Posted on 10/04/2003 12:07:26 PM PDT by kattracks
Despite screaming front page headlines and top-of-the-hour news reports suggesting that Rush Limbaugh is in legal hot water over allegations that he abused painkillers over a four year period, prosecutors and attorneys said Saturday that any actual criminal case against the top talk star would be weak.James Martz, the prosecutor who heads up the Palm Beach County, Florida task force investigating the Limbaugh case noted that police never actually caught the talk star purchasing any drugs. "Shy of that, we have very little leverage in the state system," he told the Palm Beach Post.
Martz said he is more interested in finding the heads of drug distribution cells rather than going after alleged low-level prescription drug users like Limbaugh.
Florida attorney Michael Salnick agreed that the case is weak, telling the Post, "I think that the state better have a heck of a lot more than what I'm seeing, hearing and reading right now."
"First of all you have a major credibility issue with these witnesses. The credibility issue starts with the fact they sold their story to The National Enquirer," the attorney said.
"I think it's legal suicide to go after a guy like Limbaugh with evidence as flimsy as this," Salnick added.
Another problem is that one of Limbaugh's accusers, David Cline, was convicted himself on cocaine trafficking charges in 1982.
What about the wire worn by Cline's wife Wilma, Limbaugh's housekeeper who told the Enquirer that she taped their last two drug transactions?
Apparently the recording is more legally problematic for the Clines than it is for Limbaugh. Attorneys told the Post that if Mrs. Cline did tape Limbaugh without his knowledge, she committed a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
What more, prosecutor Martz said such an illegally obtained recording would be inadmissible in court.
How about the emails supplied by Cline that purportedly document Limbaugh's drug deals?
Martz told the Post that any such evidence is of little value because it's difficult to actually verify who sent the email.
Further weakening any possible prosecution is the issue of Limbaugh's celebrity, which Florida attorney Marc Shiner said complicates the case.
"Why would drug dealers turn in their client unless they are trying to save their own neck -- or trying to make a couple hundred thousand dollars peddling their story to the tabloids?" he asked.
"If I was Roy Black," Shiner added, referring to the lawyer Limbaugh has reportedly hired, "I'd be sitting on the beach right now sipping a pina colada or watching a Marlins game and not worrying too much about Rush Limbaugh's criminal liability right now."
That is the most important statement made about this entire episode.
So very true.
Well stated.
Not at quantities that would indicate abuse.
If he was abusing, he would have a problem the typical prescription abuser doesn't have. He is too visible. A typical abuser could visit several dentists and get pian killers for the same complaint and get them filled at separate drug stores. Rush on the otherhand cannot go anywhere without being recognized.
The interesting question is how he might have gotten started when it would be so tough for him to do on his own.
You said ....... "I would have a much easier time believing in Rush's innocence if he would simply say "I have never illegally bought or possessed prescription narcotics."
Meaning a statement by Rush is all you need to believe he is innocent.
Clintoon went on nation wide TV and said something to the effect "I have never had sexual relations with that woman ....... Monica Lewinsky"
Get it?
No ....... I didn't think you could.
You have the defintion backwards. Clintonesque is telling your lawyer what to say, for you.
I am in that third group.
If Rush was using narcotics, his hypocrisy would not be nonexistent.
Fox News reported today that in 1995 Rush said " Drug users should be accused, they should be convicted, and they should be sent up."
Should his rule not apply to him?
What's so hard about that?"
Unfortunately, the response from the prosecutors would be a gleeful "Wethinks thou dost protest too much!", and then the defense has to go into overdrive.
An accusation is a tough thing to shed. It may help to take a severe counter-punch to the National Enquirer.
One out of three wasn't bad. What he was was a politically interested con-artist with an excellent memory. His speeches make no sense, and anyone can see he constantly lies in egregious fashion. His trick is convincing people that he's lying to everyone ELSE, along with convincing women that they can fix him.
No, only you.
Are you saying that a person addicted to drugs cannot express an opinion that drug addicted people shouldn't be held accountable for their own actions ? I would think that a drug addicted person could consistantly hold either posistion and not be hypocritical.
Don't make false statements about what I have said on another thread in order to smear me on this one.
I never said Rush was a liar.
I did say he has been evasive and has used non-denial denials, which is a fact.
I formed no opinion at first, but was willing to accept that perhaps it happened. Since then, it has become more and more unreasonable a position - still possible, but not very reasonable. One part of which is that he can't possibly be taking all of the pills himself - he'd be quite dead. Another is the lengths to which the Pharmacist would have to go to cover up a SINGLE PATIENT acquiring a refill or two a day. further is this idea of doing the exchange in some gas station lot when the maid could just bring the drugs to work and exchange things there. Not to mention the background of identity theft and other oddities that the maid and her husband had. I will say this - at the least Limbaugh is shown to have had questionable judgment in hiring her given her and her husbands background.
Anyone can be personally weak and mess up, but all of the circumstances described sure seem like the hard way of doing it.
I deducted from that to mean he is a liar.
Just for the "how many "non-liars" do you know that are "evasive and has used non-denial denials" ? For the life of me, I haven't met a single one.
Hopefully this whole incident will put the Republicans/conservatives into "circle the wagons" mode and NOT turn them into a bunch of "eat their own" reptiles.
We can wax on about how a case is weak, or how someone is a criminal..but IMHO Rush is becomming the next Newt-great ideas getting trumped by poor choices.
BTW-Ever since he was quoted complimenting Hillery Ive been more into Hannity...
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.