Earth to Rush

Rush Limbaugh's very good lawyer Roy Black writes that the government's investigation of his client makes him "worry about the precedent that's being set in this case. So should you."

There are plenty of things to worry about involving Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer's steamroller tactics, but precedent isn't one of them. Americans accused of, or even implicated in, drug crimes, however tenuous the case, have the decked stacked against them. Several decks. For years.

Prosecutors routinely use "informants" -- aka snitches looking for a better deal -- to help them embellish cases that otherwise might bring a shrug of indifference from a jury. Black may lament how Rush has been jobbed by this practice, but it is surely nothing new.

As for leaks, of confidential matters, to the press, from a prosecutor's office? Yeah, that never happens. And then they tried to cover it up? Wonders never cease.

And Black seems to think that Rush is somehow the victim of a "personal agenda" of the prosecutor, a Democrat. Earth to Roy. The personal agenda of any prosecutor is prosecutions, big expensive, headline grabbing ones. Ones that bring more resources and maybe a regional task force or two. We don't need to step outside and find some other motive.

Hence the worry.

Comments

[Fred]

The very day the Rockefeller laws came into effect the cops came after me. At the time, they could not open things that looked like closed pouches, in which I had two ounces of pot.

I would have spent 20 years in prison. That truly changed my life. I have lived below the radar for 30 years and I definately don't trust anyone.

Pot for Christ sake. Fuck you Rush.

[Xrlq]

The personal agenda of any prosecutor is prosecutions, big expensive, headline grabbing ones.

Oh, I see. Is that also the reason why prosecutors in S.F. are aggressively pursuing criminal charges against Gavin Newsom and his minions for knowingly solemnizing illegal weddings? Oops, I forgot; they aren't prosecuting these guys at all. Nevermind!

[dude]

Between Rush and Martha Stewart, my Republican family have started sounding like ACLU lawyers lately. Provides me with many a "well see, this sort of thing happens all the time. . ." opportunities.

It's a good thing.

[Mo]

He's amazed they used these tactics on him even though he's rich, white, Republican and a strong supporter of the current administration. These laws were meant for dirty, pinko hippies, swarthy foreigners that run cartels and negros that will rob and kill you to get money for their fix or in turf wars. If a rich white man has the government knee deep up his ass for drugs then we're all doomed.

Well, that or we could abolish drug laws and hope we can slowly regain our liberties.

[Warren]

A conservative is may be just a former liberal that's been mugged.
but
A liberal may be just a former conservative that's been arrested.

[Shannon Love]

Warren,

"A liberal may be just a former conservative that's been arrested."

I like that so much I'm going to steal it.

I saw a similar reversal in attitude in my very conservative home town when a local middle aged matron got a mandatory federal 20 years for dealing a little pot. Really shook up everybody at her church. Nobody thought it was fair although previous most support draconian drug laws.

People never learn that giving power to the state to get "them" always ends up getting "us"

[madpad]

Why should it surprise anyone when a mouthpiece of conservatives bellows their "victim" status.

After all, he's been playing the victim since Reagan.

Rush has complained of victimization since '89 by the liberal media, the Hollywood elite, tree-hugging eco-types and feminist provocatuers (sp?).

He was so good at creating the buzzwords that the whole conservative movement is essentially based on victimisation. I can rarely have a conversation with a right-wing Republican that doesn't result in ridiculous devoid-of-fact hyperbole about various perceptions of victim-hood

The conservatives control or heavily influence virtually every branch of federal government and they are STILL crying the vicitm every single chance they get.

It amazes me that they often denounce one civil liberty after another and call for tougher and tougher laws for every infraction.

Yet they defend those in their own ranks as misunderstood and plead for leniency...because they're victims.

Ironic...

BTW, Warren...I agree with Shannon....that's great.

[Fred]

Sorry about the punctuation errors in my original post. I'll, make it up, in this, sentance. (Boy that sounds just like Captain Kirk.)

[Mo]

Warren, that is great. What's a libertarian, a liberal that had their coop shut down by the government or a conservative arrested for drug possesion?

[Ran]

Jeff, I see you shave with Ockham. Smoooth!

Thanks

[dj of raleigh]

A conservative is may be just a former liberal that's been mugged.
but
A liberal may be just a former conservative that's been arrested.---Posted by Warren

That is a good one...say it again

[Ammonium]

So, only conservatives create oppressive drug policies?

Wow! Now I know a great defense for any 20 year olds caught with a beer in my town: 90% of the city council is Democrats, so they couldn't possibly have just quadrupled the fine for minor in possession (to twice the fine for breaking and entering).

