Rush Limbaugh Blackmailed for $4 Million

AP via NewsMax ^ | 12/22/03 | AP

[chiller]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Rush Limbaugh was blackmailed by a former maid who later told law enforcement and a tabloid newspaper about his addiction to prescription painkillers, his attorney told a judge on Monday.

Attorney Roy Black said Limbaugh could not complain to authorities about the maid's demand for $4 million because they would use the information against him.

[longtermmemmory]

It is also a felony to comit perjury in court. If that was enforced there would be no police on the street, they would all be in jail.

What they are doing to Rush is like saying anybody who uses cash is a drug dealer. ANYBODY. Do you have cash in your pocket?

[an amused spectator]

Seems like a new twist on the "everybody does it " defence.

You've been here since 1998, and it seems like you haven't been paying attention.

When I first found Free Republic in 1997, one of the initial flame wars was with a liberal whose screen nick was "esrosen". She basically dissed and dismissed the entire FR board because 'more felonies were committed by the Reaganites', and not one of the Clintonite mob had been convicted of a "felony".

In April of 2003, Garry Trudeau, one of our favorite Democrat cheerleaders, ran a comic strip on the present Bush administration and the Clinton administration. One of the panels said, and I quote (at the risk of copyright infringement): "All the Clinton "scandals" yielded exactly one felony conviction!"

Kind of says it all. When I realized that the Clintonites weren't going down for anything, despite numerous in-your-face felonies, I started paying attention to what was up in the world of the American legal system.

This is nothing more than a political & revenue enhancement prosecution. I guess you could even call it a "free speech tax".

We also have to remember how the system dealt with the felonious Clintons in the end: for their legal trouble, they both got multi-million dollar book deals.

[RS]

It appears that the subject has changed from what Rush has or has not done, to MY personal way of thinking about it...
so be it... I've seen many Freepers attempt to focus the subject of discussions away from one of their favorites...

I am looking at this case in the same way I looked at OJ and at the Clintons - with a skeptical ear on anything said by the lawyers ( based on the FACT that they don't care if their client is guilty or not ), and the actions and statements of the defendant.

The "He did nothing wrong", morfed into "It's not wrong to get drugs if you need them" ( which as it turns out he didn't - he could have gone to rehab years ago )

It appears his "not broken any financial laws" is in the process of morfing into " he may have, but it's because he was being blackmailed, not because he was buying illegal drugs"

You are of course free to make any comments you want, but you may want to deal with the subject of the thread.

[an amused spectator]

It appears that the subject has changed from what Rush has or has not done, to MY personal way of thinking about it... so be it... I've seen many Freepers attempt to focus the subject of discussions away from one of their favorites...

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. -- A woman has been charged under a new "doctor shopping" law passed to prevent deception in obtaining prescription drugs.

Marilyn Georges, 53, was charged Thursday with six felony counts of "doctor shopping": obtaining the same controlled drugs from more than one doctor within a 30-day period by using deception. The law went into effect July 1 [2002].

On June 30, 2002 (less than a year and a half ago), Rush Limbaugh would not have been accused of a felony.

He's also been accused of "laundering HIS OWN money".

I regularly drive by a patch of deep woods in my travels hither and thither. Last year I noticed a sign informing passers-by that it was a "felony" to go into the woods (a nearby corrections camp). I reflected on that. I could stop my vehicle, run into the woods 50 yards, take a whizz, and be accused of committing a "felony". Out in the middle of nowhere.

Sounds like you've been "Fenokee-ized".

[RS]

"The law went into effect July 1 [2002]."
On June 30, 2002 (less than a year and a half ago), Rush Limbaugh would not have been accused of a felony.

Yep that is a fact - So ?

( There are a lot of new laws that will go into effect Jan 1,2004 - do you have a point to make ? )

[an amused spectator]

I think you're making my point. They got you up to the third rail around the fence. (But it's still no great threat to your freedom, because there are several gates and you can run in and out at will.)

