Replies

His failure to say that today means that the story is likely true, at least in part. What he did say sounded a lot like "I don't know how much they can prove, and won't know what to say until I do." A sad situation...

Most likely it means: HE CANNOT SAY DUE TO ONGOING LEGAL INVESTIGATION!!! If I have to say that to one more moron on this board I'm gonna barf. WE are not the judge and jury. He will tell us when he is able. Dear God, I hate stupid people.

Exactly right....

I am sure that his lawyer, if he is a good one and I know he is, has advised him NOT to get into a p*ssing contest with the media by responding to something they print. There have been NO OFFICIAL charges against him and there may NEVER be. So not responding or commenting is the correct thing to do. From a legal perspective he could only hurt himself by saying anything at this time.

As for those of you who are whining about "why doesn't Rush just say he's innocent? Then it would be OK". I only need to remind everyone of this....

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"

Did that make you feel better? Does that show you how valuable a blanket declaration of innocence would be?

Most likely it means: HE CANNOT SAY DUE TO ONGOING LEGAL INVESTIGATION!!!

Give me a break. He's done nothing wrong, and it's going to put him in legal jeopardy to say "I've done nothing wrong"? If he's never taken a single pill for which he didn't have a prescription, why can't he say that?

If I have to say that to one more moron on this board I'm gonna barf.

Then I'd stop saying it if I were you.

WE are not the judge and jury.

Right. But we are sentient beings with brains, capable of assessing situations and expressing opinions, as I did, much as that seems to have offended you.

He will tell us when he is able.

Right. As I said, when he knows how much they can prove.

Dear God, I hate stupid people.

And I hate hypocrites. When Clinton was telling us that he hadn't done anything wrong, and he wanted the whole story to come out "sooner rather than later", I thought he was lying, and said so. So, I believe, did Rush. In much the same terms as I'm now using with Rush. If Rush never said verbatim that Clinton was waiting to see what they could prove, he certainly said it in other words on many occasions. He was right then. And now he's using the Clintonista defense. "I'll tell you all about it, sooner rather than later." The only thing he skipped in his monologue yesterday was "getting on with the work of the American people". If I'm going to be consistent, I've got to slam Rush, whom I like, just as I slammed Clinton, who I loathe.

That's not to say that I want to see Rush in jail. It's not to say that I'll stop listening. But it is to say that his comments on the situation yesterday convinced me that there's some truth to the story. Maybe I'm cynical, maybe you're naive. We won't know until the truth comes out. But if the enquirer's story is all false, where's the legal jeopardy incurred from saying so?