Prosecutors rebuked in Limbaugh inquiry (FREEP ALERT-Florida Bar)

Sun-Sentinel ^ | 1/29/2004 | Peter Franceschina

[Born Conservative]

Prosecutors rebuked in Limbaugh inquiry

By Peter Franceschina Staff Writer

January 29, 2004

The general counsel for the Florida Attorney General's Office criticized Palm Beach County prosecutors Wednesday, asserting they mischaracterized the office's input into the prosecutors' decision to release documents last week in the Rush Limbaugh investigation.

The letter gave fresh ammunition to Limbaugh and his attorney Roy Black in their attacks against Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer for his handling of the prescription drug investigation. Also on Wednesday, a conservative public-interest law firm that supports Limbaugh filed ethics complaints with The Florida Bar against Krischer and his chief assistant.

Prosecutors say they released two letters...

[TigersEye]

Again, why didn't Starr do anything?

There were big problems with Starr. Reno picked him for starters. His experience was in corporate litigation not prosecution for another. His witnesses died, lied, shut up, went to prison instead of testifying and fled the country for another. He mishandled the investigation. He just didn't do the things you cite.

That's not to say Clinton wasn't a sleaze for cooperating with the Chinese so much, ...

Wrong. Clinton IS a sleaze in everything he does. He is a TRAITOR for his dealings with China.

We'll have to wait and see what concessions Bush gives to China, ...

Bush has been honorable so far. Clinton was slime before he took the office.

... what with Neil being paid millions by Jiang Zemin's son for apparently not much real work. The Bush family is pretty tight with the CP group, too. Looks like nobody can refuse their cash.

Post your info. Put up an article or link to what you have. Baseless allegations are crap. Clinton's dirt is written on a wide swath of paper and video. Only a knee-padder or a dolt would deny it.

[longtermmemmory]

In between debating clinton, remembering this was a thread about the FL Bar. ;-) SA misconduct, eyes of the public are watching, etc...

[antiRepublicrat]

Ridiculous.

Why? I personally would have loved to see Clinton get nailed for such serious charges, rather than the one Starr managed to scrape up from the bottom of the barrel with the help of the Rutherford Institute. The dims would have had to shut up about their great leader and admit he was convicted of treason or at least some other serious charge relating to the security of the nation.

And, please, tell me how sexual promiscuity among teens is good for society. I sure don't know how.

[longtermmemmory]

for you convenience a link to post 37.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1074432/posts?page=37#37

[antiRepublicrat]

Wrong. Clinton IS a sleaze in everything he does.

Read again. I used a double negative = saying is a sleaze.

Bush has been honorable so far. Clinton was slime before he took the office.

Bush? We'll have to wait and see. He is a politician after all. Clinton? Wholehearted agreement here.

Post your info. Put up an article or link to what you have.

I was going off of memory, but a quick Google pulled up this, dating back to when GHW bush was president.

Clinton's dirt is written on a wide swath of paper and video. Only a knee-padder or a dolt would deny it.

Did I ever deny it? Attacking Starr is not the same thing as defending Clinton. In that case, as is likely in this one, neither have clean hands.

[longtermmemmory]

In this case you have a prosecutor on a true fishing expedition when other similarly situated people are treated differently.

This is the situation of Rush Limbaugh's Attorney vs the CONDUCT OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO IS ALSO A LAWYER.

two differnt situations.

[antiRepublicrat]

In this case you have a prosecutor on a true fishing expedition

And Starr's wasn't? I don't know how else to describe going from investigation of improper loans to lying about sex. At least this prosecutor is keeping it to charges commonly relating to drugs.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

You apparently do not like "conservatives like Rush and Coulter". Please explain to us how the comment "Rush has long pontificated that there is no Constitutional 'right to privacy'..." show that Rush is saying that the Constitution grants "rights" to citizens?

Six of the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution specifically refer to RIGHT(S) of individuals and guarantees that certain RIGHTS shall be preserved, and Amendment IX (9, if you are from Yorba Linda) refers to "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS...":

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
...the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV
The RIGHT of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the RIGHT to a speedy and public trial...

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the RIGHT of trial by jury shall be preserved...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, do you still want to claim that the Constitution is not about RIGHTS, as well as limitations on the powers of government?

[longtermmemmory]

So write to the Bar and state your opinion that this is a fishing expedition.

