THE PERSECUTION OF RUSH

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

[Trust but Verify]

He did not say he took drugs for fun. He said he took them because they made him feel good. I suppose when one suffers from severe, unremitting pain, they should not be allowed to ever feel good.

[Pkeel]

Of course totally different.

One involves breaking a law.

The other involves breaking a law.

Totally different.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Vanities like this prove that someone really overdid it on the eggnog.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

You have missed the point big time or you are simply either ignorant or a Rush bashing leftist.

[Pkeel]

I've taken drugs for pain.

I didn't feel good, I felt better, not good.

I also didn't enjoy them. I would have preferred to not need them.

Rush went out of his way to get more. I went out of my way to not need more.

[eno_]

Two things, at least, make this case anti-Constitutional:

1. "Structuring" - why should the governemnt know where my money goes, unless they have probable cause? This law is itself a probable cause manufacturer. Make everyone a suspect and probable cause is a joke.

2. "Doctor shopping?" My parents are old enough to remember when doctor/patient relationships were so sacred even obviously relevant criminal investigations had a difficult time piercing that barrier.

With HSAs in the medicare bill, YOU will start to pay for doctors with YOUR money, directly. Show me where in the Constitution the government is authorized to stick its nose in that?

[HighWheeler]

"..they had what's known as "probable cause"."

I haven't heard one aspect of "probable cause". Care to go out on a limb and explain that one? If you have some actual legal substantiation for this explained somewhere by the prosecution, I want to see it.

BTW, any speculation on this written by the media is unacceptable, they are idiots, and idiots with an agenda.

If the prosecution acutally had "probable cause" then why was the med records decision recinded?

So you think it's OK if the government went after your personal records based on some fabricated "probable cause" after failing 3 times to nail you on trumped up charges?

[AbsoluteJustice]

"The first 3 things they accused Rush of "

That was media driven not prosecution driven. I did not see one statement come from any prosecutor pertaining to the first 3 allegations. If they did come out then it is fishing. But I find it appalable that if this were a liberal EVERYONE defending this man would have a double standard. Fair is fair. I am just so sick of the Rush sheeple defending what MAY be wrong in this case. If Rush committed a crime then he SHOULD be punished as is applicable by law. But to blindly just defend this man and hold a liberal to different standards is just nonsense. Tell me I am wrong that if this were a liberal people would be singing a different tune.

[Trust but Verify]

The proper way for the State of Florida to have gotten their mitts on his files would have been by subpoena, which would have involved a hearing at which his lawyers could have argued against it. Knowing this, the prosecution got a search warrant and seized them. I'm glad rush is fighting this, a win for him will be a win for others down the road when the government tries to do an end run around proper procedures.

[antiRepublicrat]

When has Rush NOT taken responsibility?

When he started screaming "persecution" instead of saying "I know I did wrong, I'll cooperate fully with the investigation" or go straight to the prosecutor for a plea bargain. It'd be hard for the prosecutor not to accept it from a non-violent, first-time offender who is otherwise clean.

Rush has to fight four times the battle any ordinary citizen would just because he is Rush Limbaugh.

He also has a thousand times the resources of the ordinary citizen to fight it. By the math, it looks like he has it easy.

[DaGman]

Sounds to me like the operative words are "except as otherwise provided herein".

[Trust but Verify]

I've taken drugs for pain as well, and like you, I was concerned about how much I took and that I stopped taking them when the pain lessened. But what if your pain never goes away? Never lessens? Then what do you do.

Rush had pain associated with his coccyx bone. Go read up on that. Read the horror stories of the pain people have from that and then come back here and compare your pain to that.

[Dane]

Rush is a big boy and needs to take repsonsiblity for his actions, blaming "Dr. Quack" is nonsense and illogical.

Huh, Rush admitted his addiction to millions of people. I don't ever remember him blaming anybody called "Dr. Quack". But what the hey you gotta an agenda to pursue, like the demo Palm Beach County prosecutor.

[Fzob]

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.

Do you have inside information? How do you know they have nothing on him. Two judges thought otherwise.

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?

I would be outraged. But as far was I can tell this is not about the government not liking Rush. He admitted he was addicted to pain killer. He went to rehab. Do you think he got the drugs legally? Of course the drug laws need to be changed. If Rush wants to kill himself with dope and he doesn't hurt anyone else, I don't give a rats rear end. I would also guess the Dr shopping laws were written to prevent dealers from getting drugs to sell.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"You have missed the point big time or you are simply either ignorant or a Rush bashing leftist"

Case in point, another Rush sheeple. So because we are holding Rush accountable to his hypocritical ways we are seen as a "Rush bashing leftist?" Tell me if this were Nancy Pelosi what would you say then? Would you be defending her tooth and nail as you are Rush? Fair is fair. Double standards here run amok!

[Fzob]

It's always is a good idea to read the article before posting. Far less chance you will look like a fool.

[peter the great]

The thing that really bothers me about this thread is that there are some major facts here that have been omitted. First it is a fact that the prosecutor in this case screwed up royally when he granted immunity to the two clowns who were selling him the drugs in the first place. After extorting money and shaking him down for ogles of money, it is when Rush would not pay them any more that they then go to the police. After these two morons go to the police and are granted immunity by the prosecutor they then sell their story to the Enquirer. To sum it up they lost their case. Then it was leaked to the press that there was a money laundering investigation in New York that turns out was bogus. Then you hear that Rush was involved in a drug ring and then that disappears. In short the Prosecutor is on a fishing expedition. I do not know if you are aware of this but leaking any thing to the press in an investigation of this magnitude is a crime in the State of Florida. Furthermore, in Florida's constitution there is a right to privacy that is guaranteed by that constitution. Remember the original crime that was committed was purchasing non prescribed pain killers not street drugs like heroin or cocaine. So why does the prosecutor need to see these records? Yes and one thing that has not been said is that two of the doctors in question work in the same office. A third is an audiologist in Los Angeles where he sought treatment after he lost his hearing and I could go on in the past he has talked about our medical system

[HighWheeler]

"Pleeeeeease someone point to me this "right to privacy clause" That is so obvious in our constitution."

Well if you would have read my post, I specifically excluded "our constitution" and specifically limited it to Florida law. Here is the source, by Mark Levin, in one of the most interesting discussions on the subject, transcribed by Matchett-PI.

I happened to listen to this exchange live on Hannity's show.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1045952/posts?page=158#158

[Always Right]

Assuming that's true,(I doubt no one has ever been prosecuted for Dr. shopping) he should be prosecuted and given a sentence as if he was just an average Joe.

Well there have been five people charged with doctor shopping that I have heard of, but in each of those cases there were other circumstances and it wasn't the only charge. One case involved a couple of deaths, and the other cases involved dealing in drugs and fraud. I am aware of no one in Rush's circumstances that has been charged with doctor shopping. It is a bad law that tried to address a growing problem of prescription drugs. It seems the legislature was trying to make catching people easier by lowering the bar, and that is terrible justification for this law. Of course this isn't the only drug law that does this.