Rush Limbaugh Threatens To Sue Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee


#1

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.

dailycaller.com/2014/11/10/rush-limbaugh-threatens-to-sue-democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/

I don’t think he has a case(libel is very difficult to prove when one is a public figure) but should be fun to watch.

I also wonder if this is a reaction to a FCC board member threatening to go after his show.


#2

Will people who feel that Rush hasn’t been nice and/or quoted them out of context be able to sue him?

You’re right. Should be interesting.


#3

Just another cheap publicity stunt in an attempt to stay relevant in a world that is quickly leaving him and his brand of conservatism behind.

Today’s conservatives do not admire Rush as the last round did, nor does his public endorsement of a candidate or cause mean what it once did. The GOP is moving towards a more inclusive base. I really think that intellectual conservatives are slowly but surely taking over, while Limbaugh is pure reactionary emotion.


#4

Well what the DCCC did was extremely malicious. I don’t know anything about libel law so I couldn’t comment on whether or not he has a case.


#5

Um, did you notice the results of a recent election?

Today’s conservatives do not admire Rush as the last round did, nor does his public endorsement of a candidate or cause mean what it once did. The GOP is moving towards a more inclusive base. I really think that intellectual conservatives are slowly but surely taking over, while Limbaugh is pure reactionary emotion.

How often have you listened to Rush, in order to make a judgement that he is “pure reactionary emotion”?
Moving toward a more inclusive base doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean a change in the philosophical standard of individual liberty, and a central government limited by the confines of Article 1, Section 8.
A grerat example of a more inclusive base is the election of Tim Scott in South Carolina. :thumbsup:

Jon


#6

I believe it was something they put in a mailing to fellow democrats.
I can’t recall the details but I know Hannity will cover it tonight. I hope he has a case.


#7

Ah, yes, of course, intellectual people couldn’t possibly agree with Rush. Intellectual people must naturally ‘be inclusive,’ which means…what exactly? Taking a liberal stance on every issue? Just curious.

I wonder if ‘inclusive’ is what I see among liberals: demonizing anyone who disagrees with them, suggesting they’re not all too bright, among other things. After reading my liberal friends’ facebook pages, I don’t see a whole lot of inclusiveness there–I see a lot of hatred and vindictiveness for anyone who isn’t exactly like them.

Honestly, these kinds of comments are offensive, pure insult instead of actual discussion.


#8

:thumbsup: well said!


#9

Beat me to it. I had a good chuckle when I read BlueEyedLady’s post. Do you think Obama, Reid and Pelosi realize yet that the world is leaving their brand of liberalism behind? :slight_smile:


#10

What Limbaugh stance are the Republicans leaving behind?


#11

Really? LOL The Democrats put out a lying mailer knowingly assassinating Rush’s character, and he is supposed to sit there and take it? Take the blinders off, BEL.
As the Jonathan Gruber speech at Penn illustrates, he, Obama and the Democrat leadrship is bereft of morals. No lie is too outrageous if it furthers the socialist cause and empowers suffocating government rulers. Rob :o


#12

Well, at least Rush didn’t go off calling someone a s**t over and over again and didn’t damage the electoral chances of Republicans, so that’s a plus.


#13

He called her a slut because she’s single and spends so much on birth control that she needs government assistance.


#14

I was waiting for that, Bones. Rush did NOT call Sandra Fluke a "st". Not once. He called the person she falsely claimed to be a st. He jocularly took her at her word, all tongue-in-cheek. If Fluke needed all the contraception that she CLAIMED she needed based on her estimate of $300 PER MONTH, she would indeed be what you say Rush called her. Obviously, he was calling her a politically-motivated LIAR instead.
I heard that riff, and it was hysterical, frankly. One of his funniest skits ever. :smiley:


#15

Hilarious. Especially the part of helping the Democrats win in 2012.

You really don’t know how female contraceptives work, do you?


#16

I know how political operatives work, though. And I know that Fluke is a big fat fraud, b/c a month of ordinary b/c costs about $10. It is a disgrace that Republicans cower in fear whenever a charlatan appears on the scene. If the GOP leaders had half the guts of Rush, women such as Fluke would remain in the bowels of obscurity. :cool:


#17

I know they don’t cost 300 a month.Sandra Fluke was the Democrats new Cindy Sheehan.I’m sure they can dig up new victim for 2016


#18

She would have remained in obscurity if Rush hadn’t gone on and on and on about it. Appearing before Congress didn’t make her a star, Rush did.


#19

Hopefully, Rush won’t create one for them.


#20

She has now slipped back into obscurity.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.