Rush: I'm No Money Launderer

NewsMax ^ | 11/19/03 | Limbacher

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

America's number one talk radio host Rush Limbaugh catagorially denied on Wednesday an ABC News report that accused him of "laundering money" to bankroll his addiction to painkillers.

"I am no money launderer," Limbaugh said at the top of his broadcast.

"I know what this is? I know where this comes from," the top talker told his audience. "This is not a leak. This is the purposeful release of false information."

More . . .

[Cobra64]

When I built my last house I routinely (15 trips) withdrew $9900.00 to pay the subcontractors, in order to get a 10% cash discount.

[freedomcrusader]

Apparently, some people here believe that special "Rush provisions" have been written into state and federal statutes, allowing Mr Limbaugh to conduct activities that would be illegal if done by ordinary folk

Not me. The law sucks period. It has no place in an allegedy free republic.

[theDentist]

Well, he explained it.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

This is how they lose the Drug War. All they are doing is teaching people hatred fear and contempt for the government. One more great evil atributable to the War On Drugs.

No they're not. Do you hear Rush or any of his dittoheads repenting for helping build this inquisitorial police state? No, like Clinton they're answering all the questions, some now, some later, some directly, some indirectly. It will come down to issues like "it all depends on what the meaning of 'money laundering' is," and the WOD and privacy will emerge stronger than ever.

[Cobra64]

I laundered some money the other day. I thought I'd emptied my pockets before sending my clothes through the wash and dry cycle but upon removing them I found a dollar bill and 57 cents in change in the dryer.

I know. My wife earns more money doing the laundry than she does in her day job at Texaco.

[WackyKat]

I've looked through this thread and seen the same hypocrites decrying the gov't intrusion into 'private' areas while simultaneously standing firmly behind the drug war and the Patriot Act. You don't get to have it both ways. These laws are on the books for a reason. Unless you don't want them applied to mobsters, drug cartels, and terrorists, don't protest when they are applied (correctly) to your hero.

The hypocrisy and special pleading that a favored talk show host should be treated more leniently by the law than other people is disgusting.

If the drug and money laundering laws shouldn't apply to Rush, they shouldn't apply to anyone.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

"...allowing Mr Limbaugh to conduct activities that would be illegal if done by ordinary folk."

Taking his hard-earned money out of the bank? My cash withdrawals as a percentage of my income far exceed Mr. Limbaugh's.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

My problem with him now is that I don't believe him. And the pregnant question that there is no answer to is the following -

"what form of payment there was for the drugs that fed your admitted addiction, how much did you spend, and who got the money?"

Folllowing that, there would be another - "Did you perform a background check on your maid, and why did you hire/retain her after you learned of her history of connections to drug dealers?"

[MrsEmmaPeel]

As far as I'm concerned, that is a public relations nightmare for him.

I don't see it. It was his own money, acquired through legal means. He made a legal withdrawal. Big deal. I've made large withdrawals. I'm sure anyone who has purchased anything large (house, car) makes withdrawls. You are assuming that the money obtained from the legal withdrawl was used for illegal purposes. I think that's a bit much.

[longtermmemmory]

No you are wrong because any one of us would make the same consideration regarding how we withdraw money. Perhaps not 35 million a year, but the same consideration nonetheless.

The reaction of the "its about drugs/you are in denial posts" only proves the intent of the hit piece. There is going to be NO criminal case (drug treatment court). This story is a weak effort of DNC/clintonista dirty tricks to muddy rush before 2004.

[veronica]

Were you listening? And here is the crux of the issue for Rush - NO

Too bad. Rush spelled it all out and it was very easy to follow. Much ado about nothing.

He used private bankers from US Trust (I think that was the bank) to bring him cash as a matter of convenience. *As many high-rollers do.*

THE BANK advised him (and all the other wealthy clients who did the same) - to get their money in increments of less than 10K to SAVE THE BANK the trouble of filling out certain forms. The bank got nailed eventually though and paid a 10M penalty.

That's it in a nutshell.

The fact is, that to someone with Rush's wealth, 10K is "walking around money" when they are building a house, etc. as Rush was at the time.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

You mean that magically determined governmental limit of $10,000 that is the threshold indicating illicit behavior? Get a grip.

[jbstrick]

Exactly. And Rush said on the radio this was during the time he and Marta were remodeling their Palm Beach home.

