Rush: ABC Money Laundering Report 'Purposefully False'

NewsMax.com ^ | 11/19/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

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.

"Let me say right at the top that I have not laundered any money," Limbaugh said at the beginning of his broadcast.

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

ABC's "World News Tonight" anchorman Peter Jennings alleged in his Tuesday night broadcast, "The talk show host just finished five weeks of treatment. His legal difficulties may continue. Officials are looking into whether Limbaugh laundered money to support his drug habit."

The ABC anchor handed the story off to investigative reporter Brian Ross, who claimed, "Law enforcement officials in Florida and New York tell ABC News that Limbaugh may have violated state money laundering laws, in the way he handled huge amounts of cash to buy his drugs. A conviction on such charges in Florida could mean up to 30 years in prison."

The bogus report claimed the top talker had a pattern of withdrawing cash just below the federal reporting limit of $10,000, which is a red flag for drug and money laundering investigators.

But Limbaugh told his audience that when he came to New York in 1988, bankers from U.S. Trust solicited his business by promising he would not have to wait on long teller lines in the private banking area.

"If I needed cash, they'd bring it to me," the talker said he was told. "They had somebody bonded and they'd simply bring it to my office."

Instead of a reported 30 or 40 transactions made in New York, Limbaugh said he took advantage of the bank's cash courier "maybe four times, if that many." He says he was told that if he kept the withdrawals under $10,000, it would minimize paperwork and expedite the process.

"And so, that's what I did," Limbaugh explained.

Far from being any kind of drug slush fund, the conservative host said he withdrew the money form the same account his EIB paychecks were deposited in. What's more, he said the withdrawals had nothing to do with bankrolling his addiction to painkillers.

"The cash in question here - most of it had to do a two-and-a-half year remodel we did to the home in Palm Beach," he said. Limbaugh also applied some of the cash to everyday expenses like food, travel and gratuities.

In early 2001, he said, investigators with the Federal Reserve contacted him in connection with an investigation into U.S. Trust's cash withdrawal policy.

"The government was investigating U.S. Trust because the bank had apparently told many other of their clients that their cash withdrawals should be in amounts of less than $10,000," Limbaugh explained. "Shortly after they met with me U.S. Trust admitted to this, paid a $10 million fine and that's it," he said. "From that moment on, every cash withdrawal I've made has been for over $10,000."

[Ditto]

If paying for work on his home, he could just write a check.

Unless he's paying contractors under the table in which case, it's their IRS problem, not his.

[Space Wrangler]

Yes, if he keeps his mouth shut, any attempt to prosecute him on violation of these totally absurd laws will be seen for exactly what it is; a witchhunt. I also think it's important for the people here to understand that Rush was withdrawing HIS OWN MONEY from HIS bank account. How that can be construed as money laundering is baffling. I'd like to see Petah Jennings get his pants sued off for that little hit piece.

[ChocChipCookie]

If what Rush says is true, it would be plausible, especially if it was an extensive remodel. There may have been phases during construction where cash was preferred for whatever reasons. There may have been sub-contractors who asked for cash. Dh is an electrical contractor and did not find the cash issue to be unusual at all. If Rush's story is true, it should be easy to produce evidence, i.e. testimonies of contractors/sub-contractors.

I truly hope his explanation is completely true. I am hating the idea that his enemies are gleefully rubbing their hands together at the thought of taking down Rush Limbaugh.

[Maelstrom]

If you're a CSI fan, you know if you're $20 short of violating that law and resulting inquiry and paperwork, they'll add it to your stash on purpose from their own wallets.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

"If I say everything in a confident, condecending manner to you boobs and you trust ABCNEWS. I certainly can make up some Sources and get away with it."

[par4]

Nothing shady at all about paying in cash. I have a few close friends (with whom I have been known to work on occasion) who charge less for cash payments. It saves a whole lot of grief.

First, when purchasing materials like roofing, dry wall etc., contractors who pay cash dont get caught at the end of the month will outstanding charges, so there's less likely to be interest to be paid by the contractor.

Second, many smaller contractors don't take plastic. The credit compananies take a piece of the action, and margins are slim as it is.

Third, cash can't bounce like checks. Admittedly, Rush's checks are highly unlikely to bounce, but that doesn't mean that the contractor can immediately cash one of the checks to pay day laborers etc. And check cashing companies charge a fee for their service.

