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 . . .

[WOSG]

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?

Show at the nearest IRS office with a cat o' nine tails. ... the good news: The cost of the whip is tax deductible! :-)

[WOSG]

"Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, because Osama bin Laden is funded by drug money. "

Ah, so now Rush is a heroine addict ... interesting.

[Aggie1]

So $10K represents a legitimate cause for the government to monitor a citizen. Would you be able to cite any portion of the Bill of Rights or Constitution where you would derive that was granted to the Federal Government?

I don't think anyone here is defending his actions. I'm not and in fact Rush is not.

I didn't fill in my race on the census form (in defiance of the law I might add) just to piss them off. Why would I do something like that! Well frankly it's none of their damn business. Ditto's if you withdraw $10K

[drjimmy]

Ah, so now Rush is a heroine addict ... interesting.
Don't you know that Oxycontin--Rush's drug of choice--is called hillbilly heroin? Besides, the ads weren't focusing on heroin, but rather on that much more terrible scourge: marijuana.

[RayChuang88]

The entire story smells more and more like a hit piece done just to smear Rush's name (just like those sexual harassment allegations that was intended to smear Arnold Schwarzenegger's reputation just before the recent recall election).

I think people forget to remember the money laundering involves the transfer of illegally-gotten gains (e.g., proceeds from illegal drug sales) to a legitimate bank account. You are forgetting that in the time period ABC mentioned in the report, Rush was earning over US$15 million per year in income for doing his talk radio show, and I'm sure he had several million dollars in funds legally earned from Premiere Radio Networks and deposited in US Trust's private bank section that he could withdraw in under US$10,000 transactions without having to report the transaction to the IRS technically legally.

In short, this case is a classic case of a tempest in a teapot, because the real entity in the wrong is US Trust, NOT Rush Limbaugh. The fact that both Limbaugh and his lawyer specifically denied these charges and the fact Federal regulators did not press charges against Limbaugh two years ago tells me there's no case here.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Considering the street value for most of those pills (hydrocodone or oxycodone, not oxycontin) is a couple of dollars a pill, he wouldn't have needed tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy those drugs.

Yep, even if the pills were say $10 a pill and he took 10 pills a day (would that kill you?) that would only be a $100 a day habit. $700 per week $3000 a month. He would have to have been buying 3 months at a time 4 times a year.

[george wythe]

It appears that 60 wealthy clients structured withdrawals from their own accounts aggregating more than $10,000, drawing checks in amounts less than $10,000 on consecutive days, thus avoiding reporting. This could constitute the federal crime of "structuring" and the money police insist, should have triggered reports of suspicious activity by the bank.

All of us are criminals. There are so many laws, so subjective, so intrusive, that it is impossible to brush our teeth without breaking a dozen of laws or regulations.

I hope one day conservatives will wake up and remember Ronald Reagan's words:

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

I hear some conservatives claim that the intrusive War on Drugs and Patriot Act are for them not for us

Now that one of us is being pilloried, I hope we will realize that we need fewer laws, not more laws.

[george wythe]

Weren't you watching the Super Bowl last year? According to the TV commercials the Bush adminstration spent millions of dollars to air, Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, because Osama bin Laden is funded by drug money.

Yeah, I also remember the commercial about pot leading to pregnancy.

The anti-pot commercial I saw implied that a girl who smoked pot got pregnant because of "impaired judgment."

Two parents hold a pregnancy test that they, no doubt, spent a good $20 on. Shocked, the parents realize that the test comes up positive. Yep, they’re 40 years old and are about to have a baby.

But wait, the commercial isn’t done. The camera pans to a young girl, maybe 15 years old, who is clearly the pregnant one. Yes, she has smoked herself pregnant, because marijuana lowers your inhibitions.

What the commercial neglected to tell us was that her pothead boyfriend had a very slow sperm count :-)

Sperm in men who smoke marijuana regularly lose stamina and burn out which may prevent conception, said a study released on Monday.

The study by the State University of New York in Buffalo, New York, is the first to focus on the swimming patterns of sperm in men who smoke marijuana, the authors say.

"The sperm from marijuana smokers were moving too fast too early," said Lani Burkman, lead author of the study, in a statement.

"I definitely would advise anyone trying to conceive not to smoke marijuana, and that would include women as well as men," Burkman said.

Pot can lead to pregnancy and pot can prevent pregnancy.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

A setup is not a multiyear habit of him buying large quantities of prescription opiates and misusing them.

