Rush is fighting this as a Clintonista. Blaming others and not being forthright in the facts. He has said the tabloid that broke his story has been rife with errors. So far they have been mostly right and other than saying their are in error, he hasn't pointed to one substantial error. So what if there is an error or two. Even he reports that he only has a 97.5% accuracy rate (if even that). So we discount everything he says because of an error to two?
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.
Rush will use rhetoric, but not legal action, to go after The Enquirer.
Rush admitted that he became addicted, and isn't shifting the blame for becoming addicted. To assume that you would have admitted the addiction before ever breaking the law is close kin to asserting that you could never become addicted in the first place. Which is, one assumes, about the way Rush thought when he took the first non-prescribed pill.If you are addicted to a drug, and your doctor hasn't been the enabler by continually writing the scripts you want (think you need), then you obviously obtain the pills illegally or not at all. There does not seem to be any claim that the doctors were deliberately acting as enablers, and--on face value the idea that Rush was "doctor-shopping" by being seen by Dr. B who was in group practice with Dr. A and was covering for Dr. A, and had access to Dr. A's medical records is fatuous--is a smoke screen for a fishing expedition.
It's pretty clear where Rush got his pills--his maid was married to a pusher, and blackmailled Rush after selling the stuff to him. I have no patience with claims that Rush is an adult, but the maid and her husband get a pass. Pushing dope is a crime, and one which is not traditionally overlooked as easily as uverusing prescription drugs is. And blackmail?! I await your explanation for the assigning of victim status--implied by immunity from prosecution--to this lovely couple.
The crux of the issue is that a routine case of failed drug therapy degenerating into illegal use of a controlled substance was elevated into a high-priority law-enforcement project, for the self-same reason that the drug pusher's blackmail succeeded--that the person with the weakness was unpopular with a politician and a large portion of the people who voted for him.
Giving prosectutors carte blanche to make mountains out of molehills is a sufficient condition for tyranny.