[Ayn_Randian]

Medved said:
"the whole conservative movement is essentially based on victimisation"

That's a new one on me. While I agree that too many conservatives tend to play the victim card (most disgustingly, David Limbaugh), Rush had one anti-drug quote years and years ago. When I, a libertarian, first started listening to him a year ago, I was surprised how small-government and personal responsbility his message was. You're completely off, and the LIBERAL agenda is vicitmization (ADA, hate crimes laws, reparations, etc.)

"The conservatives control or heavily influence virtually every branch of federal government and they are STILL crying the vicitm every single chance they get."

OK, that's just so wrong I don't know where to start. If you are thinking of Rush Limbaugh conservatism, I WISH it controlled the Federal Government. What does control it are lapsed Republicans who spend big to remain in control and pander to special interests (just like The Democrats...hence the term 'Republicrat') The only way to solve this is to remove the powers from the government to eliminate the incentive or ability to cheat.

"It amazes me that they often denounce one civil liberty after another..."

I am going to need to see some proof for this one. Personally, I think that you are confusing federalist, true conservatives with the borrow-and-spend morality police that inhabit the Republican party today. What ideology (although mostly at fault for supporting the party that wrote and passed the damn thing) has the most individuals calling for the re-instatement of the First Amendment i.e. the repeal of BCRA? Let me see...ahh yes, the conservatives like Mitch McConnell and RUSH LIMBAUGH!

Medved, check your premises and stop with the stereotypes.

[Xrlq]

So, only conservatives create oppressive drug policies?

Only if you buy into left-liberal gibberish. Here's the logic, in a nutshell:

1. I don't like conservatives.
2. I don't like you.
3. Therefore, you are a conservative.

[Dan]

Oh, I see. Is that also the reason why prosecutors in S.F. are aggressively pursuing criminal charges against Gavin Newsom and his minions for knowingly solemnizing illegal weddings?

Earth to Dumbass: the only headlines something like that would grab would be headlines like "Angry Citizenry Demands District Attorney Be Publically Horsewhipped". IT'S SAN FRANCISCO.

I guess Jeff should have been more specific, and said "prosecutions, big expensive, headline grabbing ones that won't land him in hot water politically" instead of just "prosecutions, big expensive, headline grabbing ones". Or maybe he thought it was glaringly fucking obvious, so he didn't need to say it. I'm going with the second option.

PS: it's "illegally solemnizing weddings", not "solemnizing illegal weddings". It's not illegal for homosexuals to marry in California; it's illegal for state officials to legally recognize that they have.

[Dan]

I can rarely have a conversation with a right-wing Republican that doesn't result in ridiculous devoid-of-fact hyperbole about various perceptions of victim-hood

You could replace the phrase "right-wing Republican" with "left-wing Democrat", "member of the Green Party", "Libertarian", or pretty much any other political classification of your choice and it would remain equally true. Political movements stay alive by keeping their followers motivated. Since self-interest is a powerful motivating factor, all political movements play the "victimhood" card early and often.

[dj of raleigh]

> So, only conservatives create oppressive drug policies?

[TWC]

"...a '57 GMC Pickup TRUCK with a gun rack and a 'I'd rather step in shit than smoke it' bumper sticker."--Jerry Jeff Walker

[Mark Fox]

Re: Comments about victimization

Seeing so many victims on all sides, it must be a common belief that the world is divided between predators and prey.

If that's the choice, I prefer to be a predator. Even if I am in the middle of the food chain, I would rather hunt than whine.

[Dan]

5. Any marriage other than between a man and a woman is illegal.

Proposition 22 added the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the California Family Code. That's it; that's the whole thing. It didn't make homosexual marriage illegal. It's one hundred percent legal, and one hundred percent unrecognized by the state, just as the "marriage" between two six-year olds playing "House" is one hundred percent legal, and one hundred percent unrecognized by the state.

Now perhaps you believe that everything not explicitly recognized by the state should be considered illegal; it may be that, in addition to being a homophobic little shitstain, you're also a totalitarian little shitstain. I'm uninterested in addressing that possibility. Our legal system has historically recognized that actions which are not explicitly made illegal, are legal. Homosexual marriage remains legal, but invalid and unrecognized, in California.

[shanep]

Warren:
"A conservative is may be just a former liberal that's been mugged.
but
A liberal may be just a former conservative that's been arrested."

LOL.

Does that mean a libertarian is a former liberal or conservative who was arrested and then mugged?

