THE PERSECUTION OF RUSH

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

[DaGman]

"It will be interesting to have him go after the Enquirer. Because in a civil suit, both parties have wide latitude in discovery. He better be ready for more than just his medical records to be outted."

I suspect this is exactly why we will not see a Rush suit against the Enquirer.

[HighWheeler]

"... and subject himself to the laws of the land.."

They laws of the land (Florida) specifically enumerate a right to privacy, which the prosecutors are attempting to violate.

The prosecutors have nothing on Rush, and are the people who are "shopping" for a crime, while attempting to violate Rush's right to privacy.

So I guess if the government decided they didn't like you and went fishing through your personal, financial, medical, educational, legal, career, records looking to see if you have been a good boy, -and then made everything public- you wouldn't mind?

[eno_]

The correct question for conservatives like us is: "Why should the government know ANYTHING about your relationship with your doctor?"

This isn't just a theoretical question. The new Medicare law also creates HSAs (MSAs), so lots of middle class people will be paying for routine medical care with their own money. Without suspicion of a crime, does the government have any business at all knowing about that?

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Does it worry you in the least that the prosecutors didn't have even one provable fact of Rush breaking the law before they decided they needed to see Rush's med records?"

This is Rushs' spin and version on things. Apparently they did have enough evidence before cracking open a medical record to state this. I do believe they contended this prior to getting the ok to open the records. Furthermore I do not believe it was the prosecution who lobbed out the original 3 accusations this was the media. The prosecution is NOW speaking and has found probable cause to prosecute.

"violating Rush's right to privacy in the process"

Can you point to me where in the Constitution where there is a "right to privacy" clause?

Face it Rush has been caught red handed. If found guilty this man is a utter hypocrit.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Around here, we tend to be skeptical of things we see reported in rags like the Palm Beach Post or hear from the Dan Blathers of the world"

But you are very quick to defend the words of Rush and Hannity like a good little sheeple as if it were gold? All have an agenda to push. Rush has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar. I cannot believe that there are those that still play the victim role and freepers defend it. Simply mind boggling. I have a feeling that if this were Gore you would be singing a different tune.

[Amelia]

Mark A. Sity obviously hasn't done the basic research of figuring out what "doctor shopping" entails before spouting off.

It's nice he wants to defend Rush, but doing it in such an uninformed way is not going to convince anyone except perhaps other uninformed loudmouths.

[Pkeel]

Totally Illogical.

If a crime is committed then punishment should be swift and sure. I think Martha Stewart said her prosecution is unprecedented. Michael Jackson says the DA has it in for him.

I say when you are a target don't give your enemy the ammunition to get you.

Rush didn't abuse drugs. Rush didn't abuse drugs. Rush didn't abuse drugs. (Ruby Red shoes; Heel click)

It is still a crime and should be punished.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"They laws of the land (Florida) specifically enumerate a right to privacy, which the prosecutors are attempting to violate. "


Pleeeeeease someone point to me this "right to privacy clause" That is so obvious in our constitution. I would love to see these words on paper. Please stop the bleeding heart oh poor victim Rush. Stop being a hypocrit and chastise this man for what he has done.

[Trust but Verify]

Wherever you got these facts, they are WRONG!!

Rush went to 2 doctors IN THE SAME PRACTICE! These doctors are partners and both would have had access to his medical records, including prescription records. The other two doctors were in CA, where he received treatment for his deafness. This certainly does NOT constitute going from Dr 1, to 2, to 3, all of them unknown to the other.

Secondly, where do you get your information that he bought drugs from anyone in a parking lot? The Enquirer? Do you also know this woman and her husband were trying to extort $4 million from him? They obtained secret security codes for his radio studio and cornered him in his garage to threaten him?

One thing you are correct about is that Rush is an addict. Whoopty-doo. He wasn't taking pills to get high, he was taking them for pain relief. If you can't see the difference, then there might not be hope for you.

As far as I'm concerned, Rush has done what he needs to do by admitting he had a problem and getting treatment for it. Should he just sit back and allow a politically motivated prosecutor to destroy him? Come on.

[eno_]

It's a state case, so here it is from the Florida constitution: SECTION 23. Right of privacy.--Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

You ARE godawful dense, aren't you, to not read the post you are responding, nor google up the law he was referring to?

[eno_]

Now that you see the words on paper, I assume you would also support a law making it a capital crime for a prosecutor or law enforcement officer to violate a citizen's constitutional rights?

A few hangings and firing sqauds would make a good attitude adjustment for these people.

[Trust but Verify]

So he should just allow the State of Florida to plow through his medical files, put them up on their websites or leak them to the press? Are you nuts?

What are the charges? Doctor shopping? From two doctors in the SAME PRACTICE and two others at the House Clinic in LA where he got treatment for his deafness?

[Pkeel]

He took drugs for fun. He admitted he liked it on his show.

You don't get addicted to drugs without abusing them.

[DaGman]

"Does it worry you in the least that the prosecutors didn't have even one provable fact of Rush breaking the law before they decided they needed to see Rush's med records?"

No, they had what's known as "probable cause".

[Trust but Verify]

That is not what Rush did. Rush saw two different doctors in the same practice, seeing one when the other wasn't available. Both had access to the same records, so one would have known what the other was doing. Also, the other two doctors were in LA, where he was treated for his hearing loss. If that's doctor shopping, then I am guilty of it as well, because I will see any of the three physicians in the practice where my family goes, depending on who can see me when it's convenient for me.

[eno_]

Rush surely did abuse drugs.

And I am now safer and more secure and more free because he is being investigated and prosecuted... how?

Surely you can see this is different from failing to disclose insider trading or a molestation case?

[Fzob]

why should my tax dollars go to an intrusive, anti-Contitutional, and ineffective class of laws,

I can't argue with too much of what you've said. But I'm not sure it is anti-constitutional as I am not familiar with Fl.'s constitution and while it may be ineffective, it presently is the law.

and the enforcement mechanisms for those laws, just to "save" people like Rush,

I agree it is not the business of the government to save people like Rush....

or maybe "save" us all from people like Rush?

I'd like to see the facts before I am convinced the prosecutors are trying to save us from Rush. I would guess if the case is meritless, it is a case of a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"except as otherwise provided herein."

Hmmm seems pretty aparent to me.

[HighWheeler]

"This is Rushs' spin and version on things. Apparently they did have enough evidence before cracking open a medical record to state this."

Well now you are making no sense at all.

The first 3 things they accused Rush of are far more attractive to a prosecutor than "doctor shopping". This would be like the prosecution having proof of bank robbery, and vehicular homicide on some guy, then deciding they need to see if he has any parking tickets to put him away.

And using the word "apparently" in your response means you aren't too sure about the legal angle the prosecution is executing.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Wonder if this were a liberal you think that people would be singing a different tune? The people defending this and spinning it are hypocrits.
THE DOCTOR MADE ME DO IT!
THE DRUGS MADE ME DO IT!

Insane isn't it?