« Previous | Main | Next »
Thursday :: July 07, 2005
Rush Limbaugh's Medical Records Turned Over
Rush Limbaugh's medical records were turned over to the Palm Beach state prosecutor's office today - less some records his lawyer, Roy Black, claimed were irrelevant and embarassing. The records are being sought in an investigation into whether Rush illegally purchased (not sold) painkillers.
I am not comfortable with this at all. It's far too slippery a slope. While many liberals would like to see Rush taken down, this is not the way to do it. The man was addicted to pain pills, he entered and completed treatment. Who is to say how many pills he needed to combat his pain? And why should the Government, rather than the patient, be the arbiter of that?
Instead of clamoring for the Government to fry Rush, liberals should be demanding that the Government keep its laws off our bodies.
Posted Thursday :: July 07, 2005| Crimes in the News
Comments
Posted by Che's Lounge at July 6, 2005 11:50 PM
Instead of clamoring for the Government to fry Rush, liberals should be demanding that the Government keep its laws off our bodies.
This has been my position from the beginning. I hate that overinflated gas bag but his privacy is being invaded for non violent offenses. Not that he gives a s**t about any other drug offenders.
Posted by V2Marty at July 7, 2005 01:08 AM
He is an idiot hypocrite, and we all know it. Isn't that it's own punishment? His karma and credibility are shot.
Posted by Incertus at July 7, 2005 01:45 AM
From where I sit, it doesn't look like Limbaugh's credibility has suffered any major damage in the eyes of his listeners, and he didn't have any with me to begin with, so I can't say he lost any there.
But I have to say that if we want some real change in drug laws in this country, it's going to have to involve a very unpopular prosecution of a big name hero to people who wouldn't normally support change. Rush fits that description, and whether he goes to jail or beats it by being rich, if it jumpstarts some real dialogue on changing drug laws in this country, then I'm all for it.
Remember, whether or not you agree with the law that says possession is a crime, it's a crime, whether it's you or me or Limbaugh. Let him get hoisted and see if he changes his tune on drug abusers.
Posted by Paul in LA at July 7, 2005 02:13 AM
TL, it's a matter of FAIRNESS, plain old.
This guy has dished it out and demonized all sorts of people in his situation. Why would you deny him the fruit of his labors?
If they imprison for crimes of his sort, then the rich should not go free. That's a FAR more fundamental matter of social equity that RL's personal situation.
He made his bed. Let him sleep in it for a change. Maybe that's his only salvation, that kind of a reversal in his general pattern of harming others. Suffering might make him into a penitent a-e, instead of the blatant coward he is now.
Posted by -cliff at July 7, 2005 05:40 AM
See, that would require moral consistency.
But to have that you have to believe in morals. :-)
-C
Posted by fafnir at July 7, 2005 05:58 AM
I agree, Paul. This is not about taking Rush down; it's about upholding the law. Rush is not above the law.
Moreover, Rush should not get a pass to benefit from a liberal view he has derided. A view that says people in this sort of situation should be treated medically rather than criminally.
Yet, here is a man with wealth, resources and the power to influence people and policy who chooses to circumvent the law rather than to change it. And now, he has the unmitigated gall to seek sympathy and medical considerations for something he has argued to deny to those with lessor means.
Posted by SeeEmDee at July 7, 2005 06:08 AM
If I recall correctly, Mr. "Limbaugh" (his real name's Christie) became addicted to pain pills because of a back injury. I know quite a bit personally about the kind of pain that can ensue when that happens. And a co-worker of mine is in even worse shape after a similar accident in the Navy ruined his career there. He's on some major narcotics, but they don't slow him down because he's used to them, and does a bang-up job at work despite being on dosages that would kill an unacclimated person in a heartbeat.
Considering the hell that many pain patients are presently being put through thanks to the DEA's 'crackdown' on pain management doctors, I'd think many of the Liberal persuasion would consider that this is a perfect opportunity to point out what has been happening in the field of pain management and lend their (very reluctant) support to efforts at keeping "Limbaugh"s records out of public view...and getting the DEA off the backs of truly needy people.
I have no love for hypocritical, fatuous gasbags of any political stripe, and have always wondered just what particular dart would wind up zapping "Rush"'s Achille's Heel. But I'd rather the man be hoist by his own verbal petards than a chemical dependency. As the old saying goes, "There but for the Grace of God..."