[Gadfly]

Rush needs a Democratic president to be any good. He hasn't been the same without Clinton to kick around.

[Xrlq]

Dan: I don't know which law school you flunked out of, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as a "100% legal, but [legally] invalid" marriage. Marriage is a legal construct; thus, any purported marriage can only be "legal" if it conforms to the laws that define and constrain it. Alternative arrangements may be "legal" in the sense that do not violate any laws in and of themselves, but that does not change the fact that from a legal standpoint, They. Are. Not. Marriages. If one holds them out held out as marriages, they are illegal marriages. Not "legal but invalid marriages," "undocumented marriages," or even "marriages that are legal in their own special way." Illegal marriages. Were this not so, there would have been no reason for the California Supreme Court to unanimously order SF to stop. Under your theory, the "weddings" should have been allowed to go forward.

Next time your parents let you borrow their computer, you might want to poke around Sections 300 and 301 of the Family Code before further opining on a subject you obviously know so little about. You'll find that Prop 22 (Fam. Code ? 308.5) is not the whole picture, nor even a very big part of it. Gay marriage has always been illegal in California, first implicitly under the common law, then explicitly by statute since 1977. Prop 22 was just the final nail in the coffin.

Meanwhile, I'd invite you to take your mindless ramblings about "totalitarianism" and "homophobia" somewhere else. I'm not afraid of you, I just don't like you. More importantly, my reason for not liking you has nothing to do with the fact that you are gay, and everything to do with the fact that you are an arrogant, hotheaded jerk who prefers to call people names rather than take the time and effort to get the basic facts straight. The gay part is, if anything, a plus, as it virtually guarantees you will not be polluting the gene pool.

[Gadfly]

Shut the fuck up. This is a thread on Rush. There'll be plenty of other places you can argue gay marriage.

Unless you're gay...

[dj of raleigh]

clicking on "Posted by Xrig" above
leads to an interesting journey, thank you.

[Loffel]

Yes, what Ayn Randian said.

Although, I can see that Rush might have a talent for preaching and then practising exactly what he preaches against. His emotional and highly personal "pleas" which he made on the air when this stuff started to happen might be a case where he was really really playing the victim card big time, at a time when I have never had less sympathy for him.

I used to love listening to that big windbag, and I always thought that he might actually be a Libertarian (big L). But so long as he puts his support behind the Republican party he is against us. It's that simple. Limbaugh is not a Libertarian so he is on the other team. I will not listen to him anymore with rare exception.

I'm sure Rush himself would like my "with us or against us" attitude. Why doesn't he admit that it applies to him as well?

[Xrlq]

You've just proven it, so I'm going to call it Dan's Paradox: contrary to intuition and common sense, it is possible for a single ass to be both a smartass and a dumbass at the once. Congratulations! Since you're struggling the basics, I'll try this again, typing really slowly:

1. Some laws are criminal in nature.
2. Other laws - most, actually - are not.
3. Anything that violates a law is illegal.
4. Anything that violates a criminal law is a crime.
5. Any marriage other than between a man and a woman is illegal.
6. Officiating an illegal marriage is a crime.

Now re-read my original comment, in which I asked about "pursuing criminal charges against Gavin Newsom and his minions for knowingly solemnizing illegal weddings." Note that I didn't call for any criminal charges to be brought against the gay couples who "married" illegally, only against Gavin Newsom and the officiates who presided over these illegal "weddings." That is because the criminal component, Section 359 of the California Penal Code, applies only to officiates who preside over illegal weddings, not to those who marry illegally.

Contrary to your subsequent silliness, it wasn't "glaringly obvious" that Jeff thinks DAs only seek to grab headlines that are calculated to play well with their constituents politically. That's a common sense view, of course, but it's not the one he espoused. In fact, conceding the political component would have completely undermined his argument, and vindicated the very one he was attempting to refute. After all, it's Rush's argument that he's being prosecuted for political grounds, not Jeff's. How else does one explain the fact that (1) very few D.A.s from any jurisdictions press felony charges against a first-time offender charged only with use, (2) even fewer D.A.s from liberal jurisdictions do so, yet (3) a D.A. elected by ultra-liberal Palm Beach County, FL just brought a felony charge against a first-time, non-dealer offender who "just happened" to be a well-known conservative talk show host?

[kwais]

Yeah, this thread is about Rush,
And the point of the thread is that Rush kicks ass, whether out of his mind on illegal pain meds, or recently released from some brainwashing addiction clinic.