Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,102 posts)
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 07:47 PM Feb 2012

Gingrich Campaign Threatens to Sue Over Attack Ads

I love the infighting!


Gingrich Campaign Threatens to Sue Over Attack Ads
By TRIP GABRIEL


ATLANTA — With Newt Gingrich campaigning in Georgia on Friday to defend his home turf from competition that has suddenly heated up, a lawyer for his campaign threatened to sue Georgia television stations that run attack ads from a pro-Mitt Romney “super PAC” that connect Mr. Gingrich to Nancy Pelosi and China’s one-child policy.

In a cease-and-desist letter, the lawyer refers to ads run by the super PAC, Restore Our Future
, that assert Mr. Gingrich “co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.’’

The lawyer, Patrick Millsaps, writes that the fact-checking site PolitFact found that statement to be a “pants on fire” falsehood, and he warned television stations that if they continue to run the ad “after your receipt of this letter, it will be a knowing publication of a false statement.”

He threatened “potential civil liability.’”

more...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/gingrich-campaign-threatens-to-sue-over-attack-ads/

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gingrich Campaign Threatens to Sue Over Attack Ads (Original Post) babylonsister Feb 2012 OP
I am glad to see the push-back against total lies in attack ads NAO Feb 2012 #1
Freedom Of Speech Is A Real Pisser... KharmaTrain Feb 2012 #2
Notice he's not going after Romney, but GA? noot knows... babylonsister Feb 2012 #3
I don't know Ebadlun Feb 2012 #5
Which lie do you speak of? nt babylonsister Feb 2012 #6
This one Ebadlun Feb 2012 #7
Thanks, but I can't trust any of the rethugs. They're trying to 'out' each other, and babylonsister Feb 2012 #8
And 'Politifact', Sir, is Barnyard Product as Usual The Magistrate Feb 2012 #10
Simple... KharmaTrain Feb 2012 #11
Newt and Sarah should have a whine-off. nt Skip Intro Feb 2012 #4
Could happen-there's lots of time! nt babylonsister Feb 2012 #9
Politifact is not a reliable source. Noot - chickens are coming home to roost. n/t Lil Missy Feb 2012 #12

NAO

(3,425 posts)
1. I am glad to see the push-back against total lies in attack ads
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 08:04 PM
Feb 2012

Painting someone negative with imagery, distorting their position, and cherry picking their worst quotes out of context are bad enough, but when a statement is about a matter of fact, and it's patently false, there should be legal consequences.

I don't think Newt should have to use his treasure chest to prosecute this. It should be the FEC.

KharmaTrain

(31,706 posts)
2. Freedom Of Speech Is A Real Pisser...
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 08:04 PM
Feb 2012

Here's a suit that would get laughed out of court faster than it was filed. Gnooot is a "public" figure...and thus has little to no "privacy"...meaning Millard's people can say or do whatever they want...and they know it. This is more desparation from a blowhard who wouldn't hesitate to flind the mud back. Gnooot's real problem is he's one day closer to total irrelevancy. Maybe he can sue himself about that one...

Ebadlun

(336 posts)
5. I don't know
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 11:06 PM
Feb 2012

The lie in the Romney add is a massive, stinking turdburger - I'd like to think there should be some comeback.

babylonsister

(171,102 posts)
8. Thanks, but I can't trust any of the rethugs. They're trying to 'out' each other, and
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 02:04 AM
Feb 2012

the truth doesn't matter, does it.

Honestly, from me, it would be more of a fight if there was a viable candidate from the gop. I don't see one.

The Magistrate

(95,257 posts)
10. And 'Politifact', Sir, is Barnyard Product as Usual
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 02:48 AM
Feb 2012

Gingrich was a co-sponsor of the bill; so was Speaker Pelosi: the statement he co-sponsored the bill with her is true. that he did not do so as promptly as she did does not affect the accuracy of the statement.

The bill intended to give money to a United Nations body which did indeed support the Chinese 'one child' program. Money is fungible: a clause in the bill stating funds from it could not be used for that purpose is essentially meaningless, as the additional money would simply free up some other funds that could go to the 'forbidden' purpose, since the body would have an aditional sixty millions available. Nor does a sequestration by Reagan after the bill passed affect the matter. The statement that the bill appropriated funds for a U.N. body that supported the Chinese program is accurate.

The 'Politifact' people do not, put bluntly, seem to have a very good handle on the meaning of the words 'fact' and 'accurate'....

KharmaTrain

(31,706 posts)
11. Simple...
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 05:26 AM
Feb 2012

Nooooot and his billionaire can buy their own turdburgers. It's "capitalism"...let the marketplace decide. The ultimate game is to detatch the money from the speech, but that's not where we're at. I'm grateful for the rushpublicans showing us how devestating Citizens United is and by using on their own. The sad problem is none of these politicians (and the many how make their livelihoods on endless campaigns) will do much to fix this problem after the elections. It's gonna take several nasty election cycles for the public to finally say enough...and even then politicians are addicted to the money...

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Gingrich Campaign Threate...