Rush: I'm No Money Launderer

NewsMax ^ | 11/19/03 | Limbacher

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

America's number one talk radio host Rush Limbaugh catagorially denied on Wednesday an ABC News report that accused him of "laundering money" to bankroll his addiction to painkillers.

"I am no money launderer," Limbaugh said at the top of his broadcast.

"I know what this is? I know where this comes from," the top talker told his audience. "This is not a leak. This is the purposeful release of false information."

More . . .

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The OCs have a street value of $10-$20 per pill, depending on region and local economies. I've known people whose own claimed use cost anywhere from $200.00 to $400.00 per day, and they were still functional.

[TomB]

I saw exactly the same denial and excuses when the story of Rush's drug use broke:

One major difference:

When the drug story broke, Limbaugh didn't comment on the story other than to say he couldn't say anyting. Here, he spelled out the entire story.

[mansion]

inconveniencing government spying on you = money laundering

I guess I too am a money launderer. Any drug warriors want to come arrest me?

How do laws like this even get on the books. It's disgusting. I hope Rush DID do it, and he hires a brilliant lawyer who eventually gets this law struck down.

Actually, I hope that about his drug use, too, if they try to prosecute him for that. I don't CARE what drugs he used or why he used them - and since he wasn't hurting anyone else, no one else outside his familiy should care either.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

He really will need to explain those kinds of cash withdrawals, in light of how they look.

Why?

[Area51]

And those people were all wrong, weren't they?


75 posted on 11/19/2003 10:01 AM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Not being a great fan of Rush I don't deny that there were plenty of excuses, however seeing you are the one in the know, how about you spell out all the facts pertaining to the charges.

Roy Black will be particulary interested. Given that neither he nor his client has made any public statements reagarding them.

[Frank_Discussion]

My point is that the story has not been told, and we are supposed to think INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. The drugs he may or may not have been getting illegally don't even cost the amount of money indicated, either, so linking an innuendo (illegal purchase) with another (money laundering) isn't even a logical path.

For myself, I made no proclamations that he wasn't an addict, but was hoping that he was clean. Sadly, my hopes were dashed.

[Principled]

If there was a consumption based tax, instead of an income tax, it would be much more simple for the government (US or European) to collect taxes and the intrusion into private life would not be needed.

Bump that. Take three minutes to look at a National retail sales tax FAQ here.

[TomB]

The OCs have a street value of $10-$20 per pill, depending on region and local economies. I've known people whose own claimed use cost anywhere from $200.00 to $400.00 per day, and they were still functional.

That number is high, but even so, it doesn't lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in that short a period of time.

[Principled]

Who doesn't want to avoid the attention of the feds...

Thanks Servant. You made my point much clearer...

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

If the Clintons were structuring money would you support them?

If John Gotti was structuring money would you support him?

If Martha Stewart was structuring money would you support her?

Or would you wonder for what purposes they would be withdrawing $400,000 in increments just under the $10,000 reporting limit?

[danamco]

WHY does he need to explain about his withdrawals??? Do you explain all your bank withdrawals here???

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

The relevant concept here is "structuring", which is engaging in a significant pattern of structuring one's financial transactions so as to avoid triggering various financial reporting requirements by financial institutions.

Its a little more than that. Its the issue of "structuring" and the illegal transactions that the "structuring" is used to conceal. More accurately, "structuring" for the purpose of concealing $400,000 in illegal drug purchases is what's relevant.

Rush and his supporters will continue to ignore this, but his enemies won't--especially when they know that no matter how tangled up Rush and the conservatives get in their own police state, they will never repudiate it, just like Clinton never repudiated the inquisitorial "harassment" laws (that he promoted) that made him answer all those personal questions. Rush will do the same thing. He won't say, "Kiss off. I live in a free republic where we can do whatever we want with our money and put whatever we want into our bodies." No, in public Rush will try to account for how he spends all of his cash, just like Clinton had to tell everybody the dirtiest details about his blowjobs from his groupies.

[BlazingArizona]

Pack your bags, sell your house and get the He@# out of FLorida before those same FLorida supreme court judges find your case in front of them! OH, and don't help New York either - move your station to a nice, conservative state that will not tax you to death! How about Arizona for a change of pace?

His real problem is federal, not state. I would suggest the canton of Zug, in Switzerland. The radio facilities there are pretty decent, too.

[Principled]

If someone is involved in an illegal activity using $100 checks, it's still illegal.

That much should be clear. My question relates to the illegality of withdrawing money itself, not the related activity.

[WackyKat]

I agree with the law, but its application in this case sounds squiffy to me

Actually, I don't agree with the law-it is oppressive and violates everyone's privacy rights.

But "structuring" is part of the law.

There are a lot of guys in federal prison right now on money laundering charges related to drugs.

The War on Drugs should apply to everyone equally until the hopefully soon coming day when the insane war ends.

[iranger]

"If he wasn't trying to hide something then why the numerous withdrawls under the $10,000 limit?"

Probably because he didn't want to go through the hassle of filling out the paper work required with a greater than $10,000 withdrawal. Most people who needed to withdraw 10-20k would do it in a couple of trips rather than go through that hassle.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

The drugs he may or may not have been getting illegally don't even cost the amount of money indicated, either,

Illegal drugs do cost insane amounts of money, and you don't legally purchase mass quanities of drugs without a prescription in the parking lots of Denny's and Amaco.

[WarrenGamaliel]

All this stuff about your money being your own busines is nonsense. THis is how they fight the drug war, which from what I gather, most freepers support.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

It is a PR issue for him, nearly as much as it is a legal matter. His purchase of narcotics, if done illegally, injected large amounts of cash into the hands of someone who was illegally procuring and distributing prescription narcotics. It isn't the same as him buying them through legitimate sources who were mistaken as to the extent of his need for them.

As far as I'm concerned, that is a public relations nightmare for him.

[Principled]

Welcome to FR, danamco.

WHY does he need to explain about his withdrawals???

I don't think he needs to explain.