Skip to comments.
Rush: ABC Money Laundering Report 'Purposefully False'
NewsMax.com ^
| 11/19/03
| Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Posted on 11/19/2003 10:13:57 AM PST by kattracks
America's number one talk radio host Rush Limbaugh catagorially denied on Wednesday an ABC News report that accused him of "laundering money" to bankroll his addiction to painkillers. "Let me say right at the top that I have not laundered any money," Limbaugh said at the beginning of his broadcast.
"I know what this is? I know where this is coming from," the top talker told his audience. "This is not a leak. This is the purposeful release of false information."
ABC's "World News Tonight" anchorman Peter Jennings alleged in his Tuesday night broadcast, "The talk show host just finished five weeks of treatment. His legal difficulties may continue. Officials are looking into whether Limbaugh laundered money to support his drug habit."
The ABC anchor handed the story off to investigative reporter Brian Ross, who claimed, "Law enforcement officials in Florida and New York tell ABC News that Limbaugh may have violated state money laundering laws, in the way he handled huge amounts of cash to buy his drugs. A conviction on such charges in Florida could mean up to 30 years in prison."
The bogus report claimed the top talker had a pattern of withdrawing cash just below the federal reporting limit of $10,000, which is a red flag for drug and money laundering investigators.
But Limbaugh told his audience that when he came to New York in 1988, bankers from U.S. Trust solicited his business by promising he would not have to wait on long teller lines in the private banking area.
"If I needed cash, they'd bring it to me," the talker said he was told. "They had somebody bonded and they'd simply bring it to my office."
Instead of a reported 30 or 40 transactions made in New York, Limbaugh said he took advantage of the bank's cash courier "maybe four times, if that many." He says he was told that if he kept the withdrawals under $10,000, it would minimize paperwork and expedite the process.
"And so, that's what I did," Limbaugh explained.
Far from being any kind of drug slush fund, the conservative host said he withdrew the money form the same account his EIB paychecks were deposited in. What's more, he said the withdrawals had nothing to do with bankrolling his addiction to painkillers.
"The cash in question here - most of it had to do a two-and-a-half year remodel we did to the home in Palm Beach," he said. Limbaugh also applied some of the cash to everyday expenses like food, travel and gratuities.
In early 2001, he said, investigators with the Federal Reserve contacted him in connection with an investigation into U.S. Trust's cash withdrawal policy.
"The government was investigating U.S. Trust because the bank had apparently told many other of their clients that their cash withdrawals should be in amounts of less than $10,000," Limbaugh explained. "Shortly after they met with me U.S. Trust admitted to this, paid a $10 million fine and that's it," he said. "From that moment on, every cash withdrawal I've made has been for over $10,000."
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abcnews; deceit; fabrication; mediabias; rush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-109 next last
1
posted on
11/19/2003 10:13:58 AM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
I just knew Rush that was innocent and that he wouldn't have to do 30 years in the pen!! ;-)
2
posted on
11/19/2003 10:16:39 AM PST
by
Scenic Sounds
(Hoy, no tengo ningĂșn mensaje a compartir.)
To: kattracks
I take it Rush has no comments on the absurd money laundering laws themselves?
Am I understanding correctly that so long as $1 was used in the purchase of drugs, he would trigger the Florida law, anyone know?
3
posted on
11/19/2003 10:16:45 AM PST
by
JohnGalt
("Nothing happened on 9/11 to make the federal government more competent.")
To: kattracks
Allgations of money laundering implies that you have a pile of money that came from questionable sources (like drug dealing) that you legitimatize by attributing it to a legal source so you can declare it on your taxes and avoid being prosecuted by the IRS.
Jenning was implying that Rush had illegal sources of income.
What a creep.
4
posted on
11/19/2003 10:18:38 AM PST
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
To: kattracks

"More Americans get their news from my ass than from any other source."
5
posted on
11/19/2003 10:19:15 AM PST
by
ServesURight
(FReecerely Yours,)
To: JohnGalt
Am I understanding correctly that so long as $1 was used in the purchase of drugs, he would trigger the Florida law, anyone know? Money laundering laws would apply to drug DEALERS, because they are earning money from the sale of drugs.
Purchasers of drugs have less money after the transaction.
They have no new money to launder.
6
posted on
11/19/2003 10:20:34 AM PST
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
To: kattracks
Isn't Jennings the rich Canadian ranch-owner who wanted to shoot wolves on his property?
7
posted on
11/19/2003 10:21:39 AM PST
by
gaijin
To: kattracks
America's number one talk radio host Rush Limbaugh catagorially denied on Wednesday an ABC News report that accused him of "laundering money" to bankroll his addiction to painkillers. So Newsmax doesn't have editors any more? That's two typos in a single word, in the lead sentence...