Was Rush Limbaugh a "doctor-shopping felon" in June of 2002? **snicker**

( There are a lot of new laws that will go into effect Jan 1,2004 - do you have a point to make ? )

"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."

[TankerKC]

Rusty Humphry sucks in a big way. We get him now instead of Medved. I just listen to music now.

[TankerKC]

Rish Lamblast was blackballed by a farmer named Maddy whose liver told lawn encroachment what?

You are obviously not the kind of conservative we need here at FR. Back to DU troll.

</silliness>

[RS]

"I think you're making my point. They got you up to the third rail around the fence."

... as much as I dearly love talking about myself,

I'm still wondering exactly what these comments have to do with Rush's situation...

I don't like having to guess what people are saying, but you appear to be saying that Rush should be able to ignore the law under the "it's just a new one " protection ?

[an amused spectator]

I don't like having to guess what people are saying, but you appear to be saying that Rush should be able to ignore the law under the "it's just a new one " protection ?

I'm saying that you've been on FR for 5 years, and you missed the point.

Remember, a federal judge has confirmed that Jim Robinson was a "thief" was "stealing" newspaper articles from the Los Angeles Times.

Pay no attention to the fact that the judge was a Clinton appointee, assisted to a position on the federal bench by cheerleading articles by an LA Times journalist, one of whose articles was actually submitted by the Times as part of the suit.

I pity your lack of insight, and incuriosity.

[Bluntpoint]

I did not know you were on the FR selection committee you sour grump?

[TankerKC]

I did not know you were on the FR selection committee you sour grump?

Self appointed, of course. Like all of the other members.

To qualify for membership one must possess a keen ability to turn any argument into a “us vs. them” issue. Each post must end with an invitation to go back to DU. A complete lack of logic helps, too.

Now, go back to DU, you troll!

[Bluntpoint]

[RS]

"I'm saying that you've been on FR for 5 years, and you missed the point."

Again - for some reason I have become the subject, and again you have not stated your point.

You seem intent on making me "devine" what it is you are getting at rather then simply stating it - for what reason I have no idea ( and I am not curious about your reasons for being so obtuse either )

Sorry, but I have not indulged in these little games in my 5 years here and will not "play".

[an amused spectator]

Again - for some reason I have become the subject, and again you have not stated your point.

Rush Limbaugh is accused of a newly-minted "felony".
Linda Tripp was accused of feloniously "wiretapping" herself.
Jim Robinson was accused of "stealing", for the heinous crime of sharing news articles in the town square.
The Clintonites committed numerous felonies, for which they were gigged only once. (apparently)
Everything has become a "felony". It only remains to the prosecutors when to charge you, and with what.

The link between actual criminality and "felony" charges becomes more tenuous by the day, and with each session of the legislature.

Serious Americans don't take things like this Limbaugh prosecution seriously. Of course, we also realize that when the Palm Beach County state attorneys show up in their clown car to "file charges", the MP5s that they're waving around actually have real bullets in them.

[scouse]

Thanks you for the correction, and please refrain from using a Lonnie Donagan tune as your tag-line. :^))

[RS]

"Serious Americans don't take things like this Limbaugh prosecution seriously."

I take supporting crime by buying illegal drugs seriously.



Just what are "Serious Americans" anyway ?
Strict Constitutionalists ?
Libertarians ?

... never heard that used before


... I suppose Limbaugh and his lawyers are not "Serious Americans" by your explanation of what they don't do.

[an amused spectator]

I take supporting crime by buying illegal drugs seriously.

I think it's cute that you still believe in "the rule of law, not of men".

Say hello to Santa & the Easter Bunny for me. :-)

[RS]

"I think it's cute that you still believe in "the rule of law, not of men"."


I think it's interesting that you have little to say on topic, but many opinions on a fellow Freeper.

[an amused spectator]

... I suppose Limbaugh and his lawyers are not "Serious Americans" by your explanation of what they don't do.

They're the ones who have to deal with the Killer Democrat Prosecutor Klowns, this time.

When they pile out of their clown cars to come for you, don't say I didn't warn you...