[Qwinn]

Um, you don't understand. I haven't read your link (sorry, no time at the moment) but my understanding (from people -other- than Rush himself) is that all of the immunity given to the Clines was given -before- they revealed any complicity on their part. Basically, they said "we got the goods on Rush", were granted immunity, and they THEN went to the Enquirer and told their story.

If that original immunity was given for busting up a different and higher level ring, how does that justify their still having immunity for extorting millions from Rush? That is a serious, serious crime, and I for one can't think of a single reason why any revelations they may have given about drug lords above -them- would warrant being granted immunity for extortion. Their own drug dealing, sure, if what you say is true, I'll grant you that. But the extortion? No freaking way. They've had that immunity for a long while, regardless of when it became public in the papers.

Qwinn

[RS]

Take a look at the links - what you have been lead to believe is simply not true.

They were talking with the cops in Dec 2002, their information led to the arrests in Feb 2003 'way before anything came out in the media regarding Rush.

another link there is
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

which shows the Clines involvement in the other cases - and the accurate information they gave on suppliers.

Rush was simply a side note until the Enquirer article came out in Oct.





"If that original immunity was given for busting up a different and higher level ring, how does that justify their still having immunity for extorting millions from Rush? That is a serious, serious crime,..."

True, but extortion was NEVER brought up before Lawyer Black tossed it in the hearing last monday. I believe blackmail and extorsion are Federal crimes, and the State cops could not provide any protection even if they wanted to.

... again, what you have been led to believe is not supported by the facts.