THE PERSECUTION OF RUSH

The Logical View ^ | 12/26/03 | MARK A SITY

[harpo11]

How are we supposed to know that Rush had taken 1000 plus pain pills? Is this verifiable? Or are we only being spoon fed what the leftist media and DA want us to hear?

It is hard to believe that Rush Limbaugh can rise to such fame and fortune if he was taking those massive doses that the some want us to believe?

Moreover, are we supposed to believe the ravings of Rush's ex-maid who sold her story to a tabloid magazine as gospel on what Rush was doing or not doing?

And, finally, isn't it a bit odd that the DA is protecting an extortionist rather than the victim?

[RS]

C'mon... don't ask me for a lot of pity for a man that has the resources to ...at any time in the last five years... go anywhere... hire anyone... to help him cure this addiction -

Yet he decided the best course of action was to buy drugs from his housekeeper ?

... and I am supposed to trust his judgement regarding American politics ????

[harpo11]

DaGman, do you seriously believe everything the media reports?

Did you feel that Bill Clinton was absolutely right in hiding his medical records even though as POTUS he could send your sons and daughters to war among other vast powers? He was applauded for keeping his records sealed.

Rush is a talk show host, private citizen, and should never have had his records seized in a blatant attempt to search for evidence in order to prove their insidious allegations, especially when the DA deliberately withheld critical facts for the judge approving the search warrants concerning Rush's relationship with certain doctors for his various ailments, IMHO.

[RS]

"How are we supposed to know that Rush had taken 1000 plus pain pills? Is this verifiable? "

Have you checked out -

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

If he didnt take them, they are either sitting around somewhere or he sold them....

[longtermmemmory]

How long was the blackmail going on? We don't know. You seem fixated on the warrant. A warrant is not evidence of anything. (especially one that is based on "selective" information). People who are convicted of stealing ID's rarely have only done it once. The dealers probably had more than one source for their drugs. Its just smart business. As for the drugs themselves, is this unusual for someone with cronic back and neck problems? Who also has an ear implant?

Unlike federal court, FL criminal courts provide for depositions. Those transcripts of the investigators, witnesses, and anyone connected to this case will inevitably hit the file. We will have pleanty of postings in the year to come.

[longtermmemmory]

If they did not have access to his medical records, how did they know which pills were in his medical file?

[RS]

"You seem fixated on the warrant. "

Please show me ANY other information that we can agree is FACT and I will add it to my list.

"A warrant is not evidence of anything"

Correct and we saw only the APPLICATION for a warrent, consisting of statements and exhibits sufficient to be "probable cause" for the judge to issue the warrent.

Let me stop here... Is there anything I have said here that is not FACT ?

[RS]

"If they did not have access to his medical records, how did they know which pills were in his medical file?"

To get you up to speed here... basically ...the pharmacy records ( NOT the medical files ) are open to police...a detective walked in and they flashed a badge and asked them...

[longtermmemmory]

What evidence is admissible in court? that is the only "facts" that are relevant. So far, until there are actual charges of a specific crime we don't know what is or is not relevant.

So far the only thing without dispute is that Rush was adicted. Nothing has been shown that rush obtained perscription drugs illegally, nothing has been shown that rush did anything illegal with his money.

Of course the standard is beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. It seems you have already convicted him based on bad PR.

[DaGman]

I'll answer both your posts here...

"How are we supposed to know that Rush had taken 1000 plus pain pills? Is this verifiable? Or are we only being spoon fed what the leftist media and DA want us to hear?"

Of course none of us can independently verify the 1000+ pain pill story. Yes, its possible we are only being spoon fed what the leftist media and the DA want us to hear (and I don't know what the DA's politics are except that he is a Democrat). But, at the same time, I've never heard Rush deny any of this either. I fully expected Rush to flat out deny on the air the 1000+ pills story. I never heard him deny it but I don't listen all 3 hours every day. So to the best of my knowledge, Rush's not denying the story lends credence to it.

"It is hard to believe that Rush Limbaugh can rise to such fame and fortune if he was taking those massive doses that the some want us to believe?"

I don't find it that hard to believe at all. One builds up a tolerance for the type drugs he was allegedly taking. Building up tolerance also may explain the need for 1000+ at a time. What period of time the 1000+ supplied him for we can only imagine. Rush does not deny he was severely addicted to these drugs. Think about it this way. Rush buys 1000 pills. He takes 10 pills 3 times a day. That's 900 in a month. I don't think 10 pills 3 times a day is an unreasonable amount for someone to be taking that has built up an extremely high tolerance for the drug over years of abuse. None of us can know what its like to have that severe of an addiction. But apparently, its been going on for years. This also explains his hearing loss as hearing loss is a side-effect of Oxycontin abuse. Its an incredibly tragic human situation and a credit to Rush that he functioned as well as he did under the circumstances.

"Moreover, are we supposed to believe the ravings of Rush's ex-maid who sold her story to a tabloid magazine as gospel on what Rush was doing or not doing?....And, finally, isn't it a bit odd that the DA is protecting an extortionist rather than the victim?"

Whether or not the maid sold her story is irrelevant unless one wants to use that to determine her credibility. The Enquirer, in spite of all the bad jokes about it, actually has a pretty good track record. As for protecting an extortionist, we do not know if the DA will take any action on this, if he's investigating or what the final outcome will be as this is a relatively new accusation. What I am curious about is did Rush actually pay her? Didn't Rush's lawyer say this week that he did? So, ok, I can see Rush starting to panic. With an excellent reputation like Rush's on the line, who wouldn't? He was in a very weak position because of his addiction. At best, if Rush indeed did pay her demands, the appearance of paying someone off doesn't look good.

