[RS]

"Please tell me how often it is that drug dealers and extortionists are given complete immunity in order to incarcerate the "common folk" drug users and extortion victims."

You are obviously not up to speed on this - Information that the Clines gave was used to close down a ring that was pushing hundreds of thousands of pills.

... and the extortion allegations never appeared until Blacks statements last week.

... and if Rush is telling the truth, then they are NOT drug dealers and do not need immunity... HHmmmmm ???

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/beshara1.html

[Qwinn]

Um, you don't understand. I haven't read your link (sorry, no time at the moment) but my understanding (from people -other- than Rush himself) is that all of the immunity given to the Clines was given -before- they revealed any complicity on their part. Basically, they said "we got the goods on Rush", were granted immunity, and they THEN went to the Enquirer and told their story.

If that original immunity was given for busting up a different and higher level ring, how does that justify their still having immunity for extorting millions from Rush? That is a serious, serious crime, and I for one can't think of a single reason why any revelations they may have given about drug lords above -them- would warrant being granted immunity for extortion. Their own drug dealing, sure, if what you say is true, I'll grant you that. But the extortion? No freaking way. They've had that immunity for a long while, regardless of when it became public in the papers.

Qwinn