Posted by Kitt at July 7, 2005 06:49 AM
"Instead of clamoring for the Government to fry Rush, liberals should be demanding that the Government keep its laws off our bodies."
I think this is unfair because just as Che states here:
{"This has been my position from the beginning. I hate that overinflated gas bag but his privacy is being invaded for non violent offenses. Not that he gives a s**t about any other drug offenders."}
I KNOW for a fact that's been my position as well as many here from the very beginning. Regardless of the slight from Cliff who likes to pretend those of us who disagree with him & his politic are not moral nor consistent in practice.
Posted by bobski at July 7, 2005 07:07 AM
While it is true that the dosage and frequency of any pain medications are between the patient and his doctor, shopping prescriptions in an effort to obtain greater numbers of the medication is not, buying controlled drugs on the street, of which oxycontin is but one, is not.
If memory serves, he would have to have been taking more than 100 oxycontin pills daily, given the amounts he was trying to obtain and I would hazard a guess that this is far and above any dosage that any doctor would consider reasonable, period.
This is what the investigation is all about. So let's keep our eyes on the ball here.
Posted by Romberry at July 7, 2005 07:22 AM
Is Rush better than us "regular folks" because if he isn't, then all those clamoring for protection of Rush's medical records are in effect clamoring for special treatment for Limbaugh.
This sort of thing is not unusual. The only thing that is unusual is that it is happening to a high profile target who has the means to fight back. I say if it's good enough for "regular folks", it's good enough for Rush.
And the back pain excuse mentioned above? Sorry, that doesn't fly. Rush wasn't taking pills for pain, he was taking them to get high. I'm opposed to the war on (some) drugs but again, if "regular folks" are going to be treated like criminals for recreational drug use then Limbaugh deserves exactly the same.
Posted by graphicus at July 7, 2005 07:33 AM
I respectfully disagree. Mr. Limbaugh's medical records may reveal wrongdoing by others -- the doctors who prescribed the medicine to him in huge quantities, the pharmacists who filled multiple prescriptions without asking questions, and perhaps others who brought the pills from him. If the press reports are accurate, he purchased >>thousands
I'm offended at the prospect of doctors prescribing pills for patients who don't need them -- an abanadonment of their professional resonsibility. I think the whole scheme should be investigated from top to bottom.
Posted by Duckman GR at July 7, 2005 07:39 AM
But let's consider the public service his travails will perform.
"Here's why we need to keep the government out of our bedrooms and our personal lives. I've been exposed and humiliated as a pathetic and cowardly human being, weak willed and hypocritical. Let my misfortune serve as a warning and an example to all. Keep your lives clean, and if you can't, demand that the Government, our Government, protect and uphold our 1st Amendment and our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. Now, watch this drive."
Sortof like the exception proving the rule.
Posted by dcarney at July 7, 2005 07:58 AM
I think you are right on, though Limbaugh is as despicable as they come. I work for a medical organization that was being forced to turn over medical records of our clients by a sheriffs department that was out of control. We had to take it to the state Supreme Court to stop it. Medical privacy is a huge issue, and must be maintained
Posted by PPJ aka Jim at July 7, 2005 08:15 AM
Graphicus writes:
I respectfully disagree. Mr. Limbaugh's medical records may reveal wrongdoing by others
Uh, I think probable cause is required, don't you know? Otherwise you may find a policeman reading your mail, and standing at the end of your bed...
et al - Some perspective from Limbaigh's attorney:
The prescription records that are in the search warrant affidavits should be put in perspective. Of the 2,130 pills prescribed, only 1,863 were painkillers, and of those only 1,733 were for hydrocodone. These were to be taken over a period of 217 days, from the date of the first prescription until 30 days from the date of the last prescription. The dose averages out to a little over eight pills a day, which is not excessive and is in fact a lawful dose.
Complete statement.
Witch hunt anyone?
Posted by Rich at July 7, 2005 08:19 AM
His medical records are germane to the investigation. If he had bonafide pain problems, there are any number of places in South Florida where he could get rehab services (and legit prescriptions for legit meds). This gas bag will not repent even after he's been frogmarched to the pokey.
Posted by DaveFromBattlefield at July 7, 2005 08:22 AM
I have to wonder if prosecuting lunk heads like Limbaugh and Miller won't soften attitudes on the right somewhere. It doesn't often happen (G. Gordon Liddy versus John Dean) but it can't hurt.
I also have no doubt that if this had happened to you or me, we'd be given no quarter so there's no reason to make a special case for this dirt bag.
Dave From Battlefield
Posted by PPJ aka Jim at July 7, 2005 08:23 AM
Rich writes:
If he had bonafide pain problems, there are any number of places in South Florida where he could get rehab services
Are you telling us that the law requires you to use the doctor nearest to you? Read the complete link and you will see that two the doctors were in the same office.
Posted by What A Load at July 7, 2005 08:57 AM
Yeah he needed all the pills he got legally as well as the pills he got illegally --
It would be hypocritical of our society not to demand these records made public.
The right to medicate as one sees fit is not a right in this society and everyone should be treated equally.
Posted by Ernesto Del Mundo at July 7, 2005 09:12 AM
I will say a prayer for him.
;)
Posted by ShermBuck at July 7, 2005 09:28 AM
I understand the slippery slope this creates, it's just really hard to come to the defense of some d*$che bag like the Vulgar Pigboy. But isn't it a crime to shop for doctors? So how do you determine a crime has been committed without looking at the medical records? And if PPJ is correct that two of the doctors were in the same office, could they be both involved in a criminal conspiracy to distribute these drugs? How could this be determined without looking at medical records?
I'm sorry PPJ but this is no witch hunt. I would agree if you thought that he was being so agressively investigated because he was a "celebrity", but if it comes down to the fact that he is a conservative then I think you have no foot to stand on. It is possibly his status, regardless of ideology, that is fueling this investigation.
But then again maybe law enforcement is doing there job by putting a junkie in the clink. I don't think this is the correct or best way to deal with people that have chemical dependency problems, but until such time that laws are changed(I'm sure the good folks of Florida have absolutely no problem with locking up junkies. They probably have a problem with not executing them)this is the way the legal system deals with them. And there is always the fall back position of "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
Posted by RJ Eskow at July 7, 2005 09:34 AM
There is a certain parallel between the Limbaugh case and that of Judith Miller. In both, the person in question is facing the fruits of their own "karma," but that process is harming our freedoms as a whole.
It's not worth it. Let's preserve our rights, and let them face their just desserts in the next life!
Posted by ShermBuck at July 7, 2005 09:34 AM
I meant "their job" in my last post. Still in the process of waking up.
Posted by cheetah at July 7, 2005 09:37 AM
If he committed a crime, the Gov. needs to find another way to prove it's case. This is an invasion of privacy, and an attack on civil liberties.
A search warrant being issued based on faulty evidence or misleading statements is nothing new, and should be fought in any case, involving any citizen, whether we like that citizen, or not.
Posted by Adept_Havelock at July 7, 2005 09:40 AM
Heh. Never thought I'd see Jim and the ACLU on the same side of an issue.
Count me with them. Rush is a hypocrite to the core, but this is little more than a fishing expidition.
Yes, it's hypocritical of him. Last time I checked, there was no law against that.
Posted by ShermBuck at July 7, 2005 09:55 AM
So what if the "fishing expedition" comes up some evidence and finds a case of wrongdoing? We just let Rush off the hook and say "Well, since we don't like how the case was made against you then whatever crime you committed is now null and void"? If so then I don't agree with any of the liberals here on this issue.
As a minority my rights wouldn't have gotten as much consideration as Jeff Christies(aka Rush Limburger...I mean Limbaugh) have and it seems like the only reason the ACLU is even interested is because of his name. I would have been locked up a long time ago if I was in the same position.
It is almost as if you white liberal folks are up in arms over the fact that a member of your own club, whether you agree politically with him or not, is being treated like the rest of us.
I didn't have much of a position on this issue, I was willing to play wait and see, but the people here have made me decide. I am all for Rush being prosecuted to the full extent of the law and not because I dislike him, but more out of the disgust I have over liberals getting upset over this guys situation when this kind of crap happens every single day in your respective cities and towns and I don't hear alot of pissing and moaning about that.
Posted by jim strain in san diego at July 7, 2005 10:16 AM
In fact, the ACLU has been on top of this from the start, and not because the defendant is Limbaugh. That organization (which everyone, it appears, loves to hate) is fighting governmental intrusion into our privacy, and governmental attacks on the rights of citizens every single day.
. . . jim strain in san diego.
