Tucker Carlson corrected his false claim -- first documented by Media Matters for America -- that the American Civil Liberties Union did not “stand[] up for” Rush Limbaugh while he was being investigated for allegations that he illegally obtained prescription painkillers.
MSNBC's Carlson corrected falsehood documented by Media Matters
Written by Joe Brown
Published
On the May 3 edition of MSNBC's The Situation, host Tucker Carlson corrected his false claim -- first documented by Media Matters for America -- that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) did not “stand[] up for” right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh while he was being investigated for allegations that he illegally obtained prescription painkillers. As Media Matters noted, in January 2004, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Limbaugh's case protesting the state of Florida's seizure of Limbaugh's medical records as a violation of his right to privacy.
In correcting his falsehood, Carlson acknowledged that the ACLU had “repeatedly” defended Limbaugh, citing the group's court brief and press releases issued in Limbaugh's defense. Carlson added that "[o]ver the years, I've spent a fair amount of time beating up on the ACLU, and I assume that tradition will continue in earnest." But he admitted that, “in this case, I was wrong; they were right. Good for the ACLU.”
From the May 3 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson:
CARLSON: Well, earlier this week, we did a segment on the Rush Limbaugh drug case. Limbaugh spent years and untold millions fighting charges that he bought too many prescription painkillers.
I made the point on the show that the case never should have been brought against him in the first place. He didn't steal. He didn't sell drugs. He didn't hurt anyone but himself in any way. Where, I wondered out loud, was the ACLU in all of this? Why weren't they defending Rush Limbaugh?
Well, it turns out they were defending Rush Limbaugh, repeatedly. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Limbaugh's behalf and issued a series of press releases supporting his right to keep his medical records confidential.
Over the years, I've spent a fair amount of time beating up on the ACLU, and I assume that tradition will continue in earnest. But in this case, I was wrong; they were right. Good for the ACLU.
At least we admit it -- always and everywhere. If you think we've been wrong, tell us. If you disagree, don't bother.