But that is also not money laundering. That is spending money on illegal drugs.

You are trying to focus the arguement away from the facts in order to make Rush look bad.

You are such an obvious little troll.

[Cobra64]

Yes. I did have receipts.

[Lurking Libertarian]

All of us are criminals. There are so many laws, so subjective, so intrusive, that it is impossible to brush our teeth without breaking a dozen of laws or regulations. I hope one day conservatives will wake up and remember Ronald Reagan's words:

You realize that Ronald Reagan was the one who gave us the "anti-structuring" law?

[Lurking Libertarian]

So $10K represents a legitimate cause for the government to monitor a citizen. Would you be able to cite any portion of the Bill of Rights or Constitution where you would derive that was granted to the Federal Government?

The U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the law is here. As you will see by clicking on the link, the Court's opinion was written by Justice Rehnquist, and the Government's brief was written by Robert Bork. Rehnquist, for the Court, answered your question as follows:

"The plenary authority of Congress over both interstate and foreign commerce is not open to dispute, and that body was not limited to any one particular approach to effectuate its concern that negotiable instruments moving in the channels of that commerce were significantly aiding criminal enterprise."

Isn't it just grand how the War on Drugs makes "conservatives" into fans of big government?

[george wythe]

You realize that Ronald Reagan was the one who gave us the "anti-structuring" law?

Thank you for the historic clarification.

I thought it was Nixon, another Republican, who came up with this regulation.

At any rate, point well taken. Reagan compromised many times, but he still spoke the truth eloquently.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Thank you for the historic clarification. I thought it was Nixon, another Republican, who came up with this regulation. At any rate, point well taken. Reagan compromised many times, but he still spoke the truth eloquently

Nixon came up with the original law (1970) that required banks to report cash deposits or withdrawals over $10,000. Reagan gave us the amendment (1986) that made it a crime to split up transactions ("structuring") to avoid the reporting.

[50sDad]

Work with me...how does a rich man taking out his own money exactly launder money? And if Rush is outside the scheme, why would they tell him to participate in it if the main purpose was to enable others to launder money? And why did the official investigation not put anyone in jail if there was something illegal going on?n I'm not clear how asking Rush (and by implication, other non-involved rich clients) to limit his withdrawals exactly benifits the mythical drug-lords involved in all this.

[GOP_Muzik]

My wife and I came into a very large sum of $$$ when her grandmother died, and when we built our house (nothing like Rush's, trust me), I paid ALL of my subcontractors in cash, but kept record of these transactions for the IRS. I was taking weekly withdrawls of $9,500 because my CPA advised me to do so in order to avoid the mountains of intrusive paperwork. Unlike Rush's case, my bank was not advising me to do so or helping me to do so. I STILL was paid a visit by a DEA agent one day..because they had been monitoring my bank for one reason or another. To this day I still make my cash withdrawls (though certainly not very often) in the $9k range because it makes it easier to deal with.
I think we are missing one important point here (and I believe Rush touched on this but couldn't elaborate). ABC news "broke" the story, although they had this information for 2 years. ABC is owned by Disney. Disney is run by a VERY leftist CEO. Disney also owns ESPN. Does anyone remember the crack that Rush made about Kennedy and ESPN on his first day back? Funny how suddenly this story makes it onto Peter Jennings desk the day after that remark. Think about it. Second point: If the story had one shred of truth to it, Rush would NOT have denied it during his show, because his lawyers would have strongly suggested he remain tight lipped about it if there were any legal implications (such as the painkiller story).

[Walkin Man]

As another freeper already said, dope dealers don't take checks...

[BOOTSTICK]

Taking numerous withdrawls of less than $10K is a crime?????, what nonsense. Millionairs the nation over do this everyday.

[Aggie1]

Yep. You've got to think it through. And you can see by what is being brought up here - withdrawals under $10K - are now being scrutinized. The threshold was $10K but someone withdrawing less that 10K is being monitored. Where does it stop $1,000? $100.00? Besides 20 years from now 10K may actually be like 1,000 if we have strong inflation again like in the 70's - a gift from our friend Jimmy.

So someone gets in trouble for doing something perfectly legal because it prevented the government from monitoring them. Say what?

The power to monitor is the power to control. When will it be illegal to pull the window shades down?

The price of freedom is constant vigilance. It's too bad but it rings true.