Posted on 05/29/2004 6:45:11 AM PDT by billorites
IT’S BEEN seven months since Florida prosecutor Barry Krischer opened his investigation into Rush Limbaugh's pain-pill addiction, and still no charges have been brought. It's not for lack of trying.
In a legal foray that increasingly has the look of a partisan political campaign, Mr. Krischer has pulled out all the stops to nail the conservative talk-show host. Regardless of one's political views, the case has troubling connotations for tens of thousands of Americans whose efforts to combat chronic pain result in addiction.
It all began early last year, when Rush's former Palm Beach housekeeper, Wilma Cline, approached the National Enquirer alleging she and her husband were his suppliers. The tabloid's editors balked at running the story. Gin up an official investigation first, they told the Clines.
The couple approached Mr. Krischer, secured an immunity deal and promptly cashed their six-figure check.
Prior to the story becoming public, Mr. Krischer had no intention of nailing Rush for his addiction. Like prosecutors nationwide, Mr. Krischer's policy was to cast a sympathetic eye toward prescription drug addicts, viewing them less as criminals than as victims. But that was before the tabloid hit the newsstands. Or more precisely, before — as Mr. Krischer's top lieutenant publicly stated — hundreds of e-mails and letters poured in from out-of-state partisans urging him to prosecute.
With the Clines hopelessly tainted, Mr. Krischer now seeks to make Rush the first Floridian ever prosecuted for "doctor-shopping" — approaching doctors with bogus ailments solely for pain pills.
So why is this prosecutor targeting Rush? The benign answer is that he is merely enforcing the law: If you do the crime, you do the time. But Mr. Krischer's own actions put the lie to this kind of principled defense.
For starters, there is Mr. Krischer's own reversal in the face of outside pressure. Far from principled, the prosecutor's unusually aggressive line of attack suggests he is merely a patsy for a larger political vendetta. Neither is it principled that Mr. Krischer can't seem to find a crime without bending a few laws himself.
In December, for example, his office leaked to the press that Rush would plead guilty to a felony. This was an ethics breach, but more important, it was false. And Mr. Krischer likely violated state privacy laws by seizing Rush's medical records without a search warrant, subverting a process designed to prevent the kind of fishing expedition the prosecutor is engaged in.
Given that principle seems to be ruled out, Mr. Krischer's motive increasingly appears partisan. He is an elected Democrat, after all, and this is an election year. To bring down the right's most celebrated name would no doubt make a nice trophy for an ambitious politician.
Bagging Rush may serve Barry Krischer well and tickle Al Franken. But in a very important sense, Rush is the red herring in the case.
Aside from the broader ramifications of making prescription drug addicts fair game, Mr. Krischer's tactics already raise troubling questions of precedence. And it is the public that may be hit hardest.
In releasing confidential correspondence regarding plea deals, for example, Mr. Krischer opens the door for others to follow suit. Presumably, co-defendants may now see whether one has ratted out the other — a common divide-and-conquer tactic employed by prosecutors.
Then, too, there is the wholesale abandonment of medical privacy protections. That's why a host of independent and left-leaning groups, such as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed briefs in Rush's defense.
None of this is to say that law enforcement doesn't have a legitimate role in curbing prescription drug addiction. Appropriate targets include Internet pharmacies, mail-diploma doctors who scribble prescriptions without visits, and street-corner dealers.
But for those like Rush, who become dependent from legitimate pain prescriptions, a dose of counseling and understanding is the best medicine. Thankfully, in everywhere but Palm Beach, that seems to be the case.
Sam Dealey is a contributor to The American Spectator.
Post 5's tagline. I prayed and I acknowledged the prayer.
That is absurd. Even if Rush deliberately structured withdrawals to avoid scrutiny, it's not money laundering. Money can only be "laundered" if it's illegally obtained in the first place. Rush makes ~$30 million a year. His money is already clean.
"That is absurd. Even if Rush deliberately structured withdrawals to avoid scrutiny, it's not money laundering. Money can only be "laundered" if it's illegally obtained in the first place."
Even if ??? Lets dispense with the "even if " ...-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/entertainment/main584581.shtml
"There was a $10,000 reporting requirement and they said if you keep it under that, then nobody has to file any paperwork ... and so that's what I did," Limbaugh said.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5324.html
Sec. 5324. - Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited
No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313(a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, (snip) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.
Under what general heading would you prefer that this crime be under ?
First, I deny that this is a crime in anything resembling a free society.
And secondly, I think "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements" is adequately descriptive. Calling it money laundering is a deliberate deception and is just as inaccurate as putting it under the "general heading" of rape or arson.
"First, I deny that this is a crime in anything resembling a free society."
... Hmm... how cute should I be here ?... "denial is not just a river in Egypt" ? " When did I say that we live in a free society" ? How about simply -
So ?
Welcome to the real world.
" I think "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements" is adequately descriptive."
But not catchy enough for the media ...
Since he was being investigated for withdrawing the cash to buy drugs, and his lawyer says that the money was used for the furtherance of illegal activities ( paying blackmail ), and the laws were enacted under the general heading of money laudering, I think it fits.
If he were actually persued and convicted of this, it would be said that he was quilty of breaking a law enacted to fight money laundering.
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.