Clinton campaign sends legal warning on ads claiming she's 'under investigation'
Source: CNN
(CNN)Hillary Clinton's campaign sent cease-and-desist letters to broadcasters advising that they shouldn't air ads from pro-Donald Trump PACs that include the claim that Clinton is "under investigation by the FBI."
The letters were dated Sunday, the same day the FBI announced that it was sticking by its conclusion that no charges were recommended against Clinton following completion of a review of recently discovered emails belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
"These ads falsely claim Secretary Clinton is under investigation by the FBI," said the letter from Marc Elias, general counsel for the Clinton campaign. A copy of the letter was read to CNN by a recipient.
The letter lists some pro-Trump PACs, including Rebuilding America Now and Future 45, and the titles of ads they are funding.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-ads-legal-warning-election-2016/
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)Some people ple say kind of mud slinging
Also, the lawsuit and message invalidating those ads will make the rounds
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)The only thing these deplorables understand is legal action and the fear of their own liability in such situations. Calling Sec. Clinton "corrupt" is an opinion. Claiming she's under investigation by the FBI is a lie. There's a legal difference.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)One has a woman in pantsuit and shades playing Hillary, smashing laptops and laughing/smirking. The other is animated, with an on-the-scene reporter, female, observing the trucks of "baggage" moving into the White House, with a leering Bill oogling the reporter at the end.
Shameless, demagogic nonsense.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,076 posts)...eom.
MattP
(3,304 posts)MontanaMama
(23,302 posts)this is a huge disappointment to me. Why is there ALWAYS a turd in the punch bowl? It was my 11 year old son who pointed out that Tim Ricketts looks an awful lot like Ted Cruz. Blech....
VWolf
(3,944 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)That deplorable orange orangutan is perfectly adept in a court room. He's been the plantiff in 1,900 cases, been the defendent in 1,450, and 150 in bankruptcy, third party, or other.
I'm pretty sure the threat of legal action will ring hallow with him. Hell, that ass has been able to say and do just about damn well anything he wanted this season without hardly ever being held to task on it.
LisaM
(27,800 posts)They have to defend what they put on the air, and there are actual laws against defamation. I doubt if Trump is going to assist anyone else with legal bills. He doesn't even seem to pay his own.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Hope it works in taking that lying POS talking point off the air.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...THEY may not want to go to court over this. So Trump can shout and scream all he likes, all they have to say is "Sorry, can't run this. The law is on her side."
onenote
(42,685 posts)Stations can reject non-candidate funded ads. But ads funded by the candidate (the one with the "I'm Donald Trump and I approved this ad" message -- the station cannot reject those ads based on their content. So if Trump wants to continue to place ads stating Hillary is being investigated or that the FBI found her emails on pervert Weiner's laptop, the stations must run them.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Old article but relevant. They can reject all candidate's ads, but they cannot single out one candidate.
onenote
(42,685 posts)The Communications Act contains a provision imposing on broadcast licensees a requirement that they provide "reasonable access" to candidates in general elections for federal office (President, Senate, House). A station may not simply refuse to sell time to all federal candidates -- at least some time (a "reasonable" amount) has to be provided for purchase (at the station's "lowest unit rate" for the particular time period/class of ad time).
marybourg
(12,611 posts)them to run candidate ads then shield them from libel laws?
onenote
(42,685 posts)Moreover, given the high bar for establishing libel where the plaintiff is a public official/public figure, it's unlikely such a suit would succeed against a station even if it wasn't required to run the ad.
marybourg
(12,611 posts)new to me.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)"Trump is a sentient football with a bad case of leakage"
But she's above that.
classykaren
(769 posts)Orrex
(63,199 posts)I parsed it as
Clinton campaign sends legal warning on ads
claiming she's 'under investigation'
As in, they're her ads, and she's claiming that she's being investigated.
Whew!
RKP5637
(67,102 posts)around. Being pleasant is seen as a weakness. Compromise is seen as a weakness to be exploited.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)One of those mentioned Ads hit at 2pm. Just caught one on KNTV/ABC Las Vegas at 3pm. Times are Pacfic time.
stubtoe
(1,862 posts)BainsBane
(53,029 posts)for the blatant lies he's told about her.
onenote
(42,685 posts)It's almost unheard of for one candidate to sue another candidate for statements made during a campaign. The First Amendment sets a very high bar for such lawsuit. Winners figure that winning is the best revenge. Losers look like sore losers for suing the winner. So even if it "could" happen, it hardly ever does and pigs will fly before it happens in a presidential race.
SteelSmasher
(35 posts)We are now at the point where someone needs to say "you are such liar it legally needs to stop, and even the law says so". Maybe I'm not phrasing that right. (and it kind of started with stuff like pictures of President Obama with a bone nose piercing)
Cha
(297,120 posts)mnhtnbb
(31,381 posts)DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Saw 9n3 this AM