Replies

There was evidence presented that Limbaugh consulted 4 doctors. Two of which are in the same practice and the third was an on call doctor that saw the first practices patients when the other two doctors were not available.

In otherwords three of the four doctors were working for the same practie and the same patient list.

That can not be doctor shopping.

The firm that is I go to for general practice medicine has four doctors. Over the last few years I have seen three of those doctors. In the first week of December of this year I got the flu. I called my doctor's office. The receptionist said my doctor was booked,but she could get me in to see one of the other doctors in the firm. I said Ok. That was not doctor shopping.

The fourth doctor Limbaugh saw was the Doctor in California that did the operation on Limbaugh's ear.

That was the testimoney in court this week. There is no way they could make a case that Limbaugh was doctor shopping

If they had a case on Limbaugh they would have not leaked to the tabloid press. They would have arrested him in the middle of his show.

"That was the testimoney in court this week. There is no way they could make a case that Limbaugh was doctor shopping

If they had a case on Limbaugh they would have not leaked to the tabloid press."

The testimony in court was simply a restatement of the Application for the Search Warrents, where a Judge found sufficient probable cause to allow the warrents to be issued.
As stated in the application, it was NOT a complete listing of the facts known so far, nor need it be. They were not trying to make a case - this was not a trial.
Based on those facts the Judge this week also agreed, and did not order the search warrents quashed and the records returned.

It appears that the Clines had sold the story to the Tabloids.

You're preaching to the choir.

The authorities started out calling this a case of drug trafficking. When that didn't stick, they labeled it a case of money laundering. Now they're calling it a case of doctor shopping. What's next? Even Lanny Davis knows the case against Rush is bogus.

In the end, it may be proven that Rush broke some aspect of the law, but at this point I don't know what that would be. For now, this entire effort is nothing more then a political fishing expedition undertaken by the liberal establishment. Rush has soundly beaten his leftwing opposition in the arena of ideas for the last 15 years. They haven't laid a glove on him. This is nothing more then an obvious attempt to smear Rush. So far, it hasn't worked and I doubt it ever will.