Just heard on the news........

The accusation was made by his housekeeper, who said that she and her husband supplied him with pills. So why did they seize and examine his medical records, neither the housekeeper nor her husband were doctors?
On the Imus situation, they were joking about his drug use, including his past problems with abuse. Why He mentioned having that many, I don't know. Seems to me like one radio personality, Limbaugh, had an excessive number of pills and as a result his medical records were examined, while another radio personality with an excessive number of pills, Imus, did not have his records seized and examined.

continue to tell us what it is/was. How do we know that he said any thing that you claim he did?

while on the air, then I really have to wonder if he indeed had the drugs as claimed.

As to why examine the medical records since his house keeper was the supposed source... I'll pose a scenario for you. If someone is accused of tax evasion and unreported income... does the government only look at the accused bank accounts? No. The feds will look for large cash transactions, safety deposit boxes, hidden safes, etc.

Law enforcement tends to look at all related activities to a possible crime. Would you expect anything less?

BTW... you shouldn't be using the work around hack to avoid the thread line.

... you don't have a problem with how the DA got Rush's medical records? Put your partisanship aside when answering that.

or the other problems with the patriot act. You're comment was that, if he didn't have anything to hide, he shouldn't have a problem with it. You have a problem with it in terms of Rush - how come?

Diana

The phone calls are NOT domestic phone calls. Name a specific in the Patriot Act. I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with the way they went about getting Rush's records and that would be the same if they were Al Franken's.

But Franken is a known druggie of the recreational variety (at least former in his SNL days). And just a plain idiot. But that's besides the point.

The had him dead to rights. he gets a slap on the wrist and probation, while that poor ex-lawyer with severe neuropathic pain due to spinal injury (a very common sequela many people know nothing about) is doing 25-life in the same state for trying to get enough prescription pain-killers to keep his pain under control. Ironically, in prison he's now hooked up to a constant morphine drip -- but his wife and kids are suffering from the loss of his earning power, to say nothing of presence and affection. And Florida calls this justice?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

rather than the kind of justice he advocated himself for drug users, and Prescription abusers and those found guilty in criminal court. Maybe we should e-mail Jeb Bush and point out the discrepancy. If enough people do maybe the guy can get back to his family.

Rob

Educate yourself on the facts of the case for a change.

The DA couldn't bring charges without the evidence he was seeking from the defendant(he is not compelled to provide evidence against himself)he couldn't get the evidence to support the charges without self-incrimination. The only evidence he had was a illegally obtained medical record file. This liberal Democrat DA was on a witch hunt and wanted Rush to provide the evidence to convict himself. even the ACLU said as much
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/15036prs20040217.html

''There is simply no authority that allows the state to ignore the law,'' said Ft. Lauderdale attorney Jon May, who is serving as counsel for the ACLU. ''Law enforcement officers are essentially on a fishing expedition, searching through private, highly sensitive medical records, for whatever they can get their hands on, regardless of whether the information contained in those records is even relevant to their on-going investigation.''

in the provided link in this post
http://reviews.cnet.com/5204-6130-0.html?forumID=50&start=0

Oh yea almost forgot again
Don Erickson
Mr. California Republican

all, the cause is just. Just ask DK and Rob.

Are you so blinded by your hatred of anything right of you that you can't see how the authorities trampled on Rush's Constitutional Rights at every turn? How about all the bogus leaks about drug rings and stuff -- all turning out to be bogus.

A name for the "poor ex-lawyer" would be sufficient.

there is much more to the story and it has zero relationship this case

How often do blackmailers with criminal histories get immunity and the victim gets prosecuted?

(pardon my skepticism) do you then advocate that because one is treated harshly, all should be treated harshly?

Is that the correct Christian attitude?

fishing to find........

He settled to make them go away without admitting any guilt in the matter. Of course DK, I know you've got a direct pipeline into the prosecutor's office, and you have personally seen the evidence against him. I guess there was no need for a trial eh? Aren't you in the group that claims no charges against the Clintons were ever proven? Double standard dictated by your political agenda.

the thing that irks me re: Rush and his addiction to pain killers is his record of condemning drug addicts in the past along with advocating prosecution in lieu of treatment versus his making light of his own situation.

I have never known anyone who ''decided'' at a certain point in their life that they wanted to become an addict. I'm sure Rush didn't decide to become one... yet while he was addicted (before being publicly outed) I often heard him tirade about how drug users should be harshly dealt with (I used to listen to him at work - rather I was forced to listen to him by coworkers ). All I can say is if he was to live up to the credo he used to preach then he should just plead guilty to all the charges and serve his time... Like all of us however, I'm sure he feels his situation was different from all the other addicts. In other words, if asked, I'm sure he would say it wasn't his fault.

It's utter BS.

And, BTW, there's a HUGE difference between getting addicted to prescription drugs and illicit/illegal drugs. For starters, the initial consumption of such drugs is not only legal, but encouraged.

In that key way, his addiction IS (was, actually past tense is more appropriate) different than many others. An addiction to pain relief is quite different than an addiction to mind altering substances. I'm not sure how its possible, because one Vicodin throws me for a loop, but I've known people who have taken high doses of the stuff and are not in the least "high" as a result.

You would know that he took FULL responsibility for his addiction

and Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position.

How did he take FULL responsibility for being addicted, and deny that he was doctor shopping?

I'm responsible, but I didn't do it.

That's not taking responsibility.

that when your a darling of the right that saying your sorry always absolves you of any possible criminal behavior or related personal responsibility ? You redeem yourself by walking the fine line of admitting the possibility of a lesser charge without the messy jail time.

Of course if your middle of the road or left leaning it just provides ammunition that will be used for years afterwards. Rush and Sean still manage to talk about Clinton and Monica at least every couple of weeks .

And yes, the printing company I work at part time does play Rush and Sean every day on the production floor so when I'm out there I do hear them.

Or is it just what your saying now?