Posted by glanton at July 7, 2005 10:16 AM
"Uh, I think probable cause is required, don't you know? Otherwise you may find a policeman reading your mail, and standing at the end of your bed..."
A little late to be worrying about that now, after voting for and propagandizing for the Rethugs for years. Re Patriot Act. Re what is coming with Supremes. First comes Roe, then comes Lawrence, then come the bedroom breakins.
Typical that Dubya's fan club here are standing up for Rush in this case even though they fervently support the party that rests its entire social agenda on the absence of a right to privacy.
Posted by Russell Klein at July 7, 2005 10:18 AM
Instead of clamoring for the Government to fry Rush, liberals should be demanding that the Government keep its laws off our bodies.
No. You are wrong. Well, you are right philosophically.
But its not liberals who need to modify, its Republicans who push these obnoxious and intrusive laws (including Rush Limbaugh) that need to start saying that the government should keep their hands off our bodies.
And sadly, the only way to get these people to change their views is not for us to go soft on Rush, its for Rush to be exposed to all of the crap and utter BS that he wishes the rest of us to endure from his glass tower.
So I want Rush to taste the full brunt of what he wishes on other people. Sometimes its the ONLY way for people to learn just how bad their ideas actually are.
Posted by V2Marty at July 7, 2005 10:21 AM
I thought he had his maid picking up thousands of OCs for him in a parking lot or something... that doesn't sound like a prescription to me.
And in my little town, our local drug task force has put people away for over a year for having just a dozen OCs with no scrip.
I wish that people were allowed to use in peace. Even Blimpbaugh was still working, and he didn't kill anybody with his car, let him drug himself to death if he pleases.
Posted by V2Marty at July 7, 2005 10:24 AM
It is almost as if you white liberal folks are up in arms over the fact that a member of your own club, whether you agree politically with him or not, is being treated like the rest of us.
I don't know what club you think I'm in, but it isn't Rushs, that is for sure.
Posted by cheetah at July 7, 2005 10:26 AM
ShermBuck, I am not white, I am native, and I don't belong to either of the two major political parties. I would make the exact same argument for you, if you were in this situation. Don't blame the ACLU. They have taken several cases in my area, involving people with no money, who are not "white". It just needs to be across the board, whether we like the person, or not.
Posted by kdog at July 7, 2005 10:29 AM
The only victims of Rush's pill-popping is Rush's liver and kidneys.
Unless his liver or kidneys have filed a complaint, leave the gasbag alone. It's his life, let him live it as high as he wants.
To our govt., freedom is secondary to making sure nobody gets high.
Posted by Paul in LA at July 7, 2005 10:30 AM
The FACT is that there are MILLIONS of poorer people who go to prison two years ago on similar evidence. You can hear the clang of the metal door all over Florida on any day of the week. The impropriety and racism of treating him differently is social inequity while the laws remain on the books.
However, it is not as shocking, Sherm, as you make out. TL has been quite consistent opposing the racist drug war. And that view has nothing to do with being white, black, or purple.
Posted by SeeEmDee at July 7, 2005 10:32 AM
ShermBuck, anybody who does any research at all into the origins of the drug laws of this country inevitably bumps into the fact that they were written largely by racist crackers early in the last century who thought to use those laws against minorities without having to engage in overt acts of bigotry, like lynching. The ratio of minorities incarcerated for drug offenses as opposed to their actual numbers in society make that clear. (It's also a handy tool in nullifying minority groups politically through felony convictions stripping them of the right to vote.)
That "Limbaugh" has been caught in the web originally spun to catch Blacks, Hispanics and Asians is just another case of 'unintended consequences' at work. But it also illustrates that no one is safe, not even the 'high and mighty' such as "Limbaugh".
Posted by pigwiggle at July 7, 2005 10:39 AM
“Instead of clamoring for the Government to fry Rush, liberals should be demanding that the Government keep its laws off our bodies.”
The government should indeed keep its laws off our bodies. Jesus, time for this broken record once more. A scrip should be a suggestion, a shopping list; not a permission slip.
Posted by Jlvngstn at July 7, 2005 11:03 AM
Nicely said Kdog, PW.
