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 . . .

[Orangedog]

Perhaps you should look again, you know, the whole WoD's thingy!

Don't you get it?! The laws of the drug war are wonderful and if they are ever used on conservative talk show hosts, well, that's just democrats abusing the law. Nope, nothing wrong with the laws at all here. [/sarcasm]

[Orangedog]

What I want to know is. When people with secret accounts die, who gets the money.

The lawyers, of course.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

When you do millions in remodelling, do you pay in cash? And if the contractor asks for cash only, that should send up red flags.

I built a house recently (admittedly not millions) and paid some of the subcontractors in cash. Where do I go to turn myself in? Or will a government re-education center be sufficient?

[deport]

If this thing were a real problem for Rush, his lawyers would never have let him discuss it on the air.

---

I think I heard a clip from that Kennedy lawyer Roy Black that is representing Limbaugh say that he hasn't done anything illegal regarding the withdrawals..

[alnick]

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.

Oh, he was building a house at the time? I would think that that fact would be included in the article that ABC ran, as well as whether or not the pattern of withdrawals continued to occur after the house was completed or before construction began. If the "structuring" occurred only during the construction of the house, it's obvious what the money was used for, not that it's anyone's business.

[whattajoke]

you Rush-bots are too much. Can I assume you were also saying several weeks ago that "no way is the drug stuff true." Then, after Rush admitted it was true it was, "What an honorable man, admitting his failings," (completely ignoring the irony in that).

Now, it's "he was remodeling his house," and needed $9900 in 30 increments to fund it.

The man is not Jesus. He is fallible. He has a few failed marriages, failed jobs, failed weight issues, and he failed us all by going to a horse-whispering rehab instead of the jail he has wished on others.

Listen, I love that Rush is popular and I love most of what he says. I, however, see a troubled addict who happens to have a voice on radio. Nothing more.

[all_mighty_dollar]

>>>Just as you say to lauder money it needs to be illegally obtained to start with.This is just some of those Neanderthal Liberal Democrats trying to take the attention off of their people leaking classified information from the security council and to cover up their manipulation of the court decision on Affirmative Action they rigged. The Nation needs to be reminded daily the elected Democrats in this country are the ones trying to overthrow our constitution and that Rush Limbaugh is not elected. In my opinion the Democrats are trying to overthrow America by controlling the Judicial System and it wouldnt surprise me one bit if they were not aiding Saddam Hussein indirectly.<<<

Absolutely correct IMHO - The Democrats are trying to deflect attention from the numerous and all encompassing failures of their past and present policies which subvert our legal system and have the effect of aiding USA enemies.

However, there is a huge need to get the information out to a work/tax oppressed public who have little idea that the Dems are 'trapping' them on the 'plantation' with their liberal policies.

I spent some time waiting at the Kali Franchise Tax office the other day & got into a confrontation political debate with an ill-informed liberal teacher who appeared to have never had her opinions question before. It's time we 'confront' these people no matter how 'loud' it get because they are outrageously uninformed.

Another benefit, once the volume picked up the San Jose Kali tax staff really got interested to speeding up the exasperating wait we were being subjected to.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I hope you are kidding. Because how ever much money you withdraw from the bank is not anyone's business. The Feds have said if someone does withdraw 10k or over they are to be notified. And now the feds say well if you withdraw 9900 we want to know also. Where will it stop.

Good point. The way the law was originally written (1970, thank you President Nixon's war on drugs), banks had to report cash deposits and withdrawals over $10,000 to the Government. Courts generally held that it was not illegal to take out $6,000 on Monday and $5,000 on Tuesday to avoid the reports, so, in 1986 (thank you, President Reagan) the statute was amended to make it illegal to "structure" a transaction in order to avoid the reporting requirement. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held (Ratzlaf v. United States, opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) that you were not guilty of "structuring" unless you knew that structuring was illegal; the law was immediately amended (thank you, President Bush) to make it illegal to "structure" even if you didn't know it was illegal to do so.

Each of these laws, incidentally, was justified by the need to detect drug dealers.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So, did you get a receipt so that the sub couldn't hit you with a bogus lien later on?

[longtermmemmory]

The purpose of the story is not to prove, just imply. The goal of the story is to imply rush is drug dealer. It is yellow journalism, no differnt than the made up lines in CBS' "the reagans".

ABC should publicly retract and identify the clintonista who fed them the story.

[sausageseller]

I pay for almost EVERYTHING in cash!

Can I get a ride with you?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

And did you report those payments over $600 via 1099, so that you wouldn't have any Kimba Woods style problems?

[beezdotcom]

If you were any good, you'd have made that 'post number 43'.

[uncbob]

He said the bank asked him to do it to "reduce paperwork". The bank told this to many other customers.

I can see this
Bank trying to cut down on paper work so they ask customers to keep withdrawals under $10K I doubt the bank was trying to aid drug dealers etc

More INSANITY from the great WOD

[sausageseller]

$9900 in 30 increments to fund it.

SS. You believe Peter Jennings and ABC? You do have problems!

[riri]

Where do I go to turn myself in?

I hear you. Insanity.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Oh, hey, I just remembered how we torpedoed Zoe Baird over unreported payments as well. Wonder if Rush made any comments on that?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So who did Rush buy his drugs from? Walgreens? CVS? Rexall?

[lewistopher]

don't recall Rush's take on that...but there are no reports of unreported payments perpetrated by Rush.

you can't launder money by withdrawing it (because that leaves a paper trail, see.)

[Orangedog]

The purpose of the story is not to prove, just imply. The goal of the story is to imply rush is drug dealer. It is yellow journalism, no differnt than the made up lines in CBS' "the reagans".

The problem isn't the media. Rush has been able to handle them for going on two decades now. If the story is a lie and the police are not ivestigating him for structuring, then he will own that TV network. The problem is the BS law and how it can make anyone with more than two cents to rub together look like a criminal, all in the name of the war on drugs.