Limbaugh Paid Blackmail Money

[Crossbow]

The ever patronizing and moralizing Rush Limbaugh actually paid blackmail money to his maid in order for her to keep quiet about what she knew about his formerly secret addiction to prescription painkillers.

Go figure!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=499&ncid=716&e=8&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_en_ot/limbaugh_painkillers

Lawyer Says Maid Blackmailed Limbaugh

...

Limbaugh's former maid, Wilma Cline, learned of his addiction and threatened to sell the story to The National Enquirer. She and her husband, David Cline, demanded millions and were "paid substantial amounts of money," the lawyer said.

...

[LFTKBS]

Bull. Limbaugh's lawyer alleges that they blackmailed him, and you'll forgive me if I don't buy everything that a drug addict and his attorney allege.

But he'll never do jail time, because he's white, rich, and Republican.

[Ladewig]

But he'll never do jail time, because he's white, rich, and Republican.

Leona "only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley might disagree with you, but in poking around the web, I cannot find any examples of rich, white Republicans serving time for their first drug offense.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Leona "only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley might disagree with you, but in poking around the web, I cannot find any examples of rich, white Republicans serving time for their first drug offense.

DeLaurian?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ed


DeLaurian?

John Delorean never served time--he was actually acquitted of all charges (I think entrapment had something to do with it, but I'm not sure). Of course, his already-in-trouble company wound up failing completely after his arrest.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Crossbow
The ever patronizing and moralizing Rush Limbaugh actually paid blackmail money to his maid in order for her to keep quiet about what she knew about his formerly secret addiction to prescription painkillers.

Go figure!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=499&ncid=716&e=8&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_en_ot/limbaugh_painkillers

Lawyer Says Maid Blackmailed Limbaugh

Limbaugh's former maid, Wilma Cline, learned of his addiction and threatened to sell the story to The National Enquirer. She and her husband, David Cline, demanded millions and were "paid substantial amounts of money," the lawyer said. Hmmmm .....

I can guess: They didn't blackmail him, he just needs an explanation for all his cash withdrawals and where the money went.

He doesn't want to say 'I spent it on drugs'. :p

Limbaugh allegedly withdrew cash 30 to 40 times at amounts just under the $10,000 limit that requires a bank to report the transaction to the federal government.

The action drew suspicion because it can be a federal crime to structure financial transactions below the $10,000 limit.

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Leona "only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley might disagree with you, but in poking around the web, I cannot find any examples of rich, white Republicans serving time for their first drug offense.

George Bush certainly didn't. And neither did his daughter.

(stands back and waits for the explosion.:))

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Leona "only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley might disagree with you, but in poking around the web, I cannot find any examples of rich, white Republicans serving time for their first drug offense.

I'm curious. What web site lists drug offenders by race and political affiliation?

And what search terms should we use?

[Tony]

Originally posted by bug_girl


George Bush certainly didn't. And neither did his daughter.



What drug offense did GW or his daughter get?

Are you sure you aren’t mixing him up with Al Gore? Whose son recently received his second marijuana offense? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Zero]

It may refer to JEB Bush's daughter, who got several chances before serving minimal jail time. Of course, I think the key is not 'white, rich and Republican', but just being rich: look at O.J. Simpson.

Anyhoo, I don't think this would be any big deal if Rush hadn't been such a loudmouth about personal responsibility and stiff punishment for criminals in general. Since Rush is obviously guilty of something, if he had integrity he would plead guilty and take his slap on the wrist like a man.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Since Rush is obviously guilty of something, if he had integrity he would plead guilty and take his slap on the wrist like a man.


That is a good point, sort of. But would you plead guilty if you were him?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tony



That is a good point, sort of. But would you plead guilty if you were him?

Very few people plead guilty. I've seen guys with a bac of 3 times the legal limit and their car found half up a tree plead not guilty

[Troll]

Daryl Strawberry did not serve time for his first offense.
Neither did 90% of the whole Dallas Cowboys, regardless of race.

