Posted on 12/05/2003 1:42:39 AM PST by j.cam
Funny how the partisan Democratic, liberal journalists in the AP and the rest of the liberal media are not pointing out that the man who is going after Rush Limbaugh, Barry Krischer, the Florida State Attorney of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit (which includes Palm Beach County), is a Democrat. The liberal media are letting people assume that because the Florida Attorney General, Charlie Crist, is a Republican, and because Governor Jeb Bush is a Republican, the Florida State Attorney for Palm Beach, who is going after Limbaugh, is also a Republican.
We saw the liberal media do the same thing during the Democrat Gary Condit’s scandal. Before the liberal media were exposed by conservative media like Rush and the Media Research Center, the liberal journalists were leaving out Condit’s political affiliation and implying he was a conservative Republican. According to the MRC:
"Normally, a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' label is presented nearly every time a member of Congress is cited, as in 'Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA).' But since May, the three broadcast networks have practically erased the 'D' from Condit’s political identity, detaching the scandal-plagued politician from the rest of his party.
"From May 14, when Chandra’s mother, Susan, appeared on Good Morning America to plead for her daughter’s safe return, through July 11, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs aired a total of 179 stories about Gary Condit — 121 full-length reports or interviews, plus 58 brief anchor-read items. MRC researchers reviewed each story, and found that Condit was labeled a 'Democrat' only 14 times, or in fewer than eight percent of stories. Six of those labels, or almost half, came paired with adjectives such as 'conservative' or 'right-wing' which distinguished Condit from other members of his party." http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/reality/2001/fax20010712.html
There is no sign of Krischer's political affiliation when the liberal media discuss his persecution of Rush.
Even ultra-liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz states that people are not prosecuted for what Limbaugh did. On October 10, 2003 on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Report, Dershowitz told the liberal Wolf: “generally people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted where as people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin are prosecuted.” http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/10/wbr.00.html
Dershowtiz added that Rush should not be singled out: “don't single him [Rush] out.” http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/10/wbr.00.html
The persecution of Rush Limbaugh is another Democratic witch hunt, just like when the Democrats put Linda Tripp on trial after the Clinton scandal even though they had no case against her: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/12/14/51514
They indicted Tripp on July 30, 1999 persecuted her for about 10 months, and then dropped the case on May 24, 2000 because they had no case.
12/5/2003
There are charges against Rush that if proven true would constitute felong crime. When you live in a glass house..................
Shall we get a republican DA to do the investigation?
Speaking of glass houses, do you believe Anita, liberal?
If it's liberal to want the law applied to the rich and famous, then I'm guilty. If it's liberal to say you're stuck with whatever DA, repub or dem, you have in your county, then I'm liberal. If it's liberal to point out hypocracy because our boy is on the grill, then I'm liberal.
You don't seem to know me or you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
As for your inference that I said it's ok to apply these laws only to Rush because he's conservative, your inference is a weird interpretation of my post, but hey, have fun.
I'm sure you will regale me with the number of examples of those democrats in this county who did what Rush is alledged to have done, had those allegations made to the police or DA, and then walked away without an investigation. Then and only then can you make a case about selective prosecution. And oh, being the objective, thinking conservative that I am, I will acknowledge your facts.
Thanks for that interesting little tidbit !
That's assuming alot. I hear that the whole thing is a hoax made up to give him cover for attending some super secret CFR meeting with Bush in Texas.
Bribery????? Bribery involves paying PUBLIC OFFICIALS to get some result. The maid is not a public official.
Paying off a private individual not to "expose" you often falls under the heading "blackmail" and the person paying is generally considered the victim of the crime of blackmail.
"Weird"? Strange. That was the point of my original post with the quote from Alan Dershowtiz to which YOU were RESPONDING. Do you think you are more credible in this area than Alan Dershowitz????? You must be so full of liberal hate that you are not comprehending what you read.
You said: "I'm sure you will regale me with the number of examples of those democrats in this county who did what Rush is alleged to have done, had those allegations made to the police or DA, and then walked away without an investigation. Then and only then can you make a case about selective prosecution. And oh, being the objective, thinking conservative that I am, I will acknowledge your facts."
I don't need to. I cited a credible authority, an expert in the field with no reason to lie to help Rush: Alan Dershowitz. You have cited nothing. All you have done is blather and back up none of it.
Also, according to every report I have heard, millions of Americans are addicted to prescription pain medicine, and you still haven't produced any evidence that you are correct and Alan Dershowitz is wrong, and that these millions of people are being arrested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.