The Political Prosecution of Rush Limbaugh

NewsMax.com ^ | November 11, 2005 | Jim Meyers

[Always Right]

Fact: The prosecutor can't prove any of your alledged facts that are crimes.

[RS]

Valpal1-"The pills were legal, prescribed and in appropriate amounts for the time period covered. "

LOL ... and you accept this statement from Rushs' criminal lawyer as fact ?

Bigh4u2 - "And yet there is still no PROOF of 'doctor shopping'."

Isn't that what this case is all about ?

The application for the original search warrants shows that he obtained 30 pills on a prescription from one doctor, then the VERY NEXT DAY obtained 240 MORE on a prescription from a second doctor, then 7 days later another 30 from the first - Was he taking over 30 a day for that week ?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch5.html

[Bigh4u2]

"Fact: Rush's maid bought drugs for him."

Never proven.

"Fact: "...But, you know, even beyond all this, what you have is an investigation of an individual who is not selling drugs. And as prosecutors across this country, we generally look to divert those individuals who are drug addicted and rehabilitate them as opposed to prosecuting them. We prosecute primary the drug dealers who are making the money and are a blight on our society. - Pirro"

Quotes from Pirro on Scarborough are hardly 'facts'.

"Facts: Rush used painkillers to excess. He paid money to hush somebody."

Again. Never proven.

"- quotes above from RushLimbaugh.com"

Still doesn't support your position.

[Banjoguy]

Since when, after an accusation or an indictment, do we need to prove our innocence? Further, since when, lacking any evidence to the contrary, are we presumed guilty of a crime?

My question to you sir is; "What do you know that no one else seems to know including the prosecuter. I am seeking facts, not innuendo.

Help me out here.

[Bigh4u2]

"Bigh4u2 - "And yet there is still no PROOF of 'doctor shopping'."

Isn't that what this case is all about ? "

Yes it is. But the assumption is Rush must prove his innocence when the fact is, the procecutor must prove his guilt.

If the evidence is so 'compelling' then why no charges?

You mean the procecutor has the right to go on a 'fishing' expedition in order to find something that sticks?

I don't think so.

[Always Right]

The application for the original search warrants shows that he obtained 30 pills on a prescription from one doctor, then the VERY NEXT DAY obtained 240 MORE on a prescription from a second doctor, then 7 days later another 30 from the first - Was he taking over 30 a day for that week ?

And do you understand all the elements of this crime??? Obviously not. If they were for a different ailment it is not a crime. Or if the Doctors were informed about the other prescription it is not a crime. Two of the doctors were in the same office, and the other doctor was for the ear instead of the back. That is the reason why the medical records themselves do not prove a crime. The two doctors in the same office should have been aware of what the other was prescribing, and the ear doctor was treating a different ailment.

[RS]

"If the evidence is so 'compelling' then why no charges? "

Hhmmmm ... Perhaps because Rush has spent the last 24 months and perhaps millions of dollars obstructing the investigation ?

[Cindy_Cin]

You left out Tom Delay and Lt. Schaffer (sp) of Able danger.......scary.

[Bigh4u2]

"Perhaps because Rush has spent the last 24 months and perhaps millions of dollars obstructing the investigation ?"

So now defending yourself is obstructing the investigation.

You mean he should help the prosecution?

[RS]

"If they were for a different ailment it is not a crime."

Bzzzt - wrong --- next contestant please.

You don't get to take drugs that have a general effect on pain because your left foot hurts, then a bunch more because your right foot was hurting also.

[Always Right]

Hhmmmm ... Perhaps because Rush has spent the last 24 months and perhaps millions of dollars obstructing the investigation ?

The only thing Rush tried 'obstructing' was the prosecutor getting his medical records, and the prosecutor won that battle for the most part. What other 'obstructing' are you referring to?? Perhaps you feel Rush should be compelled to testify against himself? Is that your idea of how our legal system works?

[frgoff]

So, you don't think Rush bought his painkillers on the black market, or you don't think he had used the oxys in his possession? The absence of an indictment (YET) is no proof he is innocent.

The last time I checked, we prove people guilty in this country, not innocent. I think the nation you're looking for is North Korea.

[Always Right]

Bzzzt - wrong --- next contestant please.

Perhaps you should read the law.

[RS]

"So now defending yourself is obstructing the investigation.

You mean he should help the prosecution? "



Nope - you asked why he was not charged yet - He is not defending himself yet. He is obstructing the investigation.

Do you think that every rich person should be able to just throw lawyers at the investigators and escape justice through delaying tactics?

[tertiary01]

I'm sure there's not one of us here who couldn't eventually be accused of lying to a Grand Jury if we were asked to testify enough times.

[Bigh4u2]

No matter what you say to these guys, they are never going to change their minds because they have a definate hate of Rush.

I'm not going to waste anymore time because I have other things I need to attend to. (life goes on)

See ya!

[pageonetoo]

Quotes from Pirro on Scarborough are hardly 'facts'.

Rush seems to be relying on them on his website, for something. I edited nothing, just excerpted.

He's admitted to his addiction (not his hypocracy). He admitted he was being blackmailed by the maid (and he has multiple withdrawals of cash to support that. Why pay for blackmail, if you have done nothing wrong?). He went to rehab (for his addiction). His Rushbots think he walks on water.

I'm sorry if you think he is the most important thing we have to support conservatism. I can think of some much more reliable folk.

I enjoyed his show, when it started. I was building houses in NC, and spent a lot of time in my truck, or car. I listened for two hours, then three. I rolled in the seat, when he started the environmental updates, complete with gunfire, etc. I loved the parodies, and banter. The Gorbasm music announced another favorite part.

But, he says the same things over and over, and just seems to be a parrot, these days.

What am I missing by not constantly fawning over him? Not much! I find a lot more news and clear thought, herein. Thanks, JimRob! Rush can thank Roger Ailes.

Never is a looooonnnnnggggg time...

[Always Right]

Nope - you asked why he was not charged yet - He is not defending himself yet. He is obstructing the investigation.

Explain how? What is Rush doing that you consider obstructing? Is it illegal? Do you expect Rush should testify against himself? What exactly is your point?

[OKIEDOC]

Don't worry, all who oppose the liberal demagogues are susceptible to being persecuted.

Liberals have no solid moral base (God) on which standard decisions can be made.

Democrats of today like the Nazi's of 1930's Germany have turned away from religion and replaced their moral values with secularism.

You can see what that secularism got millions and millions of victims.

What I don't understand is how any one who call themselves Jewish can support Democrats who will as the Nazi's did during the 1930's take away what religious conservatives have given them.

Check out the ACLU and it's membership list.

For most citizens the enemy is radical terrorists.

However, for some of us we see the Democrats as being just as radical and maybe more dangerous as any wild eyed Muslim terrorist.

Poor ole Rush just happen to stand up for America and Conservative values and Democrats can not have that kind of support.

Democrats can not shape minds if the current moral values stay in place.

Pray for America.

[RS]

"Perhaps you should read the law."

LOL-

Perhaps you could supply a link to the law that says it's fine to take twice as much of a drug if you hurt in two areas, or maybe a medical link to just how you specify to a drug where exactly to block the pain ?