Skip to comments.
Mike Walker on the Al Rantel Show: "If We're Wrong, Rush Could Own Us"
790am KABC Radio
Posted on 10/09/2003 8:14:20 PM PDT by Cinnamon Girl
Mike Walker of the National Enquirer has been on the Al Rantel show for the past two hours discussing the story which his paper broke about Rush Limbaugh's dependence on prescription drugs, obtained illegally through his housekeeper. As Mike said, if this story was erroneous, Rush could sue them out of business. The National Enquirer did all kinds of checking before going with this story. He said they only paid for the story from the housekeeper after she had already gone to the police with her story and evidence.
But the most upsetting thing Mike Walker and Al discussed is the possibility that oxicontin (?) causes deafness and that Rush may have caused his own deafness by taking up to 30 or so pills a day. That is a horrible thought.
My wish is that Rush gets on the radio, comes clean about his addiction, and gets the help he needs. The longer he waits to do this, the worse it will be for him, in all sorts of ways. The police are apparently more interested in busting dealers than users in this sort of situation, but the housekeeper and her husband received immunity with their statements to the police. The claim is that Rush also was receiving UPS deliveries of pills from another source. Whatever the case, he should come clean.
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: eatingourown; eib; jailhouselawyers; koolaiddrinking; legaleagles; limbaugh; maharushie; nationalenquirer; pilingon; rush; rushbashing; rushlimbaugh; talkradio; toast; turass
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380, 381-394 next last
To: Humidston
Follow your own advice. I wasn't the one, who was suggesting that someone else use his money to bennefit me; you were.
To: jjbrouwer
Hardly, the enquirer accused rush of comitting a crime. Accusing someone of engaging in criminal conduct had better be dead on acurate. Even with the verification of the addiction, the maid's story had better be 100% exactly acurate or they are toast.
To: Liberty - Constitution for all
Remember, you are not a mindless ball of mush. Act accordingly! Coward.
363
posted on
10/10/2003 2:33:29 PM PDT
by
PRND21
To: massadvj
Rush talks inceesantly about personal responsibility and enligtenment. We can see that there is a man behind the curtain. We can take it. Please tell us what the man behind the curtain is doing.
Had you listened to the last 10 minutes or so of today's program,you'd know.
364
posted on
10/10/2003 2:51:42 PM PDT
by
gatorbait
(Yesterday, today and tomorrow.....The United States Army)
To: gatorbait
yes, regardles of the gleaful rubberneckers here say, Rush has demonstrated today what he has always been. A class act.
To: longtermmemmory
As I say, you are totally delusional. By the way, was the name "longtermmemory" already taken...?
366
posted on
10/10/2003 3:13:07 PM PDT
by
jjbrouwer
(Chelsea for the Champions League)
To: sjeann
I can think of numerous ways to explain how someone would have a 12 hour advance notice that Rush was making
some sort of an announcement today about these allegations. None of the obvious explanations would include this person being a friend of Rush's.
It's much more curious to me why someone would register on FR just a few days ago for the purpose of lying, claiming to be a personal friend of Rush's, and claiming that Rush personally told him/her yesterday that all of the allegations were false. Any thoughts on that?
To: Cinnamon Girl
As Mike said, if this story was erroneous, Rush could sue them out of business. The National Enquirer did all kinds of checking before going with this story. He said they only paid for the story from the housekeeper after she had already gone to the police with her story and evidence. I'd check with a regular billing lawyer here, but I don't think a libel suit woudl fly.
" There can be no presumption of malice or bad faith consistent with freedom of the press under First Amend., U.S.Const. if plaintiff is a public figure. Malice must be proved on a showing that defendant published material either knowing it to be false or recklessly without regard as to whether it is true or false. N. Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686."
Limbaugh is a public figure. He has the burden of proof. The accusers filed a complaint with the police (under penalty of perjury I assume), which I would think would vitiate any taint of malice, by definition, on the part of a bottom feeding, slimy joke of a souless, unethical birdcage linner like the Enquirer.
I would suspect that said rag would know every nuance down to the most frivolous detail of every state's law governing libel. I'd also suspect this guy knows that.
368
posted on
10/10/2003 3:47:06 PM PDT
by
William Terrell
(Man is an as asshole around which a body developed.)
To: Nachum
You didn't need to stand corrected, he fooled me also.
The important thing is that Rush is seeking help. He stood as a man and admitted that he had a problem and he is taking steps get himself well. This is huge.
It took great courage to do what he did today. Could you ever imagine how hard it was to make a confession like Rush did today to literally millions of people? Wow, that's guts.
To: SevenDaysInMay
Who cares about the headlines? Rush already makes a fortune every year, and no one is going to stop listening to him over this in the first place.
To: longtermmemmory
Hmmm, why don't you go back and read your post now. It was apparent that his housekeeper would have known a lot about Rush, and it was obvious by his description last Friday (I'll tell more as the facts come out) that Rush Limbaugh has a drug problem. Why that is so difficult for some of you gullible people to understand is beyond me!
To: Not now, Not ever!
Hmmm, it looks like my common sense and intelligence prevailed again.
To: Don Carlos
Would you say that Rush confessing his drug problem on his show is enough proof? See, I told you so. (ironic, isn't it?)
To: ozzymandus
What is wrong with you? It is obvious from what he said last Friday that Rush has a drug problem. The only thing he is going to dispute is how severe his drug problem is. You obviously didn't listen to his show last Friday. Had you listened, you wouldn't be so foolish.
To: ItisaReligionofPeace
Munch, munch! That's Don Carlos eating his words!
I still support Rush to the end, tho.
You?
375
posted on
10/10/2003 7:56:06 PM PDT
by
Don Carlos
(El que no le gusta vino es un amimal.)
To: ItisaReligionofPeace
What I was talking about was the inferences that Rush was some kind of drug dealer, when the criminals are obviously the pharmacists and the "maid" who was selling him the drugs.
That's what's wrong with me. Sorry I'm so foolish.
To: Podkayne
And maybe less bombastic, too.
377
posted on
10/10/2003 8:08:15 PM PDT
by
Palladin
(Proud to be a FReeper!)
To: Damagro
Hey, Demagro, what do you have to say about it today??
I hate to say it, but I toldya so.
378
posted on
10/10/2003 8:11:26 PM PDT
by
Palladin
(Proud to be a FReeper!)
To: Palladin
Rush is not toast. He did come clean, and this is something that could happen to almost anyone. Pain is something very hard to deal with day in and day out, and many doctors and others won't help the patient, although they can.
379
posted on
10/10/2003 8:12:29 PM PDT
by
ladyinred
(Talk about a revolution, look at California!!! We dumped Davis!!!)
To: A CA Guy
Just because the Enquirer said it didn't make it false. ;P
380
posted on
10/10/2003 8:20:50 PM PDT
by
Palladin
(Proud to be a FReeper!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380, 381-394 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson