Silence [about Rush] in the press trenches

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

[xsysmgr]

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?

[Sarah]

wassup

[Sarah]

Just got this from longtermmemory by mail, sounds logical to me (not concerning his guilt, but his likelihood of getting off...)


'The absolute only thing we have to offer an illegal street purchase is the maid's story. The only proof she offered was emails which can't be authenticated, and audio tapes which reporters have described as extreme poor quality. Odd how everything else is leaked but these tapes and emails. If the emails could have been directly authenticated to Rush, they would have been an exception to the heresay rule as an admission againts interest
'

[ClintonBeGone]

'The absolute only thing we have to offer an illegal street purchase is the maid's story. The only proof she offered was emails which can't be authenticated, and audio tapes which reporters have described as extreme poor quality. Odd how everything else is leaked but these tapes and emails. If the emails could have been directly authenticated to Rush, they would have been an exception to the heresay rule as an admission againts interest '

This sounds as if it was written by some first semester paralegal. The maid and any evidence she has is irrelevant. What matters for criminal charges is the list of prescriptions, the name of his doctors and the dates Rush acquired his prescription drugs. Longtermmemory and all his sycophants have yet to explain away that cruitial piece of evidence.

[ClintonBeGone]

'The absolute only thing we have to offer an illegal street purchase is the maid's story. The only proof she offered was emails which can't be authenticated, and audio tapes which reporters have described as extreme poor quality. Odd how everything else is leaked but these tapes and emails. If the emails could have been directly authenticated to Rush, they would have been an exception to the heresay rule as an admission againts interest '

This sounds as if it was written by some first semester paralegal. The maid and any evidence she has is irrelevant. What matters for criminal charges is the list of prescriptions, the name of his doctors and the dates Rush acquired his prescription drugs. Longtermmemory and all his sycophants have yet to explain away that crucial piece of evidence.

[RS]

Huh ? One of you is talking about the Clines selling him drugs and the other is talking about the doctor-shopping , ehich has nothing to do with the Clines...

Enquiring Minds are confused !

[ClintonBeGone]

Huh ? One of you is talking about the Clines selling him drugs and the other is talking about the doctor-shopping , ehich has nothing to do with the Clines...

Thats what the blind want to do is confuse you. I'm trying to see that Sarah doesn't buy into LTM's paralegal garbage. Anything the maid has provided evidence wise is irrelevant to the felony of doctor shopping. I've yet to hear anyone refute or challenge the list of overlapping prescriptions alleged to have been provided to RUSH. That's what's going to put a felony on his record, not some drug dealing maid.

[gitmo]

Hee hee, so my evidence is no good, but yours is fine to use in this discussion? Can you say EXTREEMLY biased?

Are you talking about the evidence that Rush was running a drug ring? (I think that was a leak from the Palm Beach County Prosecutors' Office.)

Or the evidence that Rush was laundering money for his drug ring? (I think that was a leak from the Palm Beach County Prosecutors' Office. It consisted of allegations Rush had withdrawn some of his money from his bank account.)

Or perhaps the evidence that Rush was doctor shopping. (I think that was a leak from the Palm Beach County Prosecutors' Office. It consisted of the list of 4 doctors Rush had visited .. 2 surgeons' offices and 2 doctors at his primary physician's office.)

[ClintonBeGone]

Or perhaps the evidence that Rush was doctor shopping. (I think that was a leak from the Palm Beach County Prosecutors' Office. It consisted of the list of 4 doctors Rush had visited .. 2 surgeons' offices and 2 doctors at his primary physician's office.)

Yes, THAT one. I'm particularly interested in how well his California ear doctor's practice is going in Florida. LOL And why his ear doctor is still prescribing him narcotics a year after his ear surgery. DUH.

[RS]

"I think that was a leak from the Palm Beach County Prosecutors' Office." X3

No- It was a statement by Black that he says was from a leak from the Palm Beach County Prosecutors' Office.

... and Roy ( Plea Negotiations?, What Plea Negotiations? ) Black would never lie to us, would he ?

[_Jim]

Longtermmemory and all his sycophants have yet to explain away that cruitial piece of evidence.

You had a good, cohesive piece until this last sentence when you veered off the road and into the weeds. It is presumptuous present the missing piece of the puzzle as 'crucial' when, we know for instance, that the *doctors* in question here, according to Black is four, one of whom was filling on for the *other* and presumably had EASY access to Rush's med records at that office!

[Eva]

I was thinking about the dissimilar treatment that Michael Jackson has received for his long term addiction to pain medication.

[RS]

"And why his ear doctor is still prescribing him narcotics a year after his ear surgery. DUH."

Good point... maybe the good doctor will tell us that he knew about all the other drugs Rush had been prescribed and it was just fine with him to have more....