[Uncle Hal]

As I understood Rush, any cash withdrawal over $10,000 by a customer of a bank has to be reported by the bank to the Feds. The bank ( US Trust) simply advised Rush of the fact. Plus they would deliver it to him as a service to high income individuals. In addition the Bank did not want to do the paper work of reporting to the Feds. Evidently some of the banks customers were abusing this law by taking out deposits under $10,000 quite often. The Feds caught on to this and eventually fined the bank $10 million. Evidently some of the customers were using this cash for illegal activities. I assume the Feds said the bank should of known something was not right with all these cash withdrawals. It would appear to me somebody connected the dots and assumed Rush was money laundering as well. Rush said they only brought him cash 3 or 4 times. Remember there are very powerful and influential people in high places that want to bring Rush down once and for all.

[Servant of the 9]

If the Clintons were structuring money would you support them?
If John Gotti was structuring money would you support him?
If Martha Stewart was structuring money would you support her?
Or would you wonder for what purposes they would be withdrawing $400,000 in increments just under the $10,000 reporting limit?

I would support the Govt learning to catch people for commiting the crimes they committed, not failing to do so, then passing a new law that if you have money around you must be a criminal, because honest people don't use cash.

Now, if you have money, you must prove your inocence and hope you can get some of it back after the Civil Forfeiture Proceedings, another abomination.

So9

[alnick]

I don't think the final outcome of this is up to Rush. The facts will be used by the authorities in the manner they deem appropriate. Rush, of course says he didn't do it - what alledged criminal hasn't said that. Wacko Jacko is also claiming his innocence.

Guilty of withdrawing his own money from his own bank account. Book 'im, Dano.

[E.G.C.]

I just got finished listening to Rush's explanation of this matter.(His show airs on an hour dealy on WBAP.)Here are my thoughts.

This appears to be an outright attempt by some Democrat party butt-kissers and Bill Clinton butt kissers who obviously do not like that Rush and a lot of us christians and conservatives here on FR have been calling their beloved political dieties to the carpet on their actions and policies and what they are looking to do is try to smear his good name and focre him off the air.

This is symbolic of the ongoing fight between christians and conservatives and liberals, progressives and moderates. Those who are trying to force our elected officials to do the right things versus those amongest us who simply do not like that we are addressing these issues with our elected officials.

ABC is one of those enemy news organizations. They are no friend of FR just as CBS, NBC, CNN and all the other establishment news media news organizations. ABC appears to be on a witch hunt because their beloved poltical dieties have been called to the carpet over the last several years.

These are the very same people that look at christians and conservatives as a clear and present danger to our country and the very communities we live in and these a**holes will not rest until each and every christian and conservative is dragged out of his or her house and off to re-education camps and given the choice of an attitude adjustment or forced lobottomization. There are some amongest that would like to see this happen.

That's why this battle for the hearts and minds of Americans is more than ever a battle we must win. That's why I cotniue to support and stand by Rush because without him and his ambition to take on these goverment beureaurats, we as conservaitves and christians are in even greater peril.

GO GET 'EM RUSH. SHOW THESE A**HOLES WHO'S BOSS!!!!!
Regards.

[Area51]

Apparently, some people here believe that special "Rush provisions" have been written into state and federal statutes, allowing Mr Limbaugh to conduct activities that would be illegal if done by ordinary folk


114 posted on 11/19/2003 10:23 AM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Got a news flash for you. Pro ball players do it all the time. As an example, a sportsbar in the Detroit Area was a well known place for folks like Issah Thomas and others to go and write a check of 1-10 grand and walk out with thousands in pocket money.

The owner talked about having thousands on hand because of his clientel.

[longtermmemmory]

Given the nature of the IRS why would ANYONE want to red flag themselves. Make more than one withdrawal from seperate banks. The less seen you are to the tax man the better.

[1L]

The relevant concept here is "structuring", which is engaging in a significant pattern of structuring one's financial transactions so as to avoid triggering various financial reporting requirements by financial institutions.

How in the hell can you commit a big crime by doing any number of a series of small, legal actions? That's like saying in a 55 mph speed zone, it is illegal to go 54 more than 25 times. That's stupid.

Unless there is a statute prohibiting this structuring business, there is nothing the feds can do, absent other proof of illegalities.