All in all, paying by cash is not at all unusual, especialy when dealing with smaller contractors like one and two man shops. Finally, those one man shops are more likely to do the specialized work like custom installs that wealthier people want.

[Paradox]

All in all, paying by cash is not at all unusual, especialy when dealing with smaller contractors like one and two man shops.

That was my experience when remodelling/rebuilding my home after Hurricane Andrew. But then I was being a tightwad and trying to save a buck everywhere I could. I just figure Rush would have a big contractor take care of everything, so it did sound a bit "shady", but possibly legit too. It remains to be seen what comes of this I suppose..

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Yet so many people who call themselves “conservatives” support this blatent trampling of the Bill of Rights, all because it supposedly advances their quixotic moral crusade.

Ahhhh, the bastardation of the English language redefining "Conservative", how leftist of you. "Conservatives" are for keeping drugs illegal, forever and ever Amen, because they don't want to pay tax dollars for people to make Mistakes. I don't care if its Rush who I like, or You, or some random punk teenager, I don't want any junkie to be able to legally destroy themselves and have the taxpayers pay for it. Rush would agree with me completely. You cranks that want drugs legal never seem to be able to comprehend that with our current social safety-net of Welfare, WIC, etc legalizing drugs makes it a nightmare for Americans taxpayers. I remember you trying to whine to me about your weird crusade against the War On Drugs before I promptly dispatched your lack of logic. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1023706/posts?page=60#60 but you are back at it within days.

Its almost like you have no short-term memory...

[dead]

You dispatched nothing, then or now.

You're still a socialist at heart, begging the federal government to make you comfortable.

Keep sucking the teat, baby. Mama government will always be there for you.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Like I said before, I am still having a hard time believing you are serious...because I HONESTLY can't believe anyone can be this confused.

But I guess you are. I am saying; legalizing drugs encourages a Socialist, Welfare state. Now you are calling me what you are advocating. What's black is white, white is black, this again is a longstand methodology of arguementation by the Left. Perhaps you don't get that because you have no experience of seeing what drug addiction gone unchecked does to an able bodied human. You, obviously are alot more naive.

Then again, maybe you are forgetting that legalizing drugs would affect the Welfare state, because of your obvious short term memory loss...

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Then there would be the issue of leaving yourself open to mechanic/materialmen's liens when you pay cash.

[veronica]

You can bet that Rush would not have talked about this on the air this morning if his lawyers had not vetted his story and given him the thumbs up to talk about it.

[dead]

Good Lord, you are dense!

I do not support the socialist state, nor its cousin the drug war.

Both are examples of the federal government intruding into areas where it doesn't have any business.

Unlike you, I am consistent. I am against the on-going expansion of the federal government. You completely support the expansion of the role and influence of the federal government in our lives, as long as they expand in ways that make you feel better taken care of.

Mine is the conservative position, shared by the likes of many conservatives, such as Jim Robinson and William Buckley. Yours is the position of a hypocrite.

You are now excused from the lesson, as I fear I am trying to teach logic to a fence post.

[lasereye]

"From that moment on, every cash withdrawal I've made has been for over $10,000."

Say what?

[Unicorn]

You do it however you want to do it.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

"Conservatives" are for keeping drugs illegal, forever and ever Amen

Government drug prohibition like alcohol prohibition is a pogrom invented by reformist, busy body, liberals--not conservatives. Prohibition and all of the big government warfare projects of the leftist socialists were opposed by all of the old real conservatives like H.L. Mencken and Albert J Nock.

It wasn't until they scared the wits out of what once was the old conservative opposition with the boogeymen of Fascism and Communism that the right finally embraced inquisitorial government pogroms like prohibition.

Here's what one of the last true conservatives, Robert Taft had to say in 1950 about how liberals got people like you to go along with their big government:

"We have over the past 20 years, in the interests of 'national security,' laid the foundations of the emerging American police state, where there is no liberty, no privacy and no peace. Persecution of dissenters of any kind will soon be as routine as egg and milk deliveries. No one will question the dictates of Washington. By winning the war against fascism, we have become the fascists and will probably lead the world into a horrfiying catastrophe from which few will live to tell the sad tale."--Robert Taft (1950)

[Timesink]

[F.J. Mitchell]

Go home Jennings, the stench of your rotton reporting would be less noticable in the cooler climes of Canada.

[martin_fierro]

[F.J. Mitchell]

It's Rush's money. Why he wants to tote it around in his pocket, comes under the heading of None of your business.