Replies

FL has a first offender drug court. ALL first time offenders (illegally obtaining perscription drugs) are first sent to the special drug court. There the defendant is sent to treatment as a condition of pre-trial release. Upon completion of treatment the case is dismissed. No record. Same as anyone else. Noel Bush was a participant in the same program.

All participants are uses. All participants I have ever seen were caught red handed. They had bought in a sting operation, they had phoned in a fake perscription, or they were in posession of an illegal drug. There were no months on months of "investigation".

I believe Roy Blacks role in this is to make sure this case does not get more political than it already has. Remember Palm Beach is butterfly ballot country, a Gorezone. In prefiling, a defense lawyer communicates with the lawyer in charge of determining what and when to file charges. The defense lawyer can point out the mack truck weaknesses in the case. Since Rush would be elegible for drug court and the result would be a dismissal, why would any prosecutor want to file any case. They will look like idiots to their leftist/hate Rush friends.

The money laundering hoax is just that a hoax. It was settled two years ago and they can't tie the two together. Especially with how people improve their homes in the palm beach area. Cash on hand is SOP. Additionally, it is not laundering since no illegal source exists. It makes no legal sense for that charge to be brought.

Which leads me to firmly believe that the DNC and Clintonistas seek only to smear Rush, not charge him. The speculation and charges are there to diminish him.

Be on the lookout for more yellow journalism articles.

"Especially with how people improve their homes in the palm beach area. Cash on hand is SOP."

In other words, they keep cash around to pay workers, and do not bother to report it to the IRS? Isn't that an illegal form of money-laundering? Or is it just OK, since everybody does it?

Your logic escapes me, in this instance. It seems to fly in the face of your posit, that he did NOT launder money.

Cash on hand is SOP.

But that amount of cash would lead anyone to believe legitimate accounting is being avoided.

Additionally, it is not laundering since no illegal source exists. It makes no legal sense for that charge to be brought.

I don't disagree but I've heard that law enforcement routinely assume an illegal source and bring charges on that assumption. The defendant is then required to prove otherwise.