Limbaugh agrees to deal with DA - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Mavdog · 04-29-2006, 10:26 PM

I hope he doesn't go on the radio with the same comments about drug offenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 11: Limbaugh, Prosecutors Can Declare Victory
By BRIAN SKOLOFF , 04.29.2006, 02:31 PM

After three years under suspicion, Rush Limbaugh can finally put behind him the investigation that exposed the conservative commentator's own drug problems, thrusting him into the spotlight for the very things he derided in others.

None of it affected his ratings for a radio talk show that airs weekdays on nearly 600 stations and draws about 20 million listeners a week, Limbaugh spokesman Tony Knight said.

"This investigation didn't have any impact on his audience or on his advertising," Knight said Saturday, a day after defense attorneys announced a deal with prosecutors. A single prescription fraud charge will be dismissed after 18 months if Limbaugh stays drug free and doesn't violate any laws.

Prosecutors launched their investigation in 2003 after Limbaugh's housekeeper alleged he abused OxyContin and other painkillers. He entered a five-week rehabilitation program and blamed his addiction on severe back pain.

Prosecutors seized Limbaugh's medical records after learning that he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months.

The investigation was held up as prosecutors and Black battled in court over whether Limbaugh's constitutional right to privacy was violated when the records were seized, but the state prevailed.

Is the deal a victory for Limbaugh?

"This is a dismissal of the charge ... representing, in affect, a win for the defense," said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney and prominent Miami defense lawyer.

"Having said that, I wouldn't call this case a major defeat for the prosecution. They fought and won an important legal point in establishing that you can use a search warrant in Florida to secure medical records," Coffey added. "That's an important precedent for prosecutors around the state. This could be the rare situation where both sides made a deal and can walk away feeling some satisfaction."

The deal also allows Limbaugh "to save face," said Michael Seigel, a University of Florida law professor and former federal prosecutor.

"Given the high profile nature of this, it's an indication to me that if Rush Limbaugh thought he could win the case and be vindicated, he would go to trial," Seigel said. "He's not asking for his day in court."

The 55-year-old commentator surrendered Friday at the Palm Beach County jail on a warrant charging that in 2003, sought a prescription from a physician without revealing that he had received medications from another practitioner within 30 days. That charge, commonly referred to as doctor shopping, is a felony that could carry a sentence of up to 5 years in prison.

Limbaugh was booked, photographed and fingerprinted before being released on $3,000 bail. He has steadily maintained his innocence.

Black called the charge a formality to bring closure to the case, adding that Limbaugh has been drug free for 2 1/2 years.

A spokesman for the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, Mike Edmondson, said the deal is typical in such cases.

"It's really standard for someone who is dealing with their addiction," Edmondson said Saturday. "It's a diversion specifically for first time offenders with no prior criminal history or arrest."

Before his own problems became public, Limbaugh had often argued that drug crimes deserve punishment, once saying on his short-lived television show in 1995 that users "ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

The resolution of the case was applauded by Ethan Nadelmann, director of the nonprofit New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, which promotes treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders.

"Maybe this will soften up Rush Limbaugh a bit when he talks on the radio about the millions of other Americans who are suffering from drug problems," Nadelmann said.

dude1394 · 04-29-2006, 10:34 PM

Limbaugh has been under a witch-hunt for years here imo.

Drbio · 04-29-2006, 10:37 PM

Didn't the prosecutor once say that he wouldn't deal on this case because he knew he would get a guilty verdict? Sounds like a retreat from that statement. Good for Rush.

Murphy3 · 04-30-2006, 02:30 PM

I've always hated Limbaugh....
Is the spare still on the air?

Mavdog · 04-30-2006, 03:22 PM

limbaugh agreed to pay $30,000 to Palm Beach County to reimburse the costs of the investigation, and also agree to be on probation for 18 months in addition to his continuing in rehab.

certainly not an indication of a "withhunt" nor a "retreat" by the da.

it's a fair settlement, limbaugh gets the help he needs and the county is made whole.

Mavdog · 04-30-2006, 07:04 PM

does anybody who is not guilty of the crime pay $30,000 and agree to 18 months probation?

well, maybe to a "retard" they might....

the da gave limbaugh a graceful path out. he's lucky, anon-white lower income violators doesn't get that chance.

dude1394 · 04-30-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

does anybody who is not guilty of the crime pay $30,000 and agree to 18 months probation?

well, maybe to a "retard" they might....

the da gave limbaugh a graceful path out. he's lucky, anon-white lower income violators doesn't get that chance.

Well hell yes they do. He's already spent probably 100's of thousands defending himself from this witch hunt.

Good grief mavie.

Mavdog · 04-30-2006, 07:39 PM

"100 of thousands of dollars"? perhaps, but as it didn't go to trial unlikely.

so, if you are innocent you don't take it to trial but pay off the county and agree to 18 months probation?

