[LibFreeUSA]

I am amazed at all the hysteria around here.

Everyone is wondering why Rush has not come to expeditiously plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" to, as yet unknown, drug allegations.

Obviously not many people here have been involved in, or been part of 'criminal' investigations.

When government authorities are in the midst of gathering evidence for potential violations of, and prosecution under, a criminal code. EVERYONE they THINK could be connected, or involved in some way, is deemed to be worthy of interview, and/or 'investigation'.

Even the "innocent" (those who may have been 'involved' in some fashion, but not 'criminally' liable), have to be careful and seek 'legal' protection. WHY? Because the government authorities don't 'always' care about your innocence, and will seek to include you in their dragnet.

In the best case scenario, it is POSSIBLE that Rush may have been 'involved' in SOME way in this entire situation, but not 'criminally', and there could be 'dark forces' out there to 'push' evidence/testimony on him into the 'criminal' part, which could make this a more 'complicated' set of events.....and may explain why he said he does not know the "entire scope" of this situation at this very moment.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Even the "innocent" (those who may have been 'involved' in some fashion, but not 'criminally' liable), have to be careful and seek 'legal' protection. WHY? Because the government authorities don't 'always' care about your innocence, and will seek to include you in their dragnet.

No offense, but DUH!

No one is arguing that he shouldn't seek legal protection. Besides, all celebrities have that at their fingertips, and all have retained attorneys on the payroll.

This is not the issue here.

The issue is simple. If one is innocent of any wrong doing, one just stands up and says, "I am innocent of these allegations of illegal drug use".

Period.....

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps Rush is merely "Aiding The Authorities In Their Investigation."

[Fawnn]

...it is POSSIBLE that Rush may have been 'involved' in SOME way in this entire situation, but not 'criminally'

EXACTLY!!! All that's been done thus far is "alleged guilt by association." And now the liberal "same people who set the speech codes" are able to imply that "Rush is a drug addict," based on accusations by somebody who accepted money for her story from the National Enquirer. It's given them another talking point. The purpose is to CAUSE DAMAGE because most of their minions won't even see the fine print retraction, if and when it occurs.

Saying ANYTHING now gives them "quotes" to distort. (Just look what Dowd et. al. have done with the President's State of the Union speech!)