So sports fans, let's keep things in perspective and quit whining about the white guys, you racists.:p

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony



That is a good point, sort of. But would you plead guilty if you were him? Honestly? Yeah, I would...since he will get no more than a slap on the wrist anyways, and he doesn't have a reputation to protect, admitting it would probably be a PR windfall for him.

[Brown]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Bull. Limbaugh's lawyer alleges that they blackmailed him, and you'll forgive me if I don't buy everything that a drug addict and his attorney allege.I'd go further than that. As a rule, I assume that every public statement made by a lawyer about his/her client is probably false. In other words, more likely than not, the lawyer's pronouncements are not in accord with the facts.

Lawyers making public pronouncements are not in the business of being fair, balanced or accurate. They are in the business of promoting the interests of their clients. Accordingly, they will try to present a picture of reality that favors their clients, without regard to how distorted the picture is. (These same lawyers often express amazement when they learn that most members of the public don't like people like lawyers who spin the facts to create a dishonest impression.)

Limbaugh's lawyer says Limbaugh was blackmailed? Probably not true.

Michael Jackson's lawyer says that his client did nothing wrong and the whole case is about money? Probably not true.

[bug_girl]

I used to live in Odessa, which is right next to Bush's home town. You are correct, he never was *charged* with any crime. He was stopped a couple of times on DUI, and let off cause of daddy.

Can't find the original, but i do have this:
"In an April 1998 interview with Houston Public News reporter Toby Rogers, former President George Bush's Chief of Staff Michael C. Dannenhauer admitted that G. W. Bush "was out of control since college. There was cocaine use, lots of women, but the drinking was the worst." According to Dannenhauer, Bush's use of cocaine started "sometime before 1977" and that former President Bush told him that George W. even experienced some "lost weekends in Mexico."

Everyone in Midland knew of his excesses, and he is forgiven in the baptist tradition--particularly since his wife played a big role in his redemption. It's not a secret in that part of texas, and they like him better for it, amazingly.

and i was thinking of Jenna Bush--but i get all the shrubs confused.

[Tony]

Originally posted by bug_girl

Can't find the original, but i do have this:
"In an April 1998 interview with Houston Public News reporter Toby Rogers, former President George Bush's Chief of Staff Michael C. Dannenhauer admitted that G. W. Bush "was out of control since college. There was cocaine use, lots of women, but the drinking was the worst." According to Dannenhauer, Bush's use of cocaine started "sometime before 1977" and that former President Bush told him that George W. even experienced some "lost weekends in Mexico."



And what's wrong with that?

[Ladewig]

I'm curious. What web site lists drug offenders by race and political affiliation?

And what search terms should we use?

I should have been more specific. No well-known people who are .....

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony



And what's wrong with that?

Nothing until he advocates mandatory jail time for drug offenses.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Ladewig


I should have been more specific. No well-known people who are .....

Ah. I should have figured something like that -- the quote just surprised me.

N/A

[Nasarius]

Rush says, about the judge's decision to give the prosecutors access to his medical records:

On his radio show, Limbaugh blasted the ruling as a politically motivated invasion of privacy.

"The Democrats in this country still cannot defeat me in the arena of political ideas, and so now they are trying to do so in the court of public opinion and the legal system," he said. "I guess it's payback time, and since I'm not running for office, they can't get to me that way."

Wow. I'm speechless. Rush Limbaugh is truly an idiot.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/23/limbaugh.hearing/index.html

[Cain]

It's all one vast left-wing conspiracy.

[Dorian Gray]

His freaking LAWYER (Roy Black) sold him down the river!
Black said Monday that the talk-show host paid "extreme amounts of money" to Cline and her husband, both to obtain drugs and later, to keep them from going public about his addiction.

I am not experienced in blackmail or extortion, but I damn sure wouldn't buy drugs for the chump I was extorting from with my money!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cain
It's all one vast left-wing conspiracy.

