This post was mentioned on Twitter by wiselaw: Does Limbaugh Have a Libel Suit Against CNN? http://bit.ly/2U0lZF...

I’m not whining — I’m pointing out that you cannot establish the meaning of a statement independent of its context.

When you read it in context, it is obviously NOT racist. And anyone who refuses to consider context is being irrational.

It is preposterous to demand that every statement a person makes must be fully self-contained and not dependent on any supporting information or reasoning. Nothing justifies such a notion, and you are only pushing it because you are desperate to find some grounds on which to criticize Limbaugh.

If this is all you have, you have nothing.

JHA

Bruce Hayden:
I think that you would be surprised (even ignoring that he doesn’t have a felony conviction). He would have a chance to point out, for example, that the reason that he called the President a “racist” (assuming he did) was that said President was race baiting, and then he could start giving examples, like when he took the side of the Harvard professor over the cop before hearing the evidence.
Indeed, let me suggest that asking Rush about his “felony conviction” is the sort of thing that would get the other lawyer sanctioned and a mistrial if it were a criminal trial.

That is probably true, but no good defense attorney would ask that question. Rather they would ask him whether he had his maid serve as his drug mule. If he sued for damage to reputation, that would almost certainly come into evidence. You and I agree that Rush isn’t going anywhere near a court room with this.

It wasn’t alcohol, and it wasn’t 30 years ago though Bruce.

Once an addict, always an addict. That’s the thinking in many circles.

So he’s stopped himself from consuming, or having his mule bring him drugs. Still an addict, just one not currently getting his illegal pills like before.

Lots of people have that impression of addiction, Bruce. It’s like a reputation.

Michael Smith: you’ll see that Rush is complaining about the taunting, the dancing-after-sacks, dancing on the other team’s logo after the game, stomping on the other team’s “terrrible towels”, etc.

The Bloods and the Crips are criminals. Drug dealers and murderers. Rush compared NFL players to drug dealers and murderers. Rush compared the predominately Black NFL players to criminals. You may think Rush did nothing wrong, but unless you are an NFL player, what he said did not affect you. It did affect them because he was talking about them.

Rush should not be suprised if the NFL wanted nothing to do with him . . . especially given HIS criminal background! Just ask Eddie DeBartolo, Jr. how they feel about owners with criminal issues. Eddie got a deal similar to Rush’s and he was pushed out by the NFL, too. The Greeks don’t want no freaks . . . .

B-Rob: But these are other facts that shed light on his character, Dave: Rush is an addict.

Maybe, maybe not. You are using the present tense, and not the past tense. If you were using the later, I would not quibble with you. This comes down to the definition of what is an addict? Are you going to define someone who hasn’t drunk for 30 years an alcoholic because they believe they would be if they ever took a drink again? Is that the point that you are trying to make? Or are you asserting that Rush is still taking those high dosages of pain meds? If so, what is your source? Is it as reliable as CNN’s was here?

And as Dale noted above, most people don’t follow sports to wade through “context” of why you are making divisive claims like this:
The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.

He said what?? Nobody is going to give him the benefit of the doubt in explaining what he meant by the Bloods and Crips language, the feminazi labels, the halfricanAmericans etc.

You want to insult, fine. We don’t care and can take it. But stop whining if people don’t care enough about your cheap pronouncements to delve into further detail about what your really meant by those deliberately divisive comments.

I am not only a lawyer but a felony prosecutor. I also provided a Slate link that included an image of the signed agreement’s first page. So, either you were not (to paraphrase A Few Good Men), paying attention the day they taught law in law school or you are not a lawyer.

I prefer to think the latter because you are disgrace to the profession if the former is true.

Dave N: There is no “felony conviction.”

Dave, I just responded. Exhaustively. You know what I would have with me if I deposed Rush? Every document in the entire criminal case, and his b.s. lawsuit where he tried to stop the prosecutor for doing discovery of his perscriptions. Maybe I would depose his maid first, though, to get in the record what he was asking her to do.

Let Rush claim he has no felony record, like you did, then I whip out the FBI crimninal background check, his mug shot, all the pleadings, his arrest record, his felony plea, etc.

C’mon, dude! He is a convicted felon! It may have been expunged (I am not sure) but under examination, he not only has to admit the conviction, but MORE IMPORTANTLY the facts he admitted in his plea. THAT is Rush Limbaugh’s character on display and I have not even gotten to his false statement about Michel J. Fox. Let him explain why that was not slander, how it did not destroy MJF’s comparatively sterling character, etc. It would be such a fun deposition. A shame, almost, that he will never sue!

The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.

Looked at in full context, I see nothing at all wrong with this quote.

Here is the full context:

http://michaelinmi.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/rush-limbaughs-nfl-bloods-vs-crips-quote-in-full-context/

If you read that, you’ll see that Rush is complaining about the taunting, the dancing-after-sacks, dancing on the other team’s logo after the game, stomping on the other team’s “terrrible towels”, etc.

Context is everything.

Dave N: Q: Do you have a felony conviction.

A: No.

Q: What about the Florida doctor shopping charge?

A: There was no felony conviction.

I am not sure that it gets that far. The attorney asking the question knows that Rush doesn’t have a felony conviction, and so the reason for asking the question is purely to unfairly prejudice the jury.

