• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

Oh FFS you might as well trust a 6-year-old with a flamethrower.

I really should read my own blog.

If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.

We can’t confuse what’s necessary to win elections with the policies that we want to implement when we do.

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

They want us to be overwhelmed and exhausted. Focus. Resist. Oppose.

There are more Russians standing up to Putin than Republicans.

“But what about the lurkers?”

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

The willow is too close to the house.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

One way or another, he’s a liar.

Giving up is unforgivable.

He really is that stupid.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Overzealous Prosecutors and Your Privacy

Overzealous Prosecutors and Your Privacy

by John Cole|  November 9, 200510:55 am| 95 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Outrage

FacebookTweetEmail

Because it is Rush Limbaugh, someone who is most certainly not a sympathetic figure given his past attitude and statements regarding drug use, my friends on the left are probably mistakenly cheering this investigation, even though it has clearly become an out of control prosecution (and was politically motivated from the very beginning):

Prosecutors argued in court Tuesday that they should be allowed to speak with Rush Limbaugh’s doctors as part the investigation into whether the conservative talk show commentator illegally purchased painkillers.

Meanwhile, Limbaugh’s attorneys wanted the judge to hold prosecutors in contempt for allegedly giving information to the news media, the Palm Beach Post reported.

Limbaugh’s attorney, Roy Black, argued that confidentiality between a doctor and patient is a privilege that even criminal investigators cannot penetrate.

“They cannot force Mr. Limbaugh to supply their evidence for them,” Black said.

Assistant State Attorney James Martz said he needs to put basic questions to Limbaugh’s doctors to investigate if there was a crime.

“I have no idea if Mr. Limbaugh has completed the elements of any offense yet . . . unless we can ask several pertinent questions,” Martz told Circuit Judge David Crow.

Unless, of course, you think it is ok for prosecutors to sieze your medical records, selectively leak information to the press, and then violate doctor/patient confidentiality in a search for a crime to prosecute, this should infuriate you.

Every time I read about this case, it reminds me of the People vs. Larry Flynt–

Larry Flynt: If the first amendment will protect a . . . what did Grutman call me?

Alan Isaacman: Scumbag.

Larry Flynt: Scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you.

Even though Limbaugh is a pompous ass whose views on drug abuse and addiction have indictated a profound lack of understanding and charity towards others, what is happening to him is wrong. He did, for all intents and purposes, exactly what we want drug addicts to do- face their addiction, get treatment, and become productive members of society.

This prosecutor and his crew deserve to be villified.

*** Update ***

Some of you think I am being unfair or uncharitable regarding Rush’s opinions on drugs. To borrow a phrase from the cheese-eaters, ‘Au Contraire!’ I will defend Rush, but it is completely fair to recognize him as a hypocrite:

Rush Limbaugh: “Let’s all admit something. There’s nothing good about drug use. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”

Rush Limbaugh: “Some folks believe I shouldn’t go after the President’s brother. They say that is unfair. Out of bounds. Well, you know, Roger Clinton isn’t just the President’s brother. He is a man who has by his own admission abused drugs. I admire him for the admission — something his brother could take a lesson from. But the fact remains, you people, he has not shied away from the public limelight. He has used his brother’s position to get more attention that should be bestowed up someone like Mr. Clinton. So, I have the right to comment on his drug abuse. It is something that is more than political with me. I abhor the use and abuse of drugs!”

I could go on, but that should suffice. Some of you will try to make a distinction between legal drugs and illegal drugs, thus sparing Rush from charges of hypocrisy. I am not buying it. While there certainly is a difference between someone who becomes addicted to drugs because they were using painkillers and then got addicted and someone who chose to use banned substances and becomes addicted, it is, in my opinion, a distinction without much of a difference. The addiction and desperation and the need for society to take care of these individuals remains the same, as does the illegality of both actions.

Furthermore, from my standpoint, the only difference between ‘illegal’ and ‘legal’ drugs is an arbitrary decision that one drug is ‘bad’ while the other is ‘good.’ This is why the debates over medical marijuana are so acrimonious, and why it is disingenuous to run around supporting legislation locking up marijauan users but pretending that the more harmful alcohol is ‘no big deal.’ It is no big deal simply because we decided, for whatever foolish reasons, that it should be legal, and pot illegal.

[/sermon]
FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Interesting Read
Next Post: Bad Occurences On Election Day »

Reader Interactions

95Comments

  1. 1.

    don surber

    November 9, 2005 at 10:59 am

    Good post
    We need to revise the grand jury system. It has become a star chamber where ham sammiches get indicted
    Ray Donovan, Mike Espy — where do they go to get their reputations back?

  2. 2.

