Skip to comments.
RASH RUSH BLAMES WOE ON FOES
New York Post ^
| 12/24/03
| JOHN MAINELLI
Posted on 12/24/2003 1:40:18 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:18:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
December 24, 2003 -- Rush Limbaugh tore into Florida prosecutors on his radio show yesterday - suggesting they're part of an evil Democratic plot to defeat him "in the court of public opinion." The top-rated conservative talker, furious a judge is letting prosecutors examine his medical records for evidence of "doctor shopping," accused them of smearing his name through unsubstantiated leaks to the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boohoocrybaby; classless; facethefactsrush; limbaugh; noclass; rush; whineyjunkie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 201-213 next last
To: Woahhs
Nope, not judging Rush on his lawyer. I'm judging the statement made to me that this particular lawyer was "right".
61
posted on
12/24/2003 4:01:51 AM PST
by
dawn53
To: Bonaparte
Those are not examples of "goverment" imposed rights but professional rights.
To: steve50
There are specific constitutional standards of privacy that have to be met in any case and the constitution doesn't have to spell out "fraud case" "robbery case" "drug case" etc. exhausting all the possibilities, to apply to "any case." I give my cats more credibility than I give the judges of Florida at this juncture. They've already richly proven themselves with the 2000 cherrypick recounts and with Terri Schiavo.
To: steve50
By your definition of "rights" they're going to have to let a lot of people out of jail who are in on drug charges.Such as?
And you're right, that's a "no." Self-evident things don't require documentation by definition.
64
posted on
12/24/2003 4:03:51 AM PST
by
Woahhs
To: R. Scott
Are celebrities to be MORE vulnerable to ill-based fishing expeditions than John Q. Public? That's the argument you appear to be foisting.
To: Bonaparte
So you don't think doctor-patient confidentiality is a legal right? Doctors have been disciplined and even successfully sued in court for violating that. How about lawyer-client confidentiality? Confidentiality of the confessional?What I think has nothing to do with the issue. The federal government raided both doctor and lawyer offices a couple years ago in California and I saw no outrage over the loss of "privacy rights" here then. The precedent has been set. You guys are a couple years late to this argument.
66
posted on
12/24/2003 4:04:48 AM PST
by
steve50
("There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner.")
To: GRRRRR
Levin named two Dr's. who had their records seized. The DA alledges RUSH went back and forth to the 2 Dr's... Mark reveals, BOTH Dr's work at the SAME FACILITY...one was subbing for the other and issued prescriptions while the other guy was on vacation. The third Dr. was his EAR DOCTOR!!! Just proves they have nothing on Rush but are trying to damage him. I predict Rush will make them all eat crow. :)
67
posted on
12/24/2003 4:05:22 AM PST
by
veronica
(Monterey County Film Commission Screenwriting Contest /ATTN:FR writers/FReepmail me)
To: steve50
The precedent has been set. Federal precedent cannot be grafted to Florida executive actions under Florida law. Nice try but BZZZZT.
To: veronica
I predict that Rush will accept a plea then say later he did so only because his lawyer insisted that this would be the easiest route not because he was guilty of anything.
To: Woahhs
And you're right, that's a "no." Self-evident things don't require documentation by definition.Glad to hear it. Then anything I see as a self-evident right is beyond the reach of investigation or prosecution.
70
posted on
12/24/2003 4:09:12 AM PST
by
steve50
("There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner.")
To: R. Scott
If this werent Rush, but just some construction worker or cab driver, would people be so quick and rabid in their defense? What makes Rush so special? Are celebrities to be held to a much lower standard than the commoner? Excuse me?
We're FReepers, rabid argument is what we do: defense and offense ;0)
71
posted on
12/24/2003 4:09:16 AM PST
by
Woahhs
To: steve50
Only if you are in ideological agreement with me.
To: dawn53
I'm no dittohead. I hardly ever listen to him, although I will sometimes go to his website for info. That said -
#1) "She didn't blame the right for her husband's sexual adventures, she blamed them for making a big deal of it." Untrue. Hillary used the VRWC defense -before- it became proven that Bill was guilty. She accused the VRWC of completely fabricating all the charges against her husband.
#2) I've heard a dozen cops come out and claim that never, in their combined hundreds of years of law enforcement, heard of drug -dealers- granted immunity to convict a drug -user-.
#3) Ditto extortion. They've granted immunity to blackmailers in order to convict the victim of the blackmail. Unheard of.
If I saw that done to Begala and Carville, as much as I hate them, I would recognize that that is MESSED UP.
Qwinn
73
posted on
12/24/2003 4:12:26 AM PST
by
Qwinn
To: HiTech RedNeck
Federal precedent cannot be grafted to Florida executive actions under Florida law.These are Florida "judicial" actions, and if you think federal law doesn't set precedent for state law you're living in a dream world.
74
posted on
12/24/2003 4:12:28 AM PST
by
steve50
("There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner.")
To: Woahhs
Grey hair old ladies for Rush.
To: steve50
Then anything I see as a self-evident right That is a mendacious, beep-a-leeping strawman!!!
To: dawn53
Nope, not judging Rush on his lawyer. I'm judging the statement made to me that this particular lawyer was "right".Yeah, and you're predicating it on irrelevancies. Even Johnny Cochran would be right given the same circumstances.
77
posted on
12/24/2003 4:13:23 AM PST
by
Woahhs
To: steve50
Two different constitutions, two different law systems. Florida constitution can and DOES grant rights over and above Federal ones. You are dreaming yourself.
To: dawn53
Oh, one additional point. It is my understanding that in the "doctor shopping" law, it is actually specifically stated in the law that the information gathered in the investigation of that crime cannot be released to the general public. "Leaking" it is a crime. Well, it's been leaked. In fact, the results of that investigation have, by my understanding from the radio earlier, been published on a website for all to see.
THAT is messed up.
Qwinn
79
posted on
12/24/2003 4:16:51 AM PST
by
Qwinn
To: Truth29
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 201-213 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson