Posted on 12/24/2003 6:20:48 AM PST by Always Right
Rush Limbaugh needs to resolve this malicious prosecution as quickly as possible and do so to the benefit everyone. The case the prosecutors are building against Rush appears likely to be trumped up charge of money laundering and doctor shopping. Rushs real crime was becoming addicted to pain-medication, which he has admitted and has sought appropriate treatment for. Rush is a first-time offender and should be punished as such. The prosecutor however has given immunity to the maid for much more serious charges to pursue these minor charges against Rush. It is unheard of that a prosecutor would do this, and the only explanations can be the prosecutor is seeking personal gain from this case or is on some political vendetta. This type of prosecution is unethical and should stop. If this was any other person, this case would not have been pursued or there would have been a reasonable plea-bargain long ago. This is will be a very expensive case if it goes to trial, and the level of this crime is clearly not worth spending more tax dollars on.
So what should Rush do? If I were Rush, I would immediately pledge $2 million dollars to drug treatment programs in Florida. However, for every dollar the prosecutor spends from now on this over-zealous prosecution, I would reduce that pledge. I would also volunteer to speak out against drug abuse around the state and give Florida a few PR announcements on his program. It is a joke of that prosecutors are apparently seeking to put Rush in jail for this. Rush has been as open as possible on this subject without putting himself at the complete mercy of this over zealous prosecutor. Yes, Rush should pay for his crime, but the punishment must fit the offense. The politics of personal vendettas and personal gains has no place in criminal prosecutions.
This would not be perceived well. Would you recommend that Kobe Bryant do the same thing? Michael Jackson?
Rushs real crime was becoming addicted to pain-medication, which he has admitted and has sought appropriate treatment for. Rush is a first-time offender and should be punished as such.
By your judgement, perhaps. It's still open to discovery and prosecution and judgement whether or not doctor-shopping (illegal in his state) can be proven, as well as buying them from a non-physician (Stupid sure picked a great state to screw up in).
It's not a crime to become an addict: it's a crime to obtain materials BY THE WRONG (illegal) METHODS - which it still has to be judged whether or not he did. The law was on the books before anyone found out he was goofballing. Also "he sought appropriate treatment"; BY WHOM? What do THEY have to say about his treatments? Was it a real rehab center or did he just confidentially cool it for a while at some friend's place? As for 'first time offender' status: that only washes IF the crime was comitted ONCE (i.e. getting caught at your first holdup) - it doesn't work if he made purchases on more than one occasion. Otherwise, muhammad & malvo would be first-time offenders too since they were only caught once.
Rush has been as open as possible on this subject without putting himself at the complete mercy of this over zealous prosecutor.
IOW: he's been as open as is possible to the limit of avoiding disclosing incriminating evidence. Thats' why you hire a lawyer - to determine exactly where the line is drawn and fight against anything after that. If he IS found guilty (extending your previously mentioned idea): should he then be required to pay the prosecutor's costs too for extending this defensive farce?
IMO: I equate your "putting himself at the complete mercy of this...prosecutor" to "telling the complete truth to this prosecutor".
Hey, it worked for Michael Jackson.
Since Rush has frequently or at least annually, sang the praises of our founding fathers for pledging their fortunes, families, and sacred honor to the quest for liberty, why does he not do the same?
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."
The "people" surely have the "retained" right to consume the chemical of their choice to help lessen or eliminate pain we suffer in our bodies.
Laws by government to the contrary are blatantly unconstitutional.
A true conservative, one who wishes to conserve the constitution and it's protection of liberty, should fight this possible indictment for illegal activity tooth and nail, especially since he has the fortune to pledge to the fight for libery of which he has accumulated over the years from his radio program.
But I am sure he will not take my recommendation seriously and that is quite frankly why I devote less and less time to the task of listening to his radio program.
The "talk" is cheap. The preaching to the choir is tiresome. It is time for action.
He and I are both from Missouri. The motto of the great State of Missouri is "The Show Me State."
It is time to "show me" that you believe in liberty.
You are absolutely, 100% correct. I could not have said it better.
See post number 25 for my remakrs about the issue of liberty concerning Rush Limbaugh's predictament.
If this were Jesse Jackson who did this and not Rush this board would be all over him.
The only reason he stopped is because he got caught.
Let my put my asbestos suit on. Okay, flame on.
By that convuluted logic, all criminals should pay prosecutor's cost. I can see you really support equal application of the law....
IMO: I equate your "putting himself at the complete mercy of this...prosecutor" to "telling the complete truth to this prosecutor".
So you suggest Rush should just freely give up his 5th Amendment protections? Yeah, I can see where you are coming from....
There might be cries to prosecute from people who hate Jackson, but no honest prosecutor would pursue the case under these circumstances. Shoot, even Lanny Davis is saying that this case should not be prosecuted.
A) Rush has done concerning his addiction. It could be more, it could be less.
B)That the prosecution is investigating only those allegations that have made the news.
C) We don't know if Rush is willing to pay for his crime as minimal or otherwise as it may be. So far he seems to believe that his outing is sufficient punishment.
I realize that criminal and personal self incrimination are quite different. But if your boss asked you for all the records necessary to find something to fire you about and you tried to keep some from him, would you be co-operating fully? Where do you draw the line in terms of self incrimination?
Then that shoots the left is trying to get him by all means possible.
Rush has done, what any adictition program would have demanded. More than some too.
B)That the prosecution is investigating only those allegations that have made the news.
That is incorrect.
The prosecution is collecting every shread of potential evidence
in order to determine which crimes they can charge.
This is not investigating a crime, this is collecting the blocks and figuring out what they can build.
C) We don't know if Rush is willing to pay for his crime as minimal or otherwise as it may be. So far he seems to believe that his outing is sufficient punishment.
At most Rush should pay what anyone else would have to "pay", treatment.
The FL courts have a drug treatment intervention system.
Upon completion the case is dropped. Not dismissed, not "not guilty", just plain dropped.
He should not be willing to "pay" one dime or second more than that.
On Hardball last night, Davis said that it sounded to him that the prosecutor was going to indict Rush.
No - and I'm surprised that you would think so - telling the complete truth when questioned IS NOT equal to giving up one's 5th ammendment rights. It's what you're supposed to do whether or not you're under oath. Do you teahc your kids to tell the truth or to contest everything every step of the way?
How do you define "compelled to be a witness against oneself". Forced? Threatened? Tortured? Under Oath?
IMO: your name may match your attitude; it seems in direct opposition to reality.
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.