Posted by Aaron at July 7, 2005 11:19 AM
Rush's lawyers would be well-served to try to maintain a consistent story. We read today that Rush supposedly didn't doctor shop, and supposedly (on average) received a reasonable daily dosage of pain medication. But we were told some months back that Rush became addicted to his pain medication, and required time in a drug rehabilitation center to overcome his unfortunate addiction. So which is it - we should excuse him because he was an addict who has sought help, or we should excuse him because he never received an excessive dose of pain medication? It can't be both - you can become dependent on an appropriate dose of opiate pain medication, but you can only become addicted if you take medication in excess of your needs. By his own assertions, even overlooking his illegal purchases, Rush was seeking pain medication in excess of what he needed to treat his pain condition.
What if Rush hadn't had good health insurance and millions of dollars at his disposal, such that he could hook up with a doctor when his "maid" was out of town (or out of pills)? What if he had been caught snorting a $10 or $20 bag of heroin, instead of hitting an emergency room doctor up for an extra prescription? Would his action be less excusable? If so, why?
Fundamentally, the issue becomes "do you believe in the drug war"? If you do, but would excuse Rush from criminal culpability on the basis that he fed his addiction through doctors instead of street dealers, you are a hypocrite. And you deserve the scorn of those above who suggest that you would excuse the wealthy addict's "polite" scoring of drugs through doctors or high-end dealers, while demanding incarceration for addicts who have to get their drugs from street dealers.
(If you take the position that, even though drug use should be legal, Rush's loud endorsement of the drug war somehow makes him an exception who deserves to go to prison... recall that hypocrisy is not a crime. And consider that if it were, your position on Rush just might make you guilty.)
Posted by Dadler at July 7, 2005 11:25 AM
Jearalyn
This is only a slippery slope if you genuinely believe we cannot judge every case on its own merits in its own context. If we can't, then what are you doing in the legal system?
Limbaugh is paying the price for being a wretched, bullying hypocrite. What goes around comes around. This is nothing more than reaping what you sow, and I see no more danger in this than in jailing Judith Miller -- they are both the appropriate measures for THESE SPECIFIC CASES. And that is all that matters. If we are nothing but slaves to precedent, then trials and courts are pointless.
Posted by Dadler at July 7, 2005 11:44 AM
Kdog,
I agree in principle, but Rush cannot escape his own hypocrisy. It may not be right in a larger sense societally or legally, but it's certainly just in the sense of a wretched bigmouth getting a taste of his own medicine.
And I'm not sure I have a problem with the gov't, in this specific case, trying to get to the bottom of a pill hurricane. Now, I agree he should be able to take whatever he wants, in principle, but even a bartender can't give another drink to an already bombed patron -- especially if he knows he's driving home. And Rush drives his winger jalopy on OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES every day.
I'm full of it, I know, a liberal with a grudge. But damn if it isn't fun to watch and listen to that windbag pass off his problems, still, to everyone else.
Posted by cheetah at July 7, 2005 11:55 AM
I don't think TL is advocating not judging every case on it's own merits. I think it has to do with the Gov.'s method of making, and proving a case. Perhaps we could improve on the medical community's sharing of medical records on a patient, but I don't want a precedent set that would allow the Gov. to sieze my medical records.
Posted by Dadler at July 7, 2005 11:56 AM
Aaron,
Good post, for the most part. As I noted above, I realize I'm grudging here. Though I think Rush has no one to blame but himself. And his hypocrisy is certainly not helping him, just as the persona and attitude of defendents works against them every day. I don't think he deserves to go to jail, in reality, but I do think he deserves to be utterly destroyed professionally. He won't be, of course, but he deserves to be, since he has been anything but contrite and humane about his situation in light of his past rantings.
Posted by cheetah at July 7, 2005 12:00 PM
BTW, I am against the "war on drugs" for several reasons. The main reason being, I believe it's actually a war on certain individuals, and groups of individuals, and used as a political ploy.
Posted by Dadler at July 7, 2005 12:03 PM
Cheetah,
You made my point. And I agree with you, for the most part. But fear of what will happen to YOU as a reason not to fully examine a completely separate case, that evidences a fear of the government that indicates we're alread PAST the point of justice being possible. Until we trust each other, trust that we have a just system, justice is just a roll of the dice, a hem and a haw, a game to be played not a truth to be uncovered. Sure it may be utopian to imagine such societal trust, but until something of the sort evolves or develops, we're just tilting at windmills with all our talk of justice. Because what we're really doing, first and foremost, is assauging our fears not searching for truth in each specific case.
This is to ignore completely that the only people allowed to be wildly unqualified in a courtroom are....the jury!!