Of course, I don’t try jury cases, and have only done so once in my career (and, surprisingly, won, but not through my legal acumen). So, I would be interested is hearing from attorneys who are experienced here as to the point at which they would object to this line of questioning.

On the other hand, I think that a good lawyer may be able to get the charge before the jury and that the charges were settled with the delayed prosecution.

ChrisTS: So, I guess we have good evidence for EV that registered names are necessary.

If this thread doesn’t provide sufficient evidence for that premise, nothing will.

Dave N: RL does not have a “felony drug conviction” or a felony conviction of any other kind.

Dave N. I can tell you are not a lawyer, because your examination sucked. You would ask him:

Q. Have you been arrested? What for? When? Were you indicted? Yada yada yada.

Get the picture? And another thing: Rush did have a felony conviction; you may not with is were so, but he did. If I recall correctly, he was given conditions under which it could be reversed and expunged. But mark my words, Dave, if you run an FBI check on him, it pops up with a felony drug conviction — as it should. Trust me, Dave, those convictions never REALLY go away. Rush is lucky he is rich, because in Ohio, with that record, he would not be able to teach public school, work in a bank, etc.

But these are other facts that shed light on his character, Dave: Rush is an addict. He used his maid to mule for him, instead of buying it in a parking lot somewhere, the way all the other hillbilly heroin addicts do. So he is a person willing to corrupt another person to get his fix and avoid the risk of getting caught. He is not only an addict, he is also loathsome enough that he was putting his maid, a woman in a position of significantly less power and prestige, at risk for a criminal conviction to keep himself out of the spotlight and insulated from arrest. That, my friends, is what he would have to admit to as we examine his “character” under oath.

You might be more persuasive if you were factually accurate. I have called you out twice. You have now repeated the canard about a “felony conviction” a third time. There is no “felony conviction.”

You guys really want to “win” so bad that you have to cheapen the thread because somebody deliberately chooses to post under anonymous, a singular handle up until then in the thread?

CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP and being that there was the earlier discussion of how easy it was to sign in as another, you tainted yourself too.

I’ll be looking for you on other threads now, since the posting as others, and celebrating multiple appearances, appears to be fair game now.

B-Rob: He is a libel defense attorney’s dream: a loudmouth public figure with four ex-wives, a felony drug conviction, and a history of racial comments, including calling a recently elected and popular president “a racist”. That would be too much fun! You could spend an entire day on his drug issues and his felony conviction, alone.

I think that you would be surprised (even ignoring that he doesn’t have a felony conviction). He would have a chance to point out, for example, that the reason that he called the President a “racist” (assuming he did) was that said President was race baiting, and then he could start giving examples, like when he took the side of the Harvard professor over the cop before hearing the evidence.

Indeed, let me suggest that asking Rush about his “felony conviction” is the sort of thing that would get the other lawyer sanctioned and a mistrial if it were a criminal trial.

Also, keep in mind that Rush grew up in a household of lawyers – his grandfather, father, and brother were/are lawyers. So, he may be able to keep the damage to a minimum.

That said, I have been told that CEOs are often some of the worst witnesses possible. They don’t take prepping very well, can’t keep their mouths shut when they should, and can get caught up in the details, since they are typically not the detail guys. And, Rush may have the same problems.

But, despite all of our wishes to see what happens, I don’t expect to see it.

THAT YOU LAURA?

IN CAHOOTS WITH DANIEL AND JIM TO POST AS SOMEONE ELSE HERE?

Bruce Hayden: It is a bit like the Obama Administration going after Fox News.

Obama “going after” Fox? Hardly. They just called them an arm of the GOP and refuse to accomodate them. It is hardly “going after” someone when you ignore them.

On CNN’s reputation: this will not affect it. First, the idea that Rush would say something racist would not surprise anyone, so it is easy to see why they might have been snowed by a false quote. Second, the people most outraged by Rush’s treatment, the dittoheads, don’t watch CNN anyway. They like Fox. Third, no one who is pro-Rush really wants to deal with the heart of the matter, which is his ACTUAL reputation in the public, not what dittoheads think about him.

I am sure Mrs. Dahmer thought Jeff was a nice boy, but his public persona was, shall we say, a bit tarnished by his conduct. Rush is a drug addict with a felony record. He has a history of racially offensive comments and the false ones merely added two extra logs to the cord. Take away those false quotes and what do you have? A drug addict with a felony record, four ex-wives, and a documented history of racially offensive comments. Not much to work with, that.

As I mentioned above, RL does not have a “felony drug conviction” or a felony conviction of any other kind. I am not sure how one can spend more than 35 seconds on the following question and answer sequence:

Q: Do you have a felony conviction.

A: No.

Q: What about the Florida doctor shopping charge?

A: There was no felony conviction.

I hope you are not a lawyer. If you are, you are giving the profession a very bad name. If you are not, then you sound like someone who thinks you know what happens in deposition because you watch Boston Legal and used to watch L.A. Law.

He is Anonymous… He is Legion… and we’re all screwed!

anonymous:
IS THAT YOU JIM
YOU REALIZED YOU HAD TO TRY TO BE ME TO BEAT ME???
POOR SPORTS INDEED.

TRY ENGLISH.

Daniel Chapman: Yeah I didn’t think your premises were accurate there, Chris… Under the new blog software, there is no more username registration. Anyone can post on any handle.I expressed concern with this new “feature” immediately, but apparently the Overlords aren’t worried.

Ohh: that explains the ‘just checking’?