em, Rush!
Go Rush!!!! Kick their butts!!!
Get ‘em el Rushbo!
This is a big deal. He has said many, many times over the years that he can’t be bothered with suing the MSM et al over their distortions and lies, including the absolute fabrications that scotched his discussions to buy that football team.
GO RUSH!
Rush has already preserved the evidence, and the Rats will foolishly try to destroy it.
They will get to pay him from prison instead of the poorhouse.
Is that old windbag still on the air ?
Great. And if the mechanism is made available, I will donate to Rush’s legal expenses.
Sue these scum for every cent they have!
The “Price vs. Stossel” (yes, John Stossel then of ABC) precedent (which I just learned about in this article) on selective or out-of-context is good reading.
“A portion of the video showed Dr. Frederick K.C. Price, founder of the Crenshaw Christian Center, claiming that “I live in a 25-room mansion, I have my own $6-million yacht, I have my own private jet and I have my own helicopter and I have seven luxury automobiles.” Price alleged that the clip portrayed him describing his wealth in extravagant terms, when he was actually telling a parable about a rich man.”
http://christianwikipedia.org/frederick-k-c-price/
I was waitin’ for ya!
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.