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]
Uh, a list of prescriptions from doctors. Wow! How compelling. Now back to the original question, what evidence?
Read the doctor shopping statute, read the prescription list, read the statute again and its very easy to see what Rush's problem is. That is, of course, provided you can read and comprehend a statute. Given your response, I'm not even going to presume that's something you're capable of.
If you want to try reading, try reading the transcript of the hearing on the release of the doctors records. In there, the judge basically agrees with Attorney Blacks allegation that the prosecutor would not have been granted the search warrant in the first place if he had provided the names of the doctors and their relationship to each other and to each of Rush's illnesses. That is why the prosecutor went for the search warrant instead of a subpoena. There was no real danger of the records being destroyed, so a seizure was not really necessary. A subpoena would have required notice to the defendant and allowed response by defendant's council. A subpoena would not have been granted.
Unless you have some further evidence hidden away that you aren't sharing with anyone, Rush has no problem with the statute. As Attorney Black has pointed out, the prescriptions add up to only about 9 pills a day. That is not beyond the scope of normal medication for intractable pain. That deflates any allegation of criminal intent to deceive. Under a statute like this, absent criminal intent, they've got nothing.
Given your response, I'm not even going to presume that's something you're capable of.
You grossly misinterpret my response level. I was trying to keep my response down at your apparent level of ability to focus and sensationalize on a single factoid. If you would like to step up to the next higher level of logic and examine multiple angles at one time, I'll be patient and help you along. Based on the submitted prescription list, we now know that Rush obtained prescriptions from 4 different doctors. We know the doctors were treating Rush for specific real maladies. We know that two of them were in the same service and covered for each other. We know that the pill volume of approx. 9 per day is high, but not outside the normal realm for intractable pain. Finally, we know that Rush has admitted addiction to pain medication.
Now, having expanded our focus beyond the narrow sensationalism of the prescription list, combining the elements we know, where is the criminality?
Because whatever the truth of the criminal allegations against him, Rush has come off looking like a grade-A hypocrite. His years and years of on-air criticism and condescension toward drug abusers make it very difficult for anyone to defend his own drug abuse.
The unfortunate downside of this is that liberal prosecutors are free to carry out their vendetta against him without fear of media criticism, even from Fox News.
It's irrelvant to whether the prescription list provided in the search warrant is a valid list of the drugs, doctors and timing the prescriptions were filled. Unless you dispute the vality of that information, and you can't because Rush isn't, you have no leg to stand on.
Apparently you don't want to be bothered with reading the transcript, or you wouldn't have asked such an inane question. So we'll keep it at your level. Repeat it very slowly and maybe you will grasp the question. "Where is the criminality or evidence of criminality?" Repeat it several time if necessary. Criminality is a big word and it may take you a few tries. Webster's has a dictionary online if you need help with the word.
Now, don't come back unless you have something worthwhile in total. I'm getting a crick in my neck trying to stoop down to your level.
Almost an intelligent statement if you realized what you said. A crime may have been committed. That statement is true of everyone. If one then assumes a crime has been committed than any document may have relevance to the crime. However the legal system in the US works on the basis of a crime having been committed or a reasonable belief that one has been committed. An investigation is conducted to determine who, what, why, where and when related to the crime.
In this case we don't have a crime, we don't even have the basis for a reasonable belief that one has been committed. We have an investigator who is fishing for evidence that a crime has been committed. The legal equivelant of "the cart before the horse".
In a closed hearing before a judge he presented the prescription list without presenting all of the information he had to accompany it. This is an ethical breach for which he may pay in the future. He received a search warrant to seize doctors records on the basis that they were at risk. Were the doctors records really at risk? He chose this approach because the ethical approach of obtaining a subpoena would not have worked. The subject of the subpoena and the potential defendant would have had an opportunity to respond and would have prevailed on any number of reasons. The foremost would have been simply that the medication levels when taken on a daily basis are not high enough to be medically excessive, negating any basis for criminal intent. The quest for doctor records would have ended there and the prosecutor would not have had the press exposure he desires.
Now, go away and bother someone else. Your myopic views are neither enlightening nor entertaining. Even should you provide a further innocuous response, don't expect me to reply. I've wasted far too much time on you already and you really don't show any indication that you are capable of being educated, either by bothering to read available material or actually thinking about the information at hand.
Have a nice day.
We certainly do. We have a prescription listing drug purchases, the date they were purchased and the different doctors that prescribed them. The list speaks for itself. It would take a degree of ignorance rarely seen among people that can tie their own shoes to think that this list of undisputed accuracy isn't evidence of a crime.
"A guy with a microphone ... speaking words that convey thought ... thought that some see as dangerous ..."
THAT is how Rush has portrayed himself LITERALLY (got it on tape) ...
RS, meet ClintonBeGone, and ClintonBeGone meet RS.
You boys (or is it girls, with such gender-neutral nom de plumes it is tough to tell, although your logic would lend me to believe you are all women) have something in common (I need not elaborate - it is in the open for you and all to see).
I might as well invite Sarah to the party; she's got POVs I think CBG could appreciate as well ...
Thanks for the introduction. It's nice to finally meet a few correct and intelligent thinking posters on this thread. I was beginning to think everyone was of the intellectual quality of CMAC51.
Oh, it's not bragging when you're right :)
Ahh, the good old days. Didn't we used to call you the man with the magic 8 balls?
"It is theater, theater of the mind, theater of the heart, theater of the melodramatic, theater of the ironic, theater of the absurd, theater of the hilarious ... but always theater."
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.