Replies

I haven't seen any comments on the flipside of the housekeeper's story, so I'll make a few.

I have a little bit of experience dealing with celebrities who inhabit Limbaugh's sort of realm. None of them would hire anyone into their inner circle without an iron-clad NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement). I would expect the housekeeper had one with Limabugh, and thus would expect that Limbaugh could recover from her any monies paid her for the story. Also, it occurs to me that if she is in breach of contract with Limbaugh, or if Limbaugh can prove that part of the Enquirer's story was fraudulently or criminally obtained (think: wiretap), Limbaugh's lawyers may be able to compel the Enquirer to reveal who else was paid in the gathering of the story. I think this could be very messy if it goes the way I suppose, but more about that in a minute.

Typically these NDAs are binding contracts which cover the term of employment and some extended length (for life, even) of time thereafter and are put in place to prevent kiss and tell, leaks and extortion. Not that those things couldn't be compensated after the fact in the courts, but by that time you're already 'outed' and you're looking for retribution for your pain. NDAs are to make sure the dirt never sees the daylight.

In exchange for this fealty, the help is usually generously compensated including money, lodging, trips, expenses, education, and other benefits. I saw people questioning a maid making $200,000. I assure you, this is not uncommon, and she was by no means extravagantly paid in this type of situation. Loyalty is prized among all else, and duly rewarded.

When the bond is broken, the aggrieved has several avenues. Sometimes the contract calls for binding arbitration, to keep the problem hidden. In Limbaugh's case, my feeling is that one of the reasons he kept his mouth shut, aside from the obvious, is that his lawyers may be putting together a criminal case of their own to present against the housekeeper and her accomplices. In my view (reading between the lines and apart from the obvious) she had two or three accomplices - private detectives, journalists, lawyers and perhaps someone (off the clock) from some law enforcement organization.

I know, I know, LEOs are supposedly investigating Limbaugh, but it seems likely to me (especially since Drudge claims the story has been cold for over a year) that some LEOs were cashing in on this off the clock. This cashing in may have been in providing the drugs, the wire, or surveillance. I'm thinking entrapment.

Just a hunch.

I'm suspicious of Limbaugh's timing in taking 30 days off also, but I'll save that for another thread.

As always, my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

Just curious. It appears that the woman (maybe through her husband, a convicted drug dealer) was the pusher. Rush was the user. I have heard of the police squeezing users to give up their dealer, but I have never heard of a dealer being squeezed to give up a user. Of course, Rush would be a quite a trophy for any prosecutor. Much more than a couple of unknowns.

BTW, keep in mind that prosecutors are the lowest of the low. They are politicians, first, last, and always. They depend on the public on re-electing them. So they will do anything, even if it is dishonest. We had a local prosecutor who turned loose a repeat offender (something like 140 arrests between the ages of 18 and 25). The perp shot and killed a cop, then he was in turn killed by other police. The prosecutor was too busy prosecuting a guy who had an "adult bookstore" (it took three trials to get a conviction), prosecuting a couple of politicians who were accused of groping a 17 year old in public in front of their wifes (it was proven in the trial that it was totally impossible for them to have done what she accused them of), and going after divorced gunowners when he could get an ex-wife to swear out a restraining order (even after the fact). He just could not be bothered to prosecute a perp who had been shot a couple of times and had shot people several times, culminating in the killing of a cop. I have absolutely NO USE and NO FAITH in the legal system as it is now structured.

I know, I know, LEOs are supposedly investigating Limbaugh, but it seems likely to me (especially since Drudge claims the story has been cold for over a year) that some LEOs were cashing in on this off the clock. This cashing in may have been in providing the drugs, the wire, or surveillance. I'm thinking entrapment.

That's very interesting. And the maid's "murkey motive" might then be that it was time to haul in the fish. Otherwise, why would a dealer turn herself in to the County state attorney and finger Rush?

Wilma Cline, 42, showed up at the Palm Beach County state attorney's office late last year eager to alert the cops to her boss's drug use. Her motive remained murky, but her story -- how she had met Limbaugh in parking lots to exchange sandwich bags filled with "baby blues" (OxyContin pills) for a cigar box stuffed with cash-was luridly damning, reports Thomas.

And this was late last year........

I will lay dollars to donuts he is off the air for longer than 30 days.

Rush cannot afford to fail at this if he wants to reclaim his gig: his audience will forgive his drug addiction, but they will not abide a failed recovery.

True recovery from opioid addiction is actually extremely difficult, and the weeks and months after detoxing are physicallu adn emotionally taxing.

I would be surprised if he is truly ready to come back in 30 days.

Appreciate the info about NDA's; food for thought.

You are pathetic. Rather than coming up with all these theories as to why Rush is less culpable than even he has already admitted, why can't you just accept the fact that Rush is a junkie -- no excuses or explainations required -- and he is getting help. Enablers, like yourself, are the last people that addicts need in their lives.

(An "enabler" is psychobabble for a person who makes excuses for another person's inappropriate behavior thereby encouraging the other person to continue the behavior because of the lack of any real consequences. Enablers are common in abusive relationships where the the abused person dismisses the abusive behavior as a consequence of factors beyond the abuser's control, i.e., "not my husband's fault that he verbally abuses me because he his father died when he was young and his mother was a drunk." Enablers also tend to make excuses for spouses, family, or friends who have substance abuse problems rahter than dealing with the real issue, i.e., " "Rush's drug addiction is somehow more tolerable because his housekeeper may have breached a confidentiality agreement and the police may have entrapped him.")

Your 2 cents is one the more interesting observations I've read on Rush's predicament.

I also have been in a position, several times in my life, to observe tinhorn celebrities. As time goes on, I both pity and detest them. Given the human condition, I do not believe it is really possible to garner celebrity and money without becoming a jerk--small jerk, large jerk, but always a jerk.

First of all, they get this appetite for huge houses which must be maintained. It doesn't occur to them what a burden these manses present until after they move in, then they become slaves to the help and management and lose their privacy. The big salaries for modest skilled labor I am familiar with--a whole new class of Jerk Enabler is the Personal Assistant.

As I said, what you wrote is interesting. The Personal Assistant phenom is something that'd make a good book. Ping me if you write more, please.