When someone says he'll get off because he's white, it is a left-wing thing. We already know about the self-loathing white democrats. well the ones from the northeast and the west coast. I'm sure Byrd would disagree and call for the lynching of any black man that says otherwise.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Brown
I'd go further than that. As a rule, I assume that every public statement made by a lawyer about his/her client is probably false. In other words, more likely than not, the lawyer's pronouncements are not in accord with the facts.

Lawyers making public pronouncements are not in the business of being fair, balanced or accurate. They are in the business of promoting the interests of their clients. Accordingly, they will try to present a picture of reality that favors their clients, without regard to how distorted the picture is. (These same lawyers often express amazement when they learn that most members of the public don't like people like lawyers who spin the facts to create a dishonest impression.)

Limbaugh's lawyer says Limbaugh was blackmailed? Probably not true.

Michael Jackson's lawyer says that his client did nothing wrong and the whole case is about money? Probably not true.

Brown, to an extent I do agree with your arguments because lawyers are supposed to zealously defend their clients and to do otherwise would be malpractice.

However, the lawyer for the housekeeper in question has strenuously denied the blackmail charge.

Therefore, this a case where one lawyer says one thing, and the lawyer for the other side is saying the exact opposite (pretty typical, eh?). Anyway, given this situation it would be impossible for both of the lawyers to be completely wrong so I expect that at least one of them is being at least partially truthful.

As for me, I would bet my money on the lawyer for the housekeeper. Rush Limbaugh has shown himself again, and again, and again, to be a big, fat liar, and he has often shown just how sensitive he is to public critics (in spite of his protestations about how is above such things since he is so "right" about everything in the universe). Further, since this item came out some weeks after the original story did (instead of at, or about, the same time) the displaced timing makes me suspect that Limbaugh did indeed try to pay hush money to keep those who knew the truth quiet about the details.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Brown, to an extent I do agree with your arguments because lawyers are supposed to zealously defend their clients and to do otherwise would be malpractice.

However, the lawyer for the housekeeper in question has strenuously denied the blackmail charge.

Therefore, this a case where one lawyer says one thing, and the lawyer for the other side is saying the exact opposite (pretty typical, eh?). Anyway, given this situation it would be impossible for both of the lawyers to be completely wrong so I expect that at least one of them is being at least partially truthful. This is a good point, and I think I should clarify my position. I most certainly do not say that lawyers are habitual liars, or that everything a lawyer says in public is a lie. Rather, my rule of thumb is that I assume, with a better than 50 percent probability, that a lawyer making a public statement on behalf of a client speaks falsely in some key respect. The lawyer could be speaking completely truthfully, but there is a better than 50 percent chance that this is not the case.

As sometimes happens, lawyers for opposing sides tell conflicting stories. It is very often true that both stories are wrong, and that the truth lies somewhere in between.

In most cases, a lawyer's public statement recounts some things that are true. (I have, on only one occasion, seen a lawyer's public statement that was 100 percent wrong.)

For example, the folks accusing Michael Jackson could have financial incentive for making the accusation. After all, Michael has paid off people in the past to keep their mouths shut. But Michael's lawyer takes this further, saying that the accusers actually do have financial incentive as their sole basis for the charges. This conclusion, even though based upon some truth, is probably false. When all is said and done, the conclusion might actually be true... but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Troll


When someone says he'll get off because he's white, it is a left-wing thing. We already know about the self-loathing white democrats. well the ones from the northeast and the west coast. I'm sure Byrd would disagree and call for the lynching of any black man that says otherwise. What if I say it is because he is rich? Is that a 'left-wing' thing, or a simple statement of truth?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zero
What if I say it is because he is rich? Is that a 'left-wing' thing, or a simple statement of truth?

That would work. As I gave examples of non-white guys that didn't get nailed for their first offense, we can't negate that they too are rich. Hell, you can kill people and molest kids and get off if you're rich, regardless of political affiliation or skin color.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Troll
Hell, you can [kill people and] molest kids and get off if you're rich, regardless of political affiliation or skin color. And in some cases the skin color cannot even be determined .... :p

[Troll]

Originally posted by Bjorn
And in some cases the skin color cannot even be determined .... :p

touche'


Good one.:D