"...do you seriously believe everything the media reports?"

Of course not.

"Did you feel that Bill Clinton was absolutely right in hiding his medical records..."

I really don't remember what that was all about. I've heard and seen several references to it in the last couple of weeks, but I don't personally remember what the details were. How are the facts of the Clinton case similar to Rush's and how would the Clinton facts apply to Rush?

" Rush is a talk show host, private citizen, and should never have had his records seized in a blatant attempt to search for evidence in order to prove their insidious allegations, especially when the DA deliberately withheld critical facts for the judge approving the search warrants concerning Rush's relationship with certain doctors for his various ailments, IMHO."

As I said previously, the DA felt he had probable cause to believe that if he had the medical records that he would find more evidence. That's the way the system works, right, wrong or indifferent. As for withholding critical facts about Rush's relationship with certain doctors, apparently this came out in the hearing. If the judge felt that the DA withholding the information was wrong in any way, the judge would have been within his rights to not unseal the records (the records were immediately sealed in an envelope as soon as they were obtained pending the hearing). Let's not forget that Rush's lawyers, who had previously claimed that Rush could not be treated because the doctors no longer had his records, were not very forthcoming about that claim either as the doctors had made copies.

BTW, the medical records have yet to show up on "The Smoking Gun" so something in the system appears to be working.

Here's the bottom line. Rush was seriously addicted to pain killers. That is not a crime. I don't understand why Rush just couldn't go to the DA and say something like, "Look, I know I was wrong. I've gone to rehab and successfully completed it. Slap my hand, I deserve it and I'll become your personal poster boy for fighting drug addiction because I know first hand what its like. This can be a win-win for everyone." Rush is in a position to make so many positive things happen from this. The bigger tragedy may well end up being that the positive that could come from this never did for reasons of politics or whatever.

[longtermmemmory]

ok, so lets say that the pharmacy has more perscriptions for rush from his doctors than the doctors actually wrote. ie. the doctor wrote 10 perscriptions but the pharmacy has 20. The maid is a drug dealer. The maid is convicted of ID theft. Would it not be reasonable for the maid to fake a extra perscription or two for her own business? Of course it would be. If anything at the very least if creates doubt as to who got what.

If you recall, the way they caught noel bush was with a sting. The palm beach PD has been "investigating" for almost a year. Where is their sting operation?

[RS]

..."Nothing has been shown that rush obtained perscription drugs illegally...""

Well the the Cline's statements that they sold him thouands of pills might count as being "shown"...

But you are correct... until the investigation is complete the cops would be fools to show their cards - as they had not done from at least Dec 2002 to Oct 2003 ... and they still have not and should not show all their cards.

Just how hampered would you like our cops to be fighting illegal drug usage ?

[RS]

Sorry ... check your time sheet... the exhibit was for AFTER the Clines were long gone untill just before Rush's confession...

[RS]

"I don't understand why Rush just couldn't go to the DA and say something like, ....

EXACTLY ! There is something MUCH deeper here then we know...

If this is all there is, Rush could "fully cooperate", get a massive fine, probation and community service and thats it...

Rush ! ... Dont be a fool ! These people need you !

Are you looking gforward to playing golf with OJ instead ?

[RS]

Excuse me ? Yes "something has been shown" regarding him buying drugs illegally - umtil it approaches a court we dont know if it is admissable or not...

Is that going to be the defence of Rush ?

Not the facts themselves, but if they would be admissable ?

Hey Clinton lawyers ! You have a new money spigot !

[RS]

Sorry, this needded a second post -

"Nothing has been shown that rush obtained perscription drugs illegally...

Rush's Lawyer Black is also a contestant in the "Did I say that out loud?" Annual Awards for his -

"attorney Roy Black said Limbaugh paid "extreme amounts of money" to Wilma Cline, his former housekeeper, and her husband, first for pills and then for extortion."

FIRST FOR PILLS ?????

Doh !

[logic101.net]

No, what I am saying is his persecutors have a political agenda. This is why info about an ongoing case is being leaked to the press. Given this situation, why should he "fully cooperate" with those who are trying to destroy him? Remember all the accusations that came out, then we never heard about again, like buying in 1000 pill lots, selling drugs, etc? There is an agenda behind this. I am sure that if and when charges are brought against Rush, he will be the only buyer charged.

What do you have against Rush anyway?

Mark A Sity

[185JHP]

The truth my be that "a person or persons unknown" tried to throw their weight around/interfere in this thing, to "help" Rush (not that some rich people think like that, lol), and someone who's honest, just doing his job, decided "never did like people with your attitude, and I'm going to do some teachin'."

[RS]

welll...
"Remember all the accusations that came out, then we never heard about again, like buying in 1000 pill lots, selling drugs, etc? "

So ? Where is the simple statement from Rush that he NEVER bought drugs from his maid .. that she is lieing ?


Do you really expect the cops to put all their cards on the table before they need to ?

[longtermmemmory]

the admissibility of evidence is an issue in every case. Given where the case is, and the extra scrutiny that this case has recieved, it is absolutly right to give the prosecutor a run for his money. Why should only a "clinton" have the rules of evidence available.

For example, Evidence has to be relevant. If it shown irrelevant, why should it be admitted? If the evidence is unreliable as a matter of law, why should it be admitted? Illegally obtained?

As for what Mr. Black said, I have seen lawyers commit a number of faux pas in court over the years. (The ACLU calling the 9th Circuit the 9th Circus to their faces comes to mind.)

It all depends on whose ax is being gored. If you are just looking to convict in the court of public opinion then the standards are suffiently low. If you are looking for a court of law, then the evidence rules will disappoint you.