Rush: A Preemptive Strike on Prosecutors Via Michael Jackson?

Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | 11/21/03 | LS

[LS]

Rush's limited comments on the Michael Jackson case sounded to me like he was speaking to the Florida attorneys after him rather than the Santa Barbara DA.

He said, "I have only one question: What if he's [Jackson] innocent?" Well, what if he is? At the very least it is clear that MJ is a sick individual with a fixation on young boys. Most people call this pedophilia.

But Rush's tone concerned me, as it seemed as though he was addressing his comments to the Florida prosecutors who are investigating him for his alleged drug purchases. Was this a pre-emptive strike against the media and prosecutors, suggesting he is innocent?

The fact that he raised it in this way concerned me. Until now, I have been satisfied that anything "illegal" he did was in the context of some "sting" operation where he might have been helping the police.

Yes, we have a presumption of innocence. But the LEGAL presumption of innocence for Jackson does not erase the REALITY of the 1993 deposition and the continuing nature of his abnormal relations with young boys. It wouldn't surprise me at all if MJ moonwalks, but, as Rush would say, "a tiger is a tiger." And a pervert is a pervert.

[sarasota]

Premptive strike? Yes. Definitely.

[.cnI redruM]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html

If a similar Bill of Indictment can be produced regarding Rush's money-laundering, I'll be convinced El Rushbo has truely compromised himself beyond repair.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Perhaps the caution is because there will need to be a great deal of evidence to PROVE sexual contact. I don't know that that would be easy, would it?

[LS]

You are exactly right. This will be tough to prove, and will be a "he said, she said," er, "he said, he/she said."

However, I have a suspicion that the DA has some forensic evidence that might be powerful. Nevertheless, it will be extremely difficult given the pressure (both negative sliming and bribe offers) that MJ will bring to bear on the family.

[madison10]

...it's tough to prove and the defense using the "race card" is weak. If only Jacko wasn't so flamin' odd.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I agree.

Geragos IS a good attorney. And, I think Jackson will do anything and everything to avoid conviction. He is a slimey b*stard, that's for sure. But, it doesn't mean much of anything if we THINK he is guilty, it has to be proven in court.

[BCrago66]

A pervert is a pervert, but the legal question is whether he acted on his perversion. We have here a somewhat political and unprofessional prosecuter - with the full power to get search warrants, use survailance, etc. - who after trying for about 10 years, has finally he come up with an indictment, based upon testimony of a 12 year old apparently mined by a pychologist. It's easy to implant ideas or testimony in a cancer-stricken 12 year old. So there is some basis for a factual presumption of innocence, not just a legal presumption. There's many kinds of mental illness - and Jackson is certainly a troubled person - but that doesn't make him an active pedophile.

[dixiechick2000]

I didn't hear his comments.

That being said, there are others who want to take him down.
Since you heard his comments, could it be possible he was addressing them?

[LS]

I'm not clear on your pronouns---others who want to "take who" down? MJ? Rush? Can you restate?

[LS]

Agreed, there is SOME factual presumption of innocence. But in the real world, combined with the 1993 affidavit, in my mind there is no question this guy is an active pervert.

[dixiechick2000]

LOL! Sorry...

You aren't a mind reader? ;o)

There are others who want to take Rush down.

[ml/nj]

... There's many kinds of mental illness - and Jackson is certainly a troubled person - but that doesn't make him an active pedophile.

Hear, hear!

An accusation against Jackson is an asset for the media. We can be sure that they would disregard their own interests and fairly report any facts which weigh in on Jackson's side. Right?

ML/NJ

[whereasandsoforth]

Mez thinks the DA has some sunstantial credible evidence or this thing would still be an investigation. Arresting Michael Jackson was not done on a whim or a vindetta. This case is proveable or it would not see the light of day.

[Howlin]

Geragos IS a good attorney.

He makes a mockery of the law.

He lies in the courtroom and to the press.

He claimed to have tapes that would prove Roger Clinton was set up by the police.

Never produced them.

He claimed that there were prescriptions for the drugs found in Winona Ryder's purse.

Never produced them.

So far he has claimed that everybody short of George W. Bush murdered Laci Peterson; no proof whatsoever.

He also said he would produce "within days, if not hours" the "real murderer" of Laci Peterson.

That was months ago.

He is SCUM and almost every single word out of his mouth is a flat out lie.

You can bet one thing: the only reason Geragos took that case for one reason: face time; he thought Scott's trial would be on TV and now it's not. Besides, the Petersons are running out of money!

Geragos even put up the bail money for Jackson!

[Howlin]

Lots of things about that case make me go "huh?" starting with Mark Geragos.

But the fact that she went to Larry Feldman FIRST gives me pause.

I'm afraid that this may be a case where it's true, but the wrong "victim," if you know what I want.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

If he isn't a good attorney, why did Jackson hire him?

[Howlin]

er.....what I mean.

It also sounds like Michael Jackson has been actively working to hide assets!

[Howlin]

Because they are going to trash the mother and the son -- and he's an expert at that. It's the only way Jackson can be found "not guilty."

He hasn't gotten one of his famous clients off yet! The case becomes a circus and it becomes more about Geragos than about the client; he's just dreadful, IMO.

[Howlin]

Oh, he also claimed that he had IN HIS POSSESSION the receipts for the stuff that Winona Ryder stole.......never produced those either.

He is just a flat out liar.

Did you notice how yesterday he said "Michael has returned to defend himself agains these charges," or something like that?

As if he had a CHOICE to "return."