Replies

My 2 bits:

1. Don't judge this story until you hear Rush's reaction. If he comes out and says its completely false--it probably is completely false.

2. There are a lot of details about this story that do not jive with what people know about Rush, how he sounds, how he has been acting, etc. Even if the story is not completely false, it is almost certainly embellished.

3. I don't buy the "the Enquirer couldn't print it unless it were true because it would be sued" line of reasoning. Rush is a public figure. To sue the Enquirer and win, he would have to show actual malice. Actual malice means proof that the Enquirer published the story knowing that it was false. Which means the Enquirer can publish any story somebody comes to it with, unless the Enquirer learns to a near certainty that the story is not true.

4. The "something" to this story, if there is a "something," could easily be that Rush for a short time, several years ago, while he was having his ear problems, did get hooked on some pain killer. In other words, something Rush won't be proud of, and makes him look bad, but is not a catastrophe.

Thanks for the advice. My original post was 2 links to background info of the "maid"'s lawyer and his connection to the other side. Something isn't right in this story and until we hear it from the "horse's mouth" we can do nothing but speculate. While awaiting those answers it can't hurt to become informed :). I hope you read the 2nd link I posted.

And .. as someone else said, the Enquirer has been successfully sued several time for it's overly embellished stories.

The key is to DISCREDIT RUSH - even if the story proves to be a totally false allegation, it's already out there - and will cause some people to doubt what he says.

WHO PROFITS FROM THAT RESULT ..?? DO I EVEN HAVE TO ASK ..??

4. The "something" to this story, if there is a "something," could easily be that Rush for a short time, several years ago, while he was having his ear problems, did get hooked on some pain killer. In other words, something Rush won't be proud of, and makes him look bad, but is not a catastrophe.

His ear problem was only about two years ago, believe it or not (I know, a lot has happened since 2001, time sure flies lately). And this maid was hired in 1998?

I do NOT think there's a "something" to this story. There is too much that's not mentioned, such as how a brand-new maid went from skimming pills off her husband's scrip to procuring thousands of them on the black market. Why she'd still work as a maid with that kind of side income going. And why the payment of $180,00 would provoke her to call the police on the payor.

Many many blank spots here, but the maid's looking a lot worse than Rush ever could, IMO...