You know, sometimes playing devil's advocate just gets tiring.
Free Rush!!
Posted by cheetah at July 7, 2005 12:11 PM
Dadler, This isn't just about me! It's about every citizen of this country. I, for one, do not trust that we have a "just system".
Posted by kdog at July 7, 2005 12:56 PM
Dadler...I hear ya buddy, but I just can't bring myself to wish the tyranny of the war on drugs on even someone as deserving as ol Rush. His full on support of the drug war certainly warrants the drug warriors throwing the book at him, but I love freedom to much to rejoice in it.
Posted by cheetah at July 7, 2005 01:07 PM
kdog, I feel the same way. I have to make myself have any concern for that bloated, lying windbag. But, like you, I love my freedom too much to jeopardize it for the likes of him!
Posted by Dadler at July 7, 2005 01:08 PM
Cheetah,
Believe me, bro, I'm with you more than you know. Sometimes I can't help myself in spinning something I know I don't really buy. I don't trust we have a just system either. And I think that's a big part of the problem. If none of us trusts we have a just system, how can we ever know what's actually in the service of justice and what isn't.
Posted by cheetah at July 7, 2005 01:22 PM
Dadler,
I so agree with your last sentence,
If none of us trusts we have a just system, how can we ever know what's actually in the service of justice and what isn't.
Maybe that's the way they want it.
Posted by Fenria at July 7, 2005 02:35 PM
I have no problems with Limbaugh using pills, hell, I have no problems with him smoking fat rocks if he wanted to.
My problem stems from his hypocritical nature of "send 'em up the river" attitude on drug use for everyone else when he's busy doing the same exact thing.
Yeah, having to turn over his medical records is total b.s...but the Patriot Act's a bitch like that, eh Rush? Next time, shill out for something a little bit closer to home.
Posted by PPJ aka Jim at July 7, 2005 08:39 PM
Fenria writes:
Yeah, having to turn over his medical records is total b.s...but the Patriot Act's a bitch like that, eh Rush? Next time, shill out for something a little bit closer to home
Uh, this case is being brought by the State of Florida, not the feds.
Just thought you would want to know who to bitch about.
Posted by Fenria at July 8, 2005 02:24 PM
Uh, this case is being brought by the State of Florida, not the feds. Just thought you would want to know who to bitch about.
I guess you're one of the few rightwingers that don't watch Limbaugh, or else you would have known that he is famous for touting the benefits of things like the Patriot Act, the very document that ok's things like the turnover of private medical records to police and courts.
It's a tongue and cheek way of saying that taking one's own medicine can be a bitter pill. Sorry, next time I'll be more juvenile and banal in my writing so that YOU can understand it.
Posted by PPJ aka Jim at July 8, 2005 05:12 PM
Uh, Fenria - First of all I am not a Repub or right winger. I am a social liberal - registered Independent - who is a hawk on defense.
Yes, we exist. And at one time we were the backbone of the Demo party.
And no, I don't listen to Limbauigh, or any talk show, very much. I find them mostly boring, although everynow and then both sides - left and right - score some points.
My point was to point out that it isn't the Feds but a state Demo DA who is pushing this, and it looks more and more like it is politically motivated.
The so-called Patroit Act has nothing to do with this, and you just confuse matters when you try and connect them.
Posted by Sailor at July 8, 2005 05:41 PM
It's not a 'slippery slope', we've already fallen off the mountain. State atty's general are subpoenaing med records from clinics in case someone MIGHT HAVE committed a crime.
rush deserves to be hoist on his own petard.
The Dr-patient, spousal and lawyer-client privilege should be absolute, but it isn't and rush has been a (pardon the pun) HUGE supporter of that.
Posted by Rocker at July 8, 2005 06:10 PM
BTW, has anyone been able to confirm that rush had a back injury that required pain killers?
Posted by The Dark Avenger at July 8, 2005 09:04 PM
Let's not forget that with his former housekeeper selling her story to the National Enquirer, the possibility of handling Rush's problem on the QT was pretty much out the window.
And before PPJ starts telling me how unreliable the NE is, I will say that unfortunately for the DA, there are some who would be suspicious if he didn't do anything. It may be political, but not neccessarily on a partisan basis.
More:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011376.htmlSee Related threadMeanwhile, Rush is availing himself of help from his nemesis The ACLU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1512483#1515260
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