    Jcricket

    November 9, 2005 at 11:06 am

    How about this. I will agree that it appears the prosecution is overzealous in their handling of this case. But I’m not going to vilify them. Hard for me to get up the energy to do this. Oh, and I don’t believe Limbaugh’s lawyers version of events, although I understand why they’re presenting things that way (duh!).

    Honestly, you’re right, I find it hard to have sympathy for him (given just how much he’s said opposing his own kind of behavior, among other things). Perhaps Limbaugh the “overzealous” prosecution will help him realize that others are victims of the “War on Drugs”? I constantly heear Limbaugh rail about how the police should be given massive leeway, and anyone who’s caught is a criminal and should be locked up. If the prosection of a complete blow-hard like Limbaugh is enough to make him change his mind, then he might influence his 15 million listeners to think differently.*

    Limbaugh’s attorney, Roy Black, argued that confidentiality between a doctor and patient is a privilege that even criminal investigators cannot penetrate.

    As some lawyers are fond of saying, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If Limbaugh’s doctors illegaly supplied him with pills above and beyond the legal limit (in all likelihood this is the case), then that’s not necessary covered by confidentiality. Just like lawyer/client privilege does not shield ongoing criminal activity.

    Oh, and remember, Limbaugh was in possession of 1000s of pills, taking 30+ pills a day (you’re supposed to take 1-2), doctor shopping and using his maid to circumvent any limits. This is not simply someone taking a couple extra pills caught up in a police dragnet. We’re talking like at least 3 felonies here.

    * Yeah yeah, ends, means, no justification, I know.

  3. 3.

    jaime

    November 9, 2005 at 11:09 am

    Thank goodness for the anti-Amercican ACLU. Right, rush?

  4. 4.

    John Cole

    November 9, 2005 at 11:11 am

    JCRICKET- There is a difference between doctors being required to inform authorities when they know a crime is being committed, and permitting authorities to interrogate everyone’s doctor looking for a crime.

    Put aside your hatred of Limbaugh for a minute and recognize how damaging this is to all of us.

  5. 5.

    Pug

    November 9, 2005 at 11:12 am

    The real outrage is there are many folks in Florida doing 25-year mandatory minimum sentences, without parole, for exactly the kind of activity Limbaugh was engaged in. They just couldn’t afford to hire Roy Black. Also, for the “originalists” amongst you, where does it say in the Constitution that doctors and patients have an inviolate privilege?

    I’m sure Mr. Surber loved the grand jury system when it was Bill Clinton’s testimony being played on TV. Ken Starr was a hero to the Don Surbers of the world.

  6. 6.

    Lines

    November 9, 2005 at 11:15 am

    Well, they should just lock him up on obstruction charges. He blatently lied and has continued to obstruct justice. At the point where his lying forced the prosecutor to use the last resort attempt of subpoening his doctors, they should have just dropped the majority of the drug charges and filed obstruction charges and conspiracy to obtain a controlled substance. Use the press just like Fitz did and basically say that his obstruction has stopped their investigation into what is definately a crime, but until they have the evidence he is hiding, they are at a standstill.

    No reason to violate privaledge, they can destroy him without it.

  7. 7.

    Paul L.

    November 9, 2005 at 11:21 am

    jaime Says:

    Thank goodness for the anti-Amercican ACLU. Right, rush?

    Is Roy Black paid by Rush Limbaugh or the ACLU.
    Is a ACLU lawyer assisting in his defence?

    All the ACLU did was a motion to file an amicus on behalf of Limbaugh.

  8. 8.

    metalgrid

    November 9, 2005 at 11:22 am

    John Cole Says:
    There is a difference between doctors being required to inform authorities when they know a crime is being committed, and permitting authorities to interrogate everyone’s doctor looking for a crime.

    [tic]John, that depends entirely on whether it was in the affidavit and whether the warrant cited it incompletely, and whether Alito was the judge deciding the outcome.[/tic]

    The doctor patient priviledge has gone so far down the pipe that I’d be damned if I share anything I do with my doctor unless while doing research on it I see a causality with my predicament. With the current state of information dissemination, the question we should be asking is, do we really need doctors acting as gatekeepers to the majority of drugs that could be used to extend our lives, keep us disease free and which don’t cause damage if taken improperly (like cholesterol lowering medications, unlike something like antibiotics which probably should stay under prescription).

    Oh and yeah, if you go around supporting the WOD, at some point you or someone you love is gonna get burned by it.

  9. 9.

    Steve S

    November 9, 2005 at 11:24 am

    and was politically motivated from the very beginning):

    How so? Because Rush wasn’t let off the hook? We have laws. They apply to Republicans just as much as they apply to anybody else. Or is this another one of your IOKIYAR defenses?

    If it was anybody else, I’d say maybe the prosecution was out of line. The guy should be forced into treatment, as he’s already suffered quite enough from his addiction to pain killers.