I wouldn't, would you?

Drbio · 04-30-2006, 08:45 PM

You cannot educate the ignorant by choice dude. You are wasting your time.

chumdawg · 05-01-2006, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"100 of thousands of dollars"? perhaps, but as it didn't go to trial unlikely.

so, if you are innocent you don't take it to trial but pay off the county and agree to 18 months probation?

I wouldn't, would you?

I am currently facing a charge that I am innocent of, but I admit that it was awfully tempting to pay the $170 to the city and take deferred adjudication rather than risk the results of a jury trial.

Trial on May 17th. I'll keep you updated.

dude1394 · 05-01-2006, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"100 of thousands of dollars"? perhaps, but as it didn't go to trial unlikely.

so, if you are innocent you don't take it to trial but pay off the county and agree to 18 months probation?

I wouldn't, would you?

Get back to me when you are facing 5+ years in prison and the loss of your livelyhood.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 06:41 AM

loss of livelihood? may have already happened.

you didn't answer the question....

dude1394 · 05-01-2006, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

loss of livelihood? may have already happened.

you didn't answer the question....

I think I did...

1st. - No his loss of livelyhood has not happened.
2nd - Hell yes if I could plead guilty to a charge that would have no impact to me versus getting into the system and taking a chance on 5+ years in prison. Hell yea, in a new york minute.

The criminal justice system isn't some noble platform to be messing around with unless there is an over-riding reason to do so. Limbaugh's listeners (at least this one) know that it was a witchunt with a bunch of left-wingers calling for HIS head when they would be bending over backwards to forgive someone else.

It was a farce from the beginning. He's glad for it to be done. There is no "noble" cause here, just ANOTHER over-zealous DA.

mcsluggo · 05-01-2006, 08:29 AM

Poor Rush Limbaugh the innocent victim of a witch-hunt? Oh my...

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 08:36 AM

a "farce" when he hinself admitted his addiction? no, he himself said a big mea culpa.

I guess I have a different view of justice, if I was innocent of a crime I would go to every length possible to defend myself. an easy surrender would never cross my mind.

there is an impact btw, he has to pay several thousands of dollars to reimburse the county for the costs of the investigation (which totally contradicts the idea of a "witchhunt") and is on probation for a year and a half. if he stumbles during that period he will face a less lenient court. if the da were indeed "over-zealous" he sure as heck wouldn't be giving limbaugh the chance to a graceful exit.

his "liveihood" has been damaged as he has been revealed to be nothing but hypocritical.

dude1394 · 05-01-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Poor Rush Limbaugh the innocent victim of a witch-hunt? Oh my...

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

If it were a witch-hunt by media types no problem. But as someone who has seen what a witch-hunt being perpetrated by someone with the unlimited government budget and legal authority looks like, it ain't pretty.

And there is just about nothing you can do about it but hire lawyers and defend yourself.

then at the end of a what (6 year process??) they say...aw...nevermind.

mcsluggo · 05-01-2006, 08:47 AM

In that case,

I'm sure you despised Kenneth Starr. No?

dude1394 · 05-01-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

a "farce" when he hinself admitted his addiction? no, he himself said a big mea culpa.

I guess I have a different view of justice, if I was innocent of a crime I would go to every length possible to defend myself. an easy surrender would never cross my mind.

there is an impact btw, he has to pay several thousands of dollars to reimburse the county for the costs of the investigation (which totally contradicts the idea of a "witchhunt") and is on probation for a year and a half. if he stumbles during that period he will face a less lenient court. if the da were indeed "over-zealous" he sure as heck wouldn't be giving limbaugh the chance to a graceful exit.

his "liveihood" has been damaged as he has been revealed to be nothing but hypocritical.

I would imagine his ratings are still what they were, therefore his livelyhood hasn't been damaged. Go ask Air America about how much his livelyhood has been affected.

With respect to your statements about the court, I believe you are just being naive. Or just argumentative.

It's never been about the addiction, it's been about this DA trying to bring felony charges against him to put him and jail and subsequently "get him off the air". I would expect that was more of the reason for the case than anything. Or something to do with the fairness doctrine being trotted out by the left to counter-act talk radio.

Again thank you lord for keeping democrats out of office. You really messed up that clinton one, but with BushI and Dole as the candidates, that might have been a bigger miracle than even you could tackle.

--------------
Thought I would answer for Air America. Limbaugh looks pretty steady to me, Franken not so.

Quote:

Between the hours of 10 A.M. and 3 P.M., the period that includes Al Franken's program, Air America drew a 1.4-percent share of the New York audience aged 25 to 54 in Winter 2005. That number is the latest in a nearly year-long decline. In Spring of 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, it drew a 2.2-percent share of the audience. That rose to 2.3 percent in the Summer of 2004, then fell to 1.6 percent in the Fall of 2004, and is now 1.4 percent — Air America's lowest-ever quarterly rating in that time and demographic slot.

