Posted on 01/30/2004 6:44:47 AM PST by xsysmgr
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:41:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Really, it is not very amazing a government vendetta has been launched against Rush Limbaugh, the very successful and gifted talk show host.
Governments have attempted to suppress criticism for centuries. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of that and provided strong protections in our system of government for dissent and for free speech. But would Thomas Jefferson, for instance, have anticipated that a journalist's fellow communicators would remain silent while one of their own was being threatened with jail?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I just love Bob Tyrrell's work. I've read all his books. However, I have to disagree with him here. Part of being a target of the left or right is to avoid giving them the rope to hang you. Clinton made that mistake and now Rush is. Can anyone say that an accusation of BREAKING the law is anyway less offensive than an accusation of lying under oath? Be true to the law and it will never let you down.
Non sequiter of the day...An accusation is nothing more than one man or a group's assumption that another committed a crime - it is not proof, it's not even close to reasonable doubt. When actual charges are filed and real evidence of a crime is presented, then, and only then, can anyone even begin to assume that Rush made a mistake. Based on the evidence so far presented, taking 8 or 9 prescription pain killers a day is hardly comparable to committing perjury in court, and it's darn well less offensice than firing cruise missils at a pharmeceutical plant to distract attention from accusations of sexual harassment of an intern.
Hee hee, so my evidence is no good, but yours is fine to use in this discussion? Can you say EXTREEMLY biased?
I think that's just your reflection.
Gotta give that one to you. I have no comeback to your steller reply. The last time I was stunned like this, I was in 4th grade when Billy LeBlanc told me "I know you are, but what am I.
...wishing I was a mental giant like ClintonBeGone
I heard Rush, himself, say that he took drugs because he liked them.
Mr Tyrrell asserts:
The harassment of Mr. Limbaugh provides another unlovely glimpse into the workings of the liberal elites.
While he acknowledges that the leftist ACLU has come to Rush's aid.
...American Civil Liberties Union has filed a legal brief on behalf of Mr. Limbaugh.
My sentiments as well oh great one.
However, I'm suprised that a person of such high intellect and santimoneousness as you would even reply to my original post? ....hmmmm I'm starting to wonder!
Excuse me but I understand from Rush that he is an entertainer and his program is entertainment. Rush has taken great pains in the past to say he is not a journalist but an entertainer. The author lost me on this point.
The Rush thing is way too political right now. Spin like this makes Rush look real bad. It looks too much like Rush is trying to spin his way out of something. I've asked before, what does Rush have to hide?
Excuse me. What evidence have you presented?
Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when the ACLU did anything on behalf of Rush. Mind bending.
Sorry to disagree with your facts, but I must have missed them. The only evidence that I've seen so far is that he legally purchased around 2000 prescription pills over the course of 6 or so months. I have yet to see anything credible that indicates he purchased controlled substances from other than legitimate sources, ie: Pharmacies.
Since the prosecutor has apparently now limited his investigation to "Doctor Shopping", I also have to presume that there isn't a whole lot of evidence of Rush purchasing controlled substances from his housemaid or whomever else he was in cahoots with. If there were such evidence, then the prosecutor would have already taken that to a Grand Jury and used the subpoena powers of the grand jury to open the doctor and pharmaceutical records to look deeper, not the other way around.
Acually, I have no dog in this fight, I just would like to see something concrete before I'm willing to concede that anyone has comitted a crime. Innuendo isn't fact, but if you actually have facts, I'd like to see them.
No facts, no evidence, no crime...
Thats not the issue. His pharmacy purchase records shows prima facia evidence that a crime was committed. That is because of the type of drugs purchased, the fact that the scripts were from multiple doctors and within 30 days of each other. His only out is if the doctors in question knew about the prior scripts. If not, Rush is screwed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.