Replies

'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.

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!

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.

"The maid and any evidence she has is irrelevant."

If the maid and all her evidence is irrelevant, then for what reason did the prosecutor begin his investigation.

There happens to still be a rather big legal edict in this country called probable cause.

If all that "evidence" was bad to begin with, then there was no reason to launch into an investigation into Limbaugh's medical treatment in the first place, especially considering that he himself was the one who brought up the subject.

(Unless you want to use the National Enquire as probable cause)