The ratings also show WABC radio, which airs Rush Limbaugh, consistently beating Air America in New York City even though Franken had at one time claimed to be beating the conservative host there. In the 10 a.m. to 3 P.M. period in the Winter of 2005, WABC (and Limbaugh) won 2.7 percent of the audience to Air America's 1.4 percent. In Spring 2004, WABC beat Air America 2.7 percent to 2.2 percent. In Summer 2004, WABC won 2.7 percent to 2.3 percent. In Fall 2004, WABC won 3.6 percent to 1.6 percent.

dude1394 · 05-01-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

In that case,

I'm sure you despised Kenneth Starr. No?

No not starr, but the special prosecutor provision, yes. It has again shown itself to be out of control with Libby getting indicted for.....

- Was it giving out Plames' name? No
- Was it giving out classified information? No
- It was giving out incorrect testimony about a charge he wasn't being investigated for?

So the process I think is screwy. To be honest I can't even remember what started the whole investigation of Clinton, but with him there was no telling. Except that it probably had something to do with his genitalia.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 10:13 AM

gee, I wasn't expecting this to be a discussion of air america....but rather about limbaugh's prior public statements about drugs and addicts.

it has been about addiction, and the lengths limbaugh went to in order to satisfy that addiction. do you have a statement by the da that says he wanted to "get limbaugh off the air"?
-----------------------------------------------------
as it relates to fitzgerald (what this has to do with limbaugh?), you don't have the correct info. it IS about what libby did and said. read the findlaw summary:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060407.html

not a very flattering picture of what the president and vice president's office did. in fact, a very disturbing conduct imo, that does speak volumes of what the wh was capable of doing relative to attempts to manipulate the intelligence used to justify a war.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 12:14 PM

no, it is fact as he railed against drug abusers on his program, all the while he himself was a drug abuser.

no, I don't "want him off the air", and never suggested not alluded to such. a healthy democracy is predicated on the free exchange of ideas, and in as much as his are narrowly based (and more often than not wrong...) he serves a good function.

as far as "poster boys", nice try at misdirection. it's not about them, it's about limbaugh and his problems with oxycotin addiction, and the lengths he went to in attempting to satisfy that addiction.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 05:11 PM

there you go again, it's damn impossible for you to stay on a subject.....or to make any sense. "You have never not been able to include some unrelated instance of a republican when faced with a similar dem circumstance."

too funny.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 06:56 PM

Drbio · 05-01-2006, 07:09 PM

Nice sache away from the FACT that you constantly inject others who are not related to the topic at hand into our threads. I've called you out on that shit before and you backtrack like a little bitch.

indeed.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 07:36 PM

proof. show it or stick it.

oh wait, the only thing proven so far is your dishonesty.

Drbio · 05-01-2006, 08:18 PM

That's a funny reply coming from a known liar. I wonder why you even bother coming to a Mavericks site when 98% of your posts are in a political forum and you contribute nothing to the site.

The dumbf*ck gene runs deep in the mavdog family.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 08:33 PM

yes, the emperor has no clothes.....

it's comical for you to call people names that are best suited for yourself. ever find your pm from the mod? we're still waiting...

too funny. keep up the good work.

Drbio · 05-01-2006, 08:52 PM

What is pathetic here is that you know pm's cannot be shared by rule but you still cling to your dumbass notion that you are fooling someone. I guess when you have nothing in your bag that must say the same thing over and over to convince yourself. Try again mavdog. You are a liar and you got pwned.

Drbio · 05-01-2006, 08:58 PM

And we are still waiting for you to address this little gem....I wonder why you even bother coming to a Mavericks site when 98% of your posts are in a political forum and you contribute nothing to the site. No clothes indeed.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 09:22 PM

I come to read knowledgable, interesting perspectives on my favorite team by other mav fans.

that certainly excludes your mav discussion posts....

and oh yeah, to show just how shallow and inane your political posts are. that's pretty easy to do.

Mavdog · 05-01-2006, 09:51 PM

yes, shallow and inane just about nails it, with obscene, childish and dishonest thrown in as well.

can't show pm's by "rule"? hmm, I remember a thread where you posted some. wonder where that was...

keep up the good work.

Drbio · 05-01-2006, 10:19 PM

So the liar mavdog comes to a Mavs board, fails to contribute in any manner and only comes here to start crap. Yep. That just about describes it. Let us know if you ever decide to contribute. We will not be holding our breath.

mcsluggo · 05-01-2006, 10:23 PM

Are you two married?

I don't know about anybody else, but I just picture the two of you on opposite sides of the living room frantically typing away the vitrol at each other... until you retire to a room filled with purple velvet pillows where you make hot monkey love.

Drbio · 05-01-2006, 11:17 PM

I'm sure you enjoy the visual that brings for you mcsluggo.....doofus.