    But that would be a typical Democratic response. I’d be asking for compassion from the Judge, who would have to “interpret” the law for the sake of Justice, not Revenge. The Judge would have to take the circumstances into consideration. He may even have to adjust the sentence from the required minimums. But all of that would be wrong, according to Republicans like Ashcroft. And, dare I say it? Rush Limbaugh himself.

    Rush is getting not just the Justice that he deserves… but the Justice he demands everyday on his radio show.

    There’s nothing politically motivated about not giving someone leniency.

    It’s called Poetic Justice. And maybe it’ll teach Rush a little bit of empathy for others.

  10. 10.

    Jorge

    November 9, 2005 at 11:25 am

    Pug wrote “Also, for the “originalists” amongst you, where does it say in the Constitution that doctors and patients have an inviolate privilege?”

    I do find it very interesting that Rush’s defense is getting extremely close to Roe territory. Ultimately, John is right that this kind of prosecution is overzealous and intrusive. But you have to admit that the irony of it happening to Rush Limbaugh is incredible. This issue serves two purposes – 1) It exposes how messed up the “war on drugs” is and 2) It exposes the extremely contradictory nature of a very, very divisive national pundit.

  11. 11.

    Mithrandir

    November 9, 2005 at 11:36 am

    Gawd, the pure and blatant hatred here! It’s just downright scary. Even John, while “defending” him, has to ram a rod up his ass:

    Even though Limbaugh is a pompous ass whose views on drug abuse and addiction have indictated a profound lack of understanding and chairty towards others,…

    I guess I don’t listen to him enough, because I’ve not heard him say such things about those who’ve abused prescription drugs while not implicating himself in it. But, maybe “dittoheads” like all of you can say that.

    He’s “obstructed justice?” How? By not rolling over and letting the prosecutor walk all over him and the rights he shares with you and me? What they’re asking for isn’t “police leeway” it’s a violation of privacy. How convenient to be able to try the “originalist” argument when it means going against someone you don’t like.
    The “War on Drugs” does not include Oxycotin. It’s against ILLEGAL DRUGS, not prescription drugs obtained illegally.
    Relax, people. If this were George Clooney, you all would be sympathetic to his “pain of addiction,” happy for him that he earnestly sought help in overcoming it, and saying, “Just leave him alone already!” about any prosecution continuing after him.
    He’s just an entertainer, not public enemy #1.

  12. 12.

    Shygetz

    November 9, 2005 at 11:39 am

    I would think that, given the amount of painkillers he possessed, it should be possible to prove that he obtained them illegally without the doctor’s testimony. Because I think that, unless Limbaugh is being charged with a specific crime, going for a fishing expedition with all of his doctors is bad. On the other hand, my soul appreciates the poetic justice of heavy-handed police powers being used to trump Limbaugh’s privacy in medical decisions.

  13. 13.

    Krista

    November 9, 2005 at 11:43 am

    The real outrage is there are many folks in Florida doing 25-year mandatory minimum sentences, without parole, for exactly the kind of activity Limbaugh was engaged in.

    Well, exactly. This is just over-the-top. Was he selling? No. The person he hurt most was himself. I think Limbaugh’s a douchebag, and I highly doubt he’s learned anything from this (one can hope, though), but we can’t have one set of laws for assholes and one set of laws for nice people. He went through addiction, he got treated, he’s been publicly humbled…I think that’s enough punishment. And I think that the lawyers need to stay the hell away from his medical records. If they get away with it for him, who’s to say they won’t get away with it for a bunch of women if Roe gets reversed? Slippery slope, folks…

  14. 14.

    Shygetz

    November 9, 2005 at 11:45 am

    The “War on Drugs” does not include Oxycotin. It’s against ILLEGAL DRUGS, not prescription drugs obtained illegally.

    Oooo, and he pulled that one right out of his ass. You don’t see that every day.

    Relax, people. If this were George Clooney, you all would be sympathetic to his “pain of addiction,” happy for him that he earnestly sought help in overcoming it, and saying, “Just leave him alone already!” about any prosecution continuing after him.

    If George Clooney were pimping the War on Drugs all over town, demonstrating for increased police powers (remember, one man’s increased police power is another man’s invasion of privacy) to get all the druggies, and lambasting drug addicts as weak, pathetic, and degenerate, then I would be cheering his fall. Being hoist on your own petard is a long-standing comic conceit for good reason–it’s funny. This incident is probably the only time Rush has managed to entertain me.

  15. 15.

    a guy called larry

    November 9, 2005 at 11:48 am

    He’s just an entertainer

    He’s an entertainer like Al Capone was a used furniture dealer.

  16. 16.

    Krista

    November 9, 2005 at 11:52 am

    Being hoist on your own petard is a long-standing comic conceit for good reason—it’s funny.

    It’s not just funny…it’s karma.

  17. 17.

