[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Well, I guess reasonable minds might see it differently. But, when I see someone taking out $9,900 (30-40 times), the only reasonable inference is that they are trying to avoid the $10,000 reporting barrier. In criminal law, they call that evidence "consciousness of guilt."

It is admissible evidence at trial. And to me personally, it's an indication that Rush was knowingly doing something wrong, and trying to avoid all possible government and legal attention.

That's not the kind of behavior I expect from a hero.

[BCrago66]

Bronco - not a person on the planet believes your "Rush is my hero" routine. You are assuming facts not in evidence, combining those hypothetical facts with ignorance of the law, and then speculating your way to the worst possible conclusion. I'd hate to hear what you think of those who arn't your "heroes."

[ArGee]

In criminal law, they call that evidence "consciousness of guilt."

How do you know I don't try to avoid audits because of personal illegal activities? But you didn't jump right to that because it is perfectly reasonable that I prefer not to deal with an IRS audit.

Consciousness of guilt applies when that is the most likely explanation. Otherwise, it can only be used when there is enough additional evidence to make it be a reasonable explanation.

Within the conservative crowd, keeping the gub'mint's nose out of your business is always going to be the most likely explanation. I certainly accept that from Rush without proof to the contrary.

And if he were really trying to avoid rousing suspicion to truly illegal activity, I think Rush is smarter than to withdraw $9,900 regularly from a single bank account. It would make more sense to make $1000 withdrawls from several accounts.

If he really is your hero, and not yet fallen, then wait for the rest of the story.

Shalom.

[P-Marlowe]

And to me personally, it's an indication that Rush was knowingly doing something wrong

Rush has admitted to knowingly doing something wrong. What else do you want from the guy? To just voluntarily serve time in prison even without being charged with a crime?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

That's not the kind of behavior I expect from a hero.

Rush fell off the pedestal that YOU placed him on. He is fallible, like the rest of us.

[Humidston]

That's not the kind of behavior I expect from a hero.

Oh PUHHHH LEEEZE. You keep this up and I'll have to take a hugh shower.

[LucyJo]

Are you sure it's Rush who is your hero and not Peter Jennings and the crew at ABC??? Otherwise, why are you unquestioningly taking their "reporting" at face value, and you don't appear to have even heard Rush's comments on the subject?

I fail to see anything indicating a "reasonable mind" when you start believing the worst about your so-called hero before you even have all of the facts...and especially in light of the HUGE fact that Rush has been a target for destruction by those on the left since he hit the nat'l scene. If you are sincere about Rush being your hero, I'd advise that you chill out, give Rush the benefit of the doubt, and wait for facts instead of heeding speculation and blatant propaganda. If not, you are in for a long, hard, bumpy and depressing ride, because the people you seem to be listening to instead of Rush are NOT going to stop trying to destroy him, and more now than ever since they have found what they perceive as a chink in the armor.

[aditchdr]

at what point are we all guilty of this "terrible crime" of going to your bank and taking money of it. is it now our responsibility to only remove those amounts which are only applicable with the government's approval? it may come as a shock to some, but not everyone wants the government in their business..constantly. you may find it an ok way to live your life, others don't want the hassle.

[simarilian]

So let's do the math. Since we're using rumors, the rumors are that his last contract was worth $17,000,000. Not counting any additional money he made for the short lived ESPN gig.

40*9900 = 0.02329411...

2.3 percent of his disposable income. Obviously we're dealing with some sort of cad who is trying to launder 2.3% of his paycheck.

If the report was Limbaugh withdrew 2.3% of his income from his bank account in increments under the federal watch limit, what would you think?

Knowing that he is a multi-millionare, plus the fact that any reasonable person with that much money would limit their withdrawals to under the federal watch limit. That is standard advice from their financial planner. Doo you still feel the same? The watch limit exists to catch people passing millions through the bank. Not some new money millionaire blowing the wad on fancy cigars.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Well, I guess reasonable minds might see it differently. But, when I see someone taking out $9,900 (30-40 times), the only reasonable inference is that they are trying to avoid the $10,000 reporting barrier. In criminal law, they call that evidence "consciousness of guilt."

Actually, in criminal law they call that "obeying the law."

Sloth's analogy was 100% right on.

[SteamShovel]

That's not the kind of behavior I expect from a hero.

Then would the virtuous Clinton is your hero because he says he likes paying taxes? I've avoided the $10K thing a time or two myself, for no other reason than it's my business and nobody elses. This does not make me a criminal, nor does it make me any less of a hero to my kids.

Saying the act of taking less than $10k out of your account to avoid scrutiny is criminal because of "consciousness of guilt" is like saying driving below the speed limit means you are guilty of avoiding a ticket. And besides, I can see how a person like Limbaugh might use the money. Rich people sometimes are loose with their money. He does make enough to flaunt it.