Silence [about Rush] in the press trenches

The Washington Times ^ | January 30, 2004 | R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

[lucysmom]

I have not heard him say that and I make NO excuses for anyone who violates laws.

Here is a quote from the article linked up-thread. I have also heard the woman who gave Rush his first job in radio in Sacramento say that he used drugs back then.

Limbaugh hastened to add, however, that the pain was only a contributing factor, not the primary cause, of his addiction, telling his audience: "I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them..."

Now, as to wisdom teeth. Get all 4 pulled in one day, go back to work and then tell me how you feel. Need percocets? You bet your sweet tushie!

I never said that I was opposed to painkillers, only that for my condition they don't work.

As an aside. I had a hell of an argument with a nurse who wanted me to describe my pain level from 1-10. I told her I couldnt because it is anecdotal. The same applies to color.

It took years to diagnose my condition and during the process, doctors have said some pretty stupid things. One actually told me my problem was depression. I asked him how cheery he would feel if he had days of all-consuming pain and little sleep.

[Scenic Sounds]

BTW, if it should pass that Rush IS charged with a valid and reasonable crime, I for one, will call for penalties to be exacted.

Well, I'm afraid that that's where you and I may have to part ways, lawdude. If Rush is charged with a crime, I am going to be among the first to demand that Governor Bush grant Rush a full pardon!!

[RS]

"In fact, all allegations have been shown either false or no factual basis for the charge."

Funny, the judges seem to think there was enough probable cause that a crime has been committed to issue search warrents - In two different states...

The applications for the search warrents -
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

As a "lawdude" do judges just haphazardly issue these things ?

[lawdude]

"As a "lawdude" do judges just haphazardly issue these things ?"

I have seen a large number of warrants that were issued on the barest of PC and subsequently dumped. This is especially true when a judge may be predisposed to 'go after' a high profile person.

[lawdude]

"I am going to be among the first to demand that Governor Bush grant Rush a full pardon!!"

And just what would warrant a blatant disregard for the law? Bear in mind, I said he should, if convicted of a crime, be subject to the same punishment as would any other person.

In the case of "dr. shopping" that would be something in the order of a undesignated class and 90 day suspended sentence. That is to say, after a probationary period, the charges would be dismissed.

[Scenic Sounds]

And just what would warrant a blatant disregard for the law? Bear in mind, I said he should, if convicted of a crime, be subject to the same punishment as would any other person.

In the case of "dr. shopping" that would be something in the order of a undesignated class and 90 day suspended sentence. That is to say, after a probationary period, the charges would be dismissed.

I see. Well, you see now, that was my problem. When I first heard about all this, I figured that there's two sides to each story, so let's have a trial and hash all this out. But then, people kept saying that charges and a trial would be an outrage - that this whole thing is a witch-hunt and that Rush is being singled out for political reasons. Well, if the prosecution is really political, then it seems to me that the best defense might be political. If the Democrats are going to file false charges for political reasons, why can't the Republicans respond with a political pardon?

Makes sense to me. ;-)

[Edit35]

"Totally false - go to thesmokinggun.com and you can read the search warrent applications for yourself."

Granted. Hadn't previously clicked on page (2,3,4,5) at the bottom of smokinggun.

[RS]

" issued on the barest of PC and subsequently dumped."

dumped by who ? the appeals court ? According to the docket - what is happening ?

IN any case wouldn't Rush also have to appeal the Californaia decision ?

[Edit35]

Mr. Black’s central argument is that the Florida Constitution and state law specifically require law enforcement to first apply for a subpoena to obtain medical records and notify the patient of their intent. Secondly, the law requires that the patient be given an opportunity to oppose the action in a court hearing. And third, if the seizure is opposed, the state must provide evidence at the hearing why the subpoena should be granted.

None of these standards was met. “Prosecutors simply seized the records, and quietly held on to them for six days before letting anyone know what they had done,” Mr. Black argued in the brief. “With respect to the records held by Dr. (Antonio) De La Cruz, the only notice Mr. Limbaugh received came from reporter Chris Matthews, during his television show ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews.’”

Mr. Black’s brief cited the Florida Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in State v. Johnson that held a prosecutor’s power to use search warrants does not override the privacy protections in state law. “To hold otherwise,” the Court noted, “would make the [medical records] statutes meaningless.”

Just a footnote to our previous ongoing argument about the Florida prosecutors, and how they practically kicked in the doors of Limbaugh's doctor office, purportedly based on an investigation which possibly had nothing to do with Limbaugh's medical treatment.

As lawyer Black argued, was the prosecutor's "intent" based on claims that Limbaugh was a drug dealer, or was his intent on getting those private records based on his own medical diagnosis that Limbaugh was not in need of these prescriptions??

Of course you can claim that he suspected Limbaugh was getting dual prescriptions, but shouldn't Limbaugh's own doctors have had a chance to explain their own practice.

After all that is why THEY are doctors and HE is a lawyer.

[RS]

Been off the net for a few weeks so forgive me if I'm not back up to speed -

Blacks statements seem strange -

"Prosecutors simply seized the records, and quietly held on to them for six days before letting anyone know what they had done..." ??? I would think getting the search warreent would pretty well explain what they had done ...

Limbaugh only received word that his doctor had been served a search warrent from a radio host ??? Wouldn't it seem likely that the doctor's offices would have called Limbaugh when it happened ? That Dr Cruz himself would not have informed his patient of the seizure is the strangest part...

"but shouldn't Limbaugh's own doctors have had a chance to explain their own practice."

... another stange piece, why have the doctors themselves NOT given statements regarding the legality of what they have done - a Joint statement like " We the undersigned all were fully informed as to the ammount of drugs our patient was taking and have concluded that these were the appropriate amounts - Please leave him alone"
Why has this not happened ?

"After all that is why THEY are doctors and HE is a lawyer."

Yes, and so are all the judges ( 3 so far ) who concured that the seizure was legal.

[Edit35]

"Limbaugh only received word that his doctor had been served a search warrent from a radio host ??? Wouldn't it seem likely that the doctor's offices would have called Limbaugh when it happened ? That Dr Cruz himself would not have informed his patient of the seizure is the strangest part...

You imply that it was the doctor's responsibility to notify Limbaugh that the cops had just seized a bunch of records.

Since when is it the target's responsibility to officially notify a second target.

Secondly, maybe the doctor's office was told not to say anything.

Thirdly, the prosecutor's actions in seizing the records implied either that Limbaugh did something wrong by asking for medications, or that the doctors did something wrong by giving him medications that had already been prescribed.

Ask yourself, how would Prosecutor Kirshner know whether or not the latter were true unless he gave those doctors a chance to explain why they prescribed these medications in the first place.

I'm sure it's no surprise to you that many medications have dual purposes.

Fourthly, you suggest the doctors make "joint" public statements asking the prosecutors lay off Limbaugh. Why in the world would a doctor thrust themselves into the public spotlight and put themselves in the crosshairs of this out of control prosecutor by giving a PUBLIC statement, like you suggested.

Not only would that be illegally breaking doctor patient confidentially, but no responsible doctor is gonna give a statement to the TV and newspapers like that.

Doctors don't argue their disgnosis cases, especially about a private patient, without the consent of the patient.

Furthermore, ask yourself. Is it Limbaugh's fault or the doctor's fault that he was given medications for which he had already been prescribed.

Bottom line. This investigation is a fishing expedition and a sham. Anyone who can't see that is simply hankering to see Limbaugh go down.

[RS]

"You imply that it was the doctor's responsibility to notify Limbaugh that the cops had just seized a bunch of records."

Was it the doctor's responsibility ? Don't know ... ask a lawyer - If any normal person had someone seize their patients records, I would assume that they might want to notify their patient - especially if as Black at first said, they did not get to keep a copy of them... and I wouldn't give a damn if the cops told me to keep quiet about it - there is no law that says you have to keep it a secret.

Where do you get the idea that they were told to keep quiet, or are you just making it up to make the cops look bad ?

"Prosecutor Kirshner know whether or not the latter were true unless he gave those doctors a chance to explain why they prescribed these medications in the first place"
The whole point of any search warrent is to give no warning to the seizure... duh...

... and it does not look as if the prosecution is targeting the doctors on this at all - the possible charges only appear to be aimed at Limbaugh.

"Why in the world would a doctor thrust themselves into the public spotlight and put themselves in the crosshairs of this out of control prosecutor by giving a PUBLIC statement, like you suggested."

WHY in the world would Limbaugh NOT want this to happen ? to specifically request and pay them to do it to clear the matter up ? The info is allready out there....

"This investigation is a fishing expedition and a sham. "
ALL investigations are looking for evidence.... again duh

... and 3 judges so far have agreed that the investigation is legal and warrented... as in OK for search warrents...