But gee, the doctors don't seem to be talking....
Curious, since a combined statement from them would go a long way to defuse the issue...

Maybe it has something to do with the OTHER evidence in the case that the investigators are holding close.. ? Ya'think ?

[ClintonBeGone]

we know for instance, that the *doctors* in question here, according to Black is four, one of whom was filling on for the *other* and presumably had EASY access to Rush's med records at that office!

Would that be the one from California? Look, I've acknowledge all along, the only thing that is going to save Rush is if his doctors all knew about the other prescriptions. That's the $1000 question and I've yet to hear it be honestly answered. Do you have a link to a transcript for that information you just shared with me? About Black? Also, did he answer why Rush's California ear doctor was still prescribing him narcotics a year after his ear surgery?

[ClintonBeGone]

Curious, since a combined statement from them would go a long way to defuse the issue... Maybe it has something to do with the OTHER evidence in the case that the investigators are holding close.. ? Ya'think ?

I'm sure one of the three stooges will be by to explain that. YUCK YUCK YUCK.

[longtermmemmory]

Excuse I am not a paralegal. I am a lawyer.

The law is there for all to read. The ethics rules are there for all to read. The ethics hotline is there for any lawyer to call.

How about the fact that the law specifically says DOSSAGE IS IRELEVANT which I have posted. I can have 20 doctors giving me overlapping perscriptions as long as they comply with the law. Here we have four doctors, one in california, at least two in the same office, and the remaining be the specialist.

I gave you the law. YOU choose to be obtuse.

I have cited about the law putting all first time offenders into the Drug Court intervention program.

The Doctor Shopping statute was written for dealing not users. Dealers who lie to doctors to get drugs to supply users NOT for end users. This is why the SA is shooting to charge under an improper statute.

As a user, Rush gets no felony record. That is if you treat him the same as anyone else who gets caught red handed. Of course rush has not been caught red handed.

You refuse to see the reality and the law here. Perhaps after you go to law school and pass a few bar exams we could have some intelligent commentaty from you.

[longtermmemmory]

Please be the prosecutor in the case. A list of perscripts in not enough. The prosecutor needs expert testimony that the perscriptions were medically unnecessary, the doctors need to admit not only no knowledge but that they had no medical protocol expectation the other doctors were also percribing, Rush intentionally mislead the doctors, and that Rush had no medical reason for the drugs.

The "piece of evidence" was incomplete information by the SA own sworn admission. They claim to have additional information. If any of that information is exonerating in nature, the SA has additional problems. (malicious prosecution comes to mind)

You can't pick and choose the elements required to proove the crime. The prosecutor has to prove them ALL. The prosecutor has to survive pretrial motions.

I am willing to bet those motions will be as interesting as the last hearing where in the transcript the Judge advised the SA, that had they followed procedure would likely not have recieved the unfettered access to medical records.

You are just following what the SA has done. In the begining it was all in what the maid said, then money laundering, and now we have doctor shopping. The Wilma and David Cline "evidence" is relevant as to the dubious nature of the investigation. I have long said the tapes and emails were inadmissible and thus irrelevant as evidence. Read.

[longtermmemmory]

Sarah if you don't want a private conversation then don't bother emailing people privatly. I will be more than happy to respond to you in public.

Perhaps I too should be writing "private" caviats at the top of my emails.

I will know better about you next time.

I stand by what I wrote.

[Sarah]

Hey, I'm really sorry. I actually finally understood what you were saying, and thought that it was clear and concise and appropriate to post. Not at all personal, and along the lines of all that you had already written.
Protocol-wise though, you're right; and I should have pinged you on over here to argue your own line of argument.
Hope no real harm was done.
(the only reason I 'privated' was to spare the thread of disruption)
I apologise to you, Sarah

[longtermmemmory]

accepted and I am sorry if I came on too strong. I enjoy debates. I have my circle of collegues with whom we engage in much the same as what we do here.

My understanding here is that if somebody wants to post a "freepmail" just ask the person who sent it to you. I would not have had a problem.

with that done, thanks and have a good evening.

[Edit35]

"I was beginning to think everyone was of the intellectual quality of CMAC51."

After reading the back and forth arguments, it seems to me that CMA51 logically kicked your butt.

Unless you are a doctor, or Rush's doctor to be more precise, how are you even in a position to say what was or wasn't a logical prescription.

Are we now, as a society, going to get a search warrant for each and every person who admits to having an addiction to prescription drugs.

After all, since that person "May Have Committed a Crime" by doing too many prescription drugs, as you say, it would be imperative that prosecutors confiscate their medical records immediately just to check it out, don't you think??

It is so obvious that this prosecutor, after realizing his other evidence (with the maid) was a bunch of bunk, decided to go on this fishing expedition just to save face. And if you can't see that, Mr ClintonBeWhatever, I pity your perception.

Because you obviously are blind.