The prosecutor is not keeping this case to typical user charges. This SA is on an obvious vendetta. NO USER CASE ever gets these resources or attention. NO USER case give immunity to blackmail. (which the prosecutor has not even investigated per his own offices admission)

This is not about drug charges, this matter is about the condct of this ELECTED LAWYER. A lawyer is is held to the standard of "the appearance of impropriety IS impropriety in and of itself.

You have a lawyer who is publicly lying about his communications with his boss the AG, you have a lawyer publicly lying about his conversation with the ethics hotline of the FL Bar.

Have you even read the actual ethics complaint?

Bill Clinton is gone, his ethics complaint was resolved with his disbarment. The ethics complaint against Clinton had nothing to do with the conduct of Star. Clinton's own conduct torpedoed his law license.

In this case the SA holds the priviledge of a law license in FL. His conduct has violated the ethics rules of the FL Bar. At the very least that merrits a public hearing by the people who issued his license to practice law.

[longtermmemmory]

actually you have to also look tat the FL constitution.

The FL constitution has an explicit constitutional right to privacy (unlike the federal).

I would also submit that Amendment III is a personal right.

I hold that the first 9 amendments are all about individual's rights. (10th is a leftovers clause.)

[antiRepublicrat]

A lawyer is is held to the standard of "the appearance of impropriety IS impropriety in and of itself.

Too bad Starr never realized that, as he kept dismissing all of the appearances of impropriety as nothing. Why do you keep going on about Clintong's wrongdoings? I'll never disagree with you that he was total sleaze, both personally and professionally.

[longtermmemmory]

well then here is you opportunity to speak out against another sleazy lawyer.

or do support the SA Nazi tactics because you hate Rush?


(and Nevil Chamberlan said Mr. Hitler is a person he could talk to.)

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

I agree with your comments. I picked from the first 10 Amendments only the ones that specifically used the word "right" when commenting in my previous post. I also understand what you say about the FL constitution vs the Federal. Yes, I consider that Amendment III does preserve our right to be safe from any military infringment regarding our own homes. This is there because the Brits considered it their British right to impose themselves on any of the colonials in their own home whenever they (the Brits) wanted to do so.

[gitmo]

GGpaX4DumpedTea,
I think you misunderswtood TigersEye's comment. I think he is saying the Constitution doesn't grant rights to individuals. It enumerates a few of them, and states that it is an incomplete list. They were granted by the Creator. It does grant limited rights to the government.

That being said, I totally disagree with TigersEye's comments on Rush and Coulter. They both have stated that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit government's power, and that it is not the source of citizens' rights. Rush has repeatedly stated that, and consistently so.

I also saw posts in this thread saying Rush has taken a stand against a (Federal) right of privacy. I don't think that has been Rush's point. He talked a lot about the ways such a right would be applied, and the impact it would have it would have if it were universally applied to all aspects of life. But he has not taken the stand that any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are somehow non-existant.

[antiRepublicrat]

or do support the SA Nazi tactics because you hate Rush?

The only reason I'm so pissed off at Rush's clintonesque liberal tactics is because I like Rush. I'm deeply disappointed and feel like I've been deceived listening to him all these years.

[longtermmemmory]

You should not be, there is nothing to be disappointed about. In any case your personal disappointment does not excuse what this elected state attorney is doing. The fact that this SA can give a legal rectal probe audit to ANYONE should be disturbing.

The fact that he released plea deals that are NEVER released until after the case is closed is very suspect. The fact that he lied about what was said in his efforts to use the AG and Bar to conceal his PERSONAL desire to release the negotiations is damning.

If enough pressure is brought to bear, he would have to be removed from office, either voluntarily or by process.

[Phsstpok]

I see a lot of parallels to Clinton/Starr here, attacking the investigator's misconduct in hopes that people forget you are alleged to have committed a crime in the first place. Why is Rush using a standard lib tactic?

Ummmmm.... because he didn't commit a crime and Clinton did? Not complicated. I wonder why you can't see that? Enquiring minds want to know.

[longtermmemmory]

which takes us back to the FL Bar and prosecutorial misconduct...

[Phsstpok]

Yup. My thoughts... I say... My thoughts exacticaly?

To paraphrase my mentor, 'Ol Foghorn Leghorn hiself:

They're doing a lot of chopping but no chips are flyin'.

[Rudder]

Three weeks' old and excerpted--what a waste of time!