8
posted on
11/19/2003 10:21:40 AM PST
by
Ichneumon
To: kattracks
Thanks. Everything Rush said makes total sense. And can easily be verified. Put Jennings in jail instead!
To: kattracks
I do not understand this. If I ask my bank how to avoid additional paperwork due to federal limits on withdraws at $ 10,000 or more if I wanted to pull out $ 100,000 to buy a plot of land. If they give me guidance, they are violating the law and can be fined?? That is ludicrous!
10
posted on
11/19/2003 10:22:40 AM PST
by
Fee
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I see, thanks.
The state then leaked a bit of info that could be spun to look bad but would only matter if they have a solid case for drug trafficking.
And still no comments from Rush on these (absurd) laws (that are clearly ripe for abuse)?
11
posted on
11/19/2003 10:26:25 AM PST
by
JohnGalt
("Nothing happened on 9/11 to make the federal government more competent.")
To: kattracks
This law, requiring banks to "report" cash withdrawls in excess of $10,000 is another example of unconstitutional, unfunded laws and regulations, enacted by our federal government under the guise of commerce clause jurisdiction, but at the same time violating the Bill of Rights, Amendment V:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
In order for such laws and regulations to be constitutional there has to be a corresponding compensation procedure to the private banks and financial institutions who have to use their private property to comply with the law.
The saddest part about this issue is that because of 40 years of democrats confirming socialist judges for life tenures, challenging this law and expecting a socialist judge to agree that the law is unconstitutional is a pipe dream.
But worst than that is that it is REPUBLICANS who have recently initiated and passed the same type of unconstitutional laws as the Patriot Act.
12
posted on
11/19/2003 10:28:41 AM PST
by
tahiti
To: kattracks
"laundered money to support his drug habit." ???
Now THAT has to be a first! I have never heard that accusation against anyone before. They must have some wild imaginations in their headlies dept.
ps ... the "n" above was intentionally omitted.
13
posted on
11/19/2003 10:30:47 AM PST
by
steplock
(www.FOCUS.GOHOTSPRINGS.com)
To: ServesURight
Peter Jennings is full of excrement sandwiches.
14
posted on
11/19/2003 10:30:54 AM PST
by
Wolverine
(A Concerned Citizen)
To: Fee
If I ask my bank how to avoid additional paperwork due to federal limits on withdraws at $ 10,000 or more if I wanted to pull out $ 100,000 to buy a plot of land. Most folks would get a cashiers check for 100k, not 100k in greenbacks. It's generally not considered healthy to walk around with that much cash.
As to Rush taking cash in $10,000 chunks, I have got to scratch my head. With credit cards, who needs that much walking around money? A grand or two maybe, but 10 grand? The largest denomination bill is $100. Try folding 100, $100 bills and fitting them in your pocket.
Sorry to be skeptical of El-Rusbo, but my BS detector is fluttering on this one.
15
posted on
11/19/2003 10:31:45 AM PST
by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: Fee
If they give me guidance, they are violating the law and can be fined?? That is ludicrous!No it is not, here's why. They are the one's that have to do the reporting, not you.
THEY CAN NOT ADVISE YOU EITHER WAY TO AVOID THEIR PAPER WORK.
The bank has a responsibility to society to track possible illegal activities, especially if YOUR money is in their bank!
To: kattracks
It's amazing how people like Peter Jennings are going out of their way to hammer Limbaugh with knowingly false and incomplete reports. Truly Pathetic.
17
posted on
11/19/2003 10:35:15 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
To: Fee
Guess you just gotta be LAW & ORDER fans to know about this federal regulation that was (according to the script:) originally enacted to locate Russian mob money laundering. I remember thinking when I watched this episode, that the law was designed to catch Gore's Russian cronies.
18
posted on
11/19/2003 10:37:06 AM PST
by
YaYa123
(@Remember All Those Special Favors?.com)
To: Fee
Absurd, isn't it ? One of the charges against Martha Stewart stem from her public announcement that she is innocent. Apparenlty, the federal government considered that an attempt to manipulate her stock. I think that is scarey.
19
posted on
11/19/2003 10:37:18 AM PST
by
Darlin'
("I will not forget this wound to my country." President George W Bush, 20 Sept 2001)
To: tahiti
But worst than that is that it is REPUBLICANS who have recently initiated and passed the same type of unconstitutional laws as the Patriot Act.
You forgot to mention the WOD warriors that support this idiocy
20
posted on
11/19/2003 10:38:02 AM PST
by
uncbob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-109 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson