Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush: I'm No Money Launderer
NewsMax ^ | 11/19/03 | Limbacher

Posted on 11/19/2003 9:31:21 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241 next last
To: TomB
The OCs have a street value of $10-$20 per pill, depending on region and local economies. I've known people whose own claimed use cost anywhere from $200.00 to $400.00 per day, and they were still functional.
81 posted on 11/19/2003 10:03:59 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
I saw exactly the same denial and excuses when the story of Rush's drug use broke:

One major difference:

When the drug story broke, Limbaugh didn't comment on the story other than to say he couldn't say anyting. Here, he spelled out the entire story.

82 posted on 11/19/2003 10:04:10 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
inconveniencing government spying on you = money laundering

I guess I too am a money launderer. Any drug warriors want to come arrest me?

How do laws like this even get on the books. It's disgusting. I hope Rush DID do it, and he hires a brilliant lawyer who eventually gets this law struck down.

Actually, I hope that about his drug use, too, if they try to prosecute him for that. I don't CARE what drugs he used or why he used them - and since he wasn't hurting anyone else, no one else outside his familiy should care either.
83 posted on 11/19/2003 10:05:01 AM PST by mansion (Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
He really will need to explain those kinds of cash withdrawals, in light of how they look.

Why?

84 posted on 11/19/2003 10:05:58 AM PST by MrsEmmaPeel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
And those people were all wrong, weren't they?


75 posted on 11/19/2003 10:01 AM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]




Not being a great fan of Rush I don't deny that there were plenty of excuses, however seeing you are the one in the know, how about you spell out all the facts pertaining to the charges.

Roy Black will be particulary interested. Given that neither he nor his client has made any public statements reagarding them.

85 posted on 11/19/2003 10:06:06 AM PST by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
My point is that the story has not been told, and we are supposed to think INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. The drugs he may or may not have been getting illegally don't even cost the amount of money indicated, either, so linking an innuendo (illegal purchase) with another (money laundering) isn't even a logical path.

For myself, I made no proclamations that he wasn't an addict, but was hoping that he was clean. Sadly, my hopes were dashed.
86 posted on 11/19/2003 10:06:20 AM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: xrp
If there was a consumption based tax, instead of an income tax, it would be much more simple for the government (US or European) to collect taxes and the intrusion into private life would not be needed.

Bump that. Take three minutes to look at a National retail sales tax FAQ here.

87 posted on 11/19/2003 10:06:55 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
The OCs have a street value of $10-$20 per pill, depending on region and local economies. I've known people whose own claimed use cost anywhere from $200.00 to $400.00 per day, and they were still functional.

That number is high, but even so, it doesn't lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in that short a period of time.

88 posted on 11/19/2003 10:07:23 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
Who doesn't want to avoid the attention of the feds...

Thanks Servant. You made my point much clearer...

89 posted on 11/19/2003 10:08:20 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Lucky2
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?
90 posted on 11/19/2003 10:09:01 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (I have a plan. I need a dead monkey, empty liquor bottles and a vacuum cleaner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Principled
WHY does he need to explain about his withdrawals??? Do you explain all your bank withdrawals here???
91 posted on 11/19/2003 10:09:10 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
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.

Its a little more than that. Its the issue of "structuring" and the illegal transactions that the "structuring" is used to conceal. More accurately, "structuring" for the purpose of concealing $400,000 in illegal drug purchases is what's relevant.

Rush and his supporters will continue to ignore this, but his enemies won't--especially when they know that no matter how tangled up Rush and the conservatives get in their own police state, they will never repudiate it, just like Clinton never repudiated the inquisitorial "harassment" laws (that he promoted) that made him answer all those personal questions. Rush will do the same thing. He won't say, "Kiss off. I live in a free republic where we can do whatever we want with our money and put whatever we want into our bodies." No, in public Rush will try to account for how he spends all of his cash, just like Clinton had to tell everybody the dirtiest details about his blowjobs from his groupies.

92 posted on 11/19/2003 10:09:20 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
Pack your bags, sell your house and get the He@# out of FLorida before those same FLorida supreme court judges find your case in front of them! OH, and don't help New York either - move your station to a nice, conservative state that will not tax you to death! How about Arizona for a change of pace?

His real problem is federal, not state. I would suggest the canton of Zug, in Switzerland. The radio facilities there are pretty decent, too.

93 posted on 11/19/2003 10:09:50 AM PST by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
If someone is involved in an illegal activity using $100 checks, it's still illegal.

That much should be clear. My question relates to the illegality of withdrawing money itself, not the related activity.

94 posted on 11/19/2003 10:10:06 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
I agree with the law, but its application in this case sounds squiffy to me

Actually, I don't agree with the law-it is oppressive and violates everyone's privacy rights.

But "structuring" is part of the law.

There are a lot of guys in federal prison right now on money laundering charges related to drugs.

The War on Drugs should apply to everyone equally until the hopefully soon coming day when the insane war ends.

95 posted on 11/19/2003 10:10:08 AM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: newcats
"If he wasn't trying to hide something then why the numerous withdrawls under the $10,000 limit?"

Probably because he didn't want to go through the hassle of filling out the paper work required with a greater than $10,000 withdrawal. Most people who needed to withdraw 10-20k would do it in a couple of trips rather than go through that hassle.

96 posted on 11/19/2003 10:10:13 AM PST by iranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
The drugs he may or may not have been getting illegally don't even cost the amount of money indicated, either,

Illegal drugs do cost insane amounts of money, and you don't legally purchase mass quanities of drugs without a prescription in the parking lots of Denny's and Amaco.

97 posted on 11/19/2003 10:10:43 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (I have a plan. I need a dead monkey, empty liquor bottles and a vacuum cleaner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
All this stuff about your money being your own busines is nonsense. THis is how they fight the drug war, which from what I gather, most freepers support.
98 posted on 11/19/2003 10:10:43 AM PST by WarrenGamaliel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel
It is a PR issue for him, nearly as much as it is a legal matter. His purchase of narcotics, if done illegally, injected large amounts of cash into the hands of someone who was illegally procuring and distributing prescription narcotics. It isn't the same as him buying them through legitimate sources who were mistaken as to the extent of his need for them.

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

99 posted on 11/19/2003 10:12:29 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Welcome to FR, danamco.

WHY does he need to explain about his withdrawals???

I don't think he needs to explain.

100 posted on 11/19/2003 10:13:44 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson