Rush Limbaugh Threatens To Sue Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

This is very interesting, as it actually appears that Mr. Limbaugh may have a case. Lending some more credence to the fact that this lawsuit may be moving forward, is the fact that he is NOT discussing this suit in public, via his program.

Say what one may about Rush Limbaugh, but his victory in this suit may eventually lead to a little more political 'truth in advertising' when it comes to the DCCC and it's ilk.

It IS also possible that the DCCC could issue a public apology in order to avoid the lawsuit, which, while improbable, could result in many more cases of this sort.

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. (RELATED: Democrats Attack Rush Limbaugh On Way To November Loss)

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.”

The Daily Caller has reached out to the DCCC for comment.

dailycaller.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

I hope he loses. His entire livelihood is based on misrepresenting things taken out of context and outright lies. If he wins it's only a victory for hypocrisy.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Say what one may about Rush Limbaugh, but his victory in this suit may eventually lead to a little more political 'truth in advertising' when it comes to the DCCC and it's ilk.

Yeah? Well you say what you will, but I would vastly rather see more "truth in advertising" when it comes to Rush Limbaugh, and his "ilk".

a reply to: IAMTAT

Didn't the Feds just create a law that it is legal for them to lie? ie spread propaganda

This lawsuit could open up a can a worms for ALL of the crooks in DC!

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: IAMTAT

I hope he loses. His entire livelihood is based on misrepresenting things taken out of context and outright lies. If he wins it's only a victory for hypocrisy.

And it's certainly not as if the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's "entire livelihood is based on misrepresenting things taken out of context and outright lies."

a reply to: IAMTAT

So it's fine for Rush Limbaugh but not for Democrats? Sounds fair and unbiased.

I don't see the DCCC suing Limbaugh for libel.
The law is the law.
Limbaugh has made a legal complaint. If the man has a case, the will, the financial wherewithal...and ultimately finds the law is on his side, he can successfully sue.
How is that unfair or biased?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I don't see the DCCC suing Limbaugh for libel.
The law is the law.
Limbaugh has made a legal complaint. If the man has a case, the will, the financial wherewithal...and ultimately finds the law is on his side, he can successfully sue.
How is that unfair or biased?

Is his housekeeper turned pill mule still in jail?
Maybe we should ask her what's fair and what's not when it comes to the courts of the United States.

Gee, Rush, Don't sue me...

Rush Limbaugh legal threat letter to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:

www.scribd.com...

Interestingly, the DCCC stated they received no letter from Limbaugh's atty....yet:

She also claimed that 'the DCCC has not received any correspondence from Mr. Limbaugh or his attorney.'

Limbaugh's people, however, claimed they have a receipt showing the letter was delivered.

www.dailymail.co.uk... aid-advocated-tolerance-rape.html

Rush does advocate for the tolerance of rape.
Case dismissed!

a reply to: IAMTAT

I wasn't discussing the legality but the morality. The two rarely intersect in our modern era.

a reply to: IAMTAT

No matter what you think of Limbaugh if this does happen it will be a hoot to watch the liberals attempt to lie there way out of this.

When your a hate filled, ridiculing sect that would not know a "fact" if it was in your face, then you really have nothing to defend.

Flame on Lib's, this ought to be good as long as Limbaugh follows through .

a reply to: Battleline

Hehe everything you just said could be applied to your own party.

originally posted by: Kali74
Rush does advocate for the tolerance of rape.
Case dismissed!

Before you make an unfounded statement and close your case...please present some actual facts.

It might also be helpful if you stayed on the subject of this thread and comment on the actual case at hand.
Please read the actual complaint...and I would appreciate your resulting thoughts based upon said complaint:
www.scribd.com...

Then, perhaps, we could have an actual discussion based upon the facts of the case referenced in the OP of this thread.
-Thank you.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Lol. Facts when discussing Limbaugh, too funny.

"Seduction used to be an art, now of course it's "brutish" and it's "predatory" ... [According to Ohio State policy,] consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn anytime, and the absence of "no" does not mean "yes." How many guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that no means yes if you know how to spot it? ... Are these [policies] not lawsuits waiting to happen?"

gawker.com...

Sounds like he's a rape apologist to me.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Rush L is a bloated, drug-addled, wind-bag whose ONLY concern in publicity. He's potentially the most anti-American broadcaster - totally ingnorant about American culture. I don't know any one who listens to him.

a reply to: IAMTAT

In today's world we have this thing called youtube and various other sites in which we can hear audio clips and view videos. Why would you assume that I wasn't referring to the actual segment of his show that the DCCC used to make their case and what he's threatening to sue over. Worse you outright accused me of not referring to the actual gem that fell out the giant ass. Is it because I could be referring to any given show in the entire history of his histrionic shillery? Yeah... thought so.

Anywho, here's the actual show with the actual words in actual context...

No used to mean yes... am I right fellas? *Wink wink, nudge, nudge*. Give me a fking break. I stand by my previous post.



Dismissed.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Battleline

Hehe everything you just said could be applied to your own party.

When was the last time a Republican leader stood up in the Senate and said that Obama "...didn't pay any taxes for ten years"?
Thinking people know who the biggest defamers in DC are.

Harte