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.

[stands2reason]

I hope the outcome of this is acquittal for Jackson, the imprisonment of the parent or parents for extortion, and the placement of the "child" in a decent home---

Well, so far the parents haven't asked for a dime from Jacko. But, I guess all's fair to defend him, right?

[LS]

Very interesting comments about the Fl. courts. Why, then, do they constantly refer to this "ongoing" police investigation? Is there any chance Rush is possibly working with the cops on a sting?

You may be right on his desire to avoid the pedophilia issue. It just sounded suspicious the way he phrased it, and another poster accurately pointed out that suspicion of Rush's comments like this is a natural outcome of his getting involved in the drugs (or, perhaps more appropriately, his unwillingness to immediately "come clean" several weeks ago).

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I thought the facts in '93 were in Jackson's favor but he settled becuase the family wouldn't let the case drop?

The prosecutor took several pictures of Jackson's Johnson (I just had to type that) and it contradicted the "victim's" testimony. So they did not pursue a criminal case.

It could be I just don't remember.

[BCrago66]

I just now began to look at the affidavit on Smokinggun.com, then I remembered my comments earlier today and I decided I better say that what I said before is moot. The guy is a sicko. No presumption of innocence, except in court of law, and that should be overcome soon.

[GodBlessUSA]

I hope this answers your ? as to money laundering. Rush went into more detail during the show

From Rush's show and website:

The story on ABC News, World News Tonight last night was that there is a money laundering investigation of me that is underway. Let me say here at the top of the program, ladies and gentlemen, that I have never, I have not laundered any money. I want to give you the truth of the story that was sketchily passed on last night, and as I say I know where it came from, I know who's behind it, and I know what its intent is, and you must understand, and I've been saying this since the Friday before I left, a lot of things that people think they know that are not true, think they know that they don't know, and the time will come soon where all this can be explained but for now I have to hold it in check. But I can address this money laundering business that ABC ran last night and a couple of New York newspapers have picked up.

[GodBlessUSA]

E.D. Hill on Fox and Friends said the same thing this morning. Do you question her motives for her comment or just Rush's?

[LS]

My understanding was exactly the opposite---that the photographs completely validated the victim's descriptions.

[Geezerette]

Didn't Geragos also represent Susan MacDougal?? And we all know about Susan MacD!

g

[BARLF]

Wondering who paid Geragos when he defended Susan?

[harpo11]

Rush said the truth will prevail, "sooner not later"on Wednesday when he was addressing the stupid money laudering ABC news item that not only concerned him but several US Trust customers. Why ABC and the stoolie that ragged on Rush, only mentioned Rush, and framed their story in such a hostile and falacious manner is another story entirely.

Rush aid he knows who is putting out this crap (my words) and he is chomping at the bit to tell us, but can't right now.

I wish he could and would. I really want to know who is leading this terrible vendetta against Rush. We can only imagine right now but we can safely say whoever they are they are no friend to conservatives.

BTW, I agree, Rush in speaking about MJ, was also speaking from his own heart.

[longtermmemmory]

Such cases are first assigned to filing attorneys, they decide which specific charges to file a case under. The "ongoing" nature just means they have not published a declining of filing charges. Personally I believe they are just siting on the charges because they do not want to look like idiots. He may be working with them, but what would a user have to offer since they have his supplier on multiple other charges.

Prosecutors can be pretty obtuse in letting a charging decision dangle.

As a first time offender, they HAVE to extend the option of drug court to rush. That is if they can PROVE in a court of law that rush aquired the drugs illegally.

The only other probablilty is the politcs involved. Rember the maid's attorny is a Clinton lawyer. I also really believe the charges are more valuble to the left and the DNC unfilled. They can use that to impune. It is the equivalent of saying bush has not "gravitas" talking point.

[longtermmemmory]

My understanding is that under the old law, a child victim could not be subpoenaed to compel testimony in a molestation case. The new laws permit compeling testimony. What happened 10 years ago, could not happen today.

(many states have adopted the same rule in domestic violence cases.)

[Rushian]

LS, you might remember that Rush, almost singly in the media, struck a similar pose about the allegations against Richard Jewell and his part in the Olympic bombing in Atlanta. Seems to me his actions, as recounted by you, are totally in character with his previous reservations about Jewell's guilt, which were later proved to be correct.

[longtermmemmory]

Michael Jacks is weird but is he a homosexual?

[oyez]

......but is he a homosexual? Now you know that is an errevalent question. What difference does that make? Its like asking about race or sex. This court case is going to be so politicaly correct that barf bags are going to be standard item in the court room.

Mr Jackson is guilty, alright, but I don't expect him to spend a day in jail.

[oyez]

errevalent = irrevalent (sorry)

[Calvin Locke]

Premptive strike?

I don't think the giddy-ness of the DA's first press conference did the prosecution any favors.

IMHO, he seemed to make light of the seriousness of the charges, and quite frankly, that he may have a vendetta against Jacko.

Hmmm, since I'm put off by pre-trial speculation in general, I'll have to avoid the news channels for several more months.

It's never going to end - Petersen/Bryant/Jackson.

Can't even watch the History Channel with all the Kennedy crapola. Skiffy Channel's no better. Bravo's running the Left Wing.

And they wonder where all the male viewers have gone.

[Hacksaw]

It's amazing how similar MJ fans and Rush fans are- their "hero" can do no wrong

Lets see... Who do I give a greater benefit of the doubt to - Rush Limbaugh or some guy "WackyKrap" on Free Republic? I think I'll take Rush. He may be guilty, but I already know you're a prick.

[LS]

I recall this well. He was exactly right. Notice, though, that he did not take such a stance with anything regarding the Clintons. I submit to you that in the former case, there was absolutely no reason to suspect Mr. Jewell, and in the latter, there was EVERY reason to suspect the Clintons.

Therefore, it seems pretty logical to me that there is EVERY reason to suspect Mr. Jackson of virtually everything that has been alleged, and probably some things that haven't been alleged, based on his prior behavior. I would think Rush, to be consistent, then, would give little credence to the notions that he "didn't do it." In contrast, I think the Kobe case is much more ambiguous. But the only thing ambiguous about Mr. Jackson is his sexual identity, and, perhaps, race.

[LS]

Of course, as we all know, if the kid (or his parents) are being paid off, he will lie on the stand. It's going to be a long shot to get Jackson, unless they have live film!