    Lines

    November 9, 2005 at 11:55 am

    Obstruction because he lied to police and investigators. He is guilty of holding 1000 Oxycontins without the requisite prescriptions and hiding the fact that he was doctor shopping for additional prescriptions.

    Actually, I think they have a case against him without the medical records. Obstruction, tampering with evidence and conspiracy are pretty small fries compared to that.

  18. 18.

    Mithrandir

    November 9, 2005 at 12:01 pm

    Oooo, and he pulled that one right out of his ass. You don’t see that every day.

    And yet you’re not denying the point. Because you can’t. The point is, the “War on Drugs” is to stop illegal drugs on our streets, and the illegal sale and distribution. Has/did Limbaugh do any of this?

    I’m not saying he didn’t do something illegal. But that’s not the point of this discussion. The point is the zealous pursuit of a relatively “small” charge that doesn’t fit in the “War.”

    If George Clooney were pimping the War on Drugs all over town, demonstrating for increased police powers

    Again, you must listen to him more than I, for I don’t remember the last time he said he’d be at a demonstration for the “cause.” And, if it’s funny, why such hatred? Me thinks it’s something else. Using your black & white logic, no one who’s ever taken a pill they probably shouldn’t have can’t say anything about the “War against Drugs.”

    But, again, this isn’t the point of the discussion. The point has been made best by … you. The prosecution should already have enough information to charge him WITHOUT use of his doctor’s statements or his medical records. If they were able to do this, then they’d be able to look at yours for criminal activity, too. [sarcasm]Do you have any? Who’s to say without looking at them? [/sarcasm]

  19. 19.

    Mithrandir

    November 9, 2005 at 12:07 pm

    He’s an entertainer like Al Capone was a used furniture dealer.

    Hope that’s supposed to be funny, because otherwise that’s just f’ing stupid.

  20. 20.

    Davebo

    November 9, 2005 at 12:10 pm

    Politically motivated? I suppose it’s possible but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support such a charge. Unless you somehow feel the testimony of Wilma Cline is politically motivated.

    The guy was obviously shopping doctors, and I seriously doubt you would deny that. Shopping doctors is illegal in Florida.

    1000 pills for personal use? How many folks would get a DA to agree that possession of 1000 pills doesn’t consitute intent to distribute?

    Not this poor sod.

    BOSTON – A former Nashua Street Jail Officer has been sentenced to the House of Correction after he was convicted on charges that he possessed OxyContin, cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute them inside the jail, Attorney General Tom Reilly announced today.

    Nelson Perez, 27, of North Attleboro, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a Class B substance (cocaine), possession with intent to distribute a Class B substance (OxyContin pills), and possession with intent to distribute a Class D substance (marijuana). Suffolk Superior Court Judge Charles Spurlock imposed a sentence of 2.5 years in the House of Correction, followed by 3 years of probation.

    Following a joint investigation by the State Police assigned to AG Reilly’s Office and the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Investigative Division, Perez was arrested January 15, 2003 after he returned to the facility from his dinner break to complete his 3 to 11 p.m. shift. Investigators searched Perez’s car where they found approximately 28 grams of cocaine, approximately one ounce of marijuana and 19 OxyContin pills. Also confiscated was $1,300 in cash.

    http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1344

  21. 21.

    Steve

    November 9, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    I don’t know if I agree that the whole prosecution is out of line, but I completely agree that this Ken Starr-like business of leaking lurid details to the press is completely wrong. The state is not in the business of selling supermarket tabloids.

    The fact some commenters have seized upon, that the War on Drugs is more about street drugs than the sort of stuff well-off white folks tend to use, is nothing to brag about. Some of you might recall the flap when it became known that the penalty for possession of crack cocaine was 100 times more severe than the penalty for possessing the powder kind.

  22. 22.

    srv

    November 9, 2005 at 12:16 pm

    Look, if Rush had spent one FREAKING IOTA of his air time ranting about a right to privacy against War on Drugs and War on Terror legislation, then I’d give a rats as.

    The Feds can get your medical and financial records RIGHT NOW. They don’t need warrants, and they don’t need a National Security Letter to do it. Why should a local prosecutor have to work any harder?

    I want his medical records leaked and plastered all over the media. Along with every other G-D Republican and Democrat who voted for emmasculating our privacy. F THEM ALL.

  23. 23.

    Orogeny

    November 9, 2005 at 12:17 pm

    Mithrandir,

    Oxycontin is a Schedule II Controlled Substance. If you obtain it illegally, it is an ILLEGAL DRUG.

    Does anyone know what happened to the issue of Rush buying thousands of (black market) hits of hillbilly heroin via his housekeeper, Wilma Kline? That part of the case seems to have vanished.

  24. 24.

    jg

    November 9, 2005 at 12:20 pm

    Me loves reading winguts argue FOR privacy. Good stuff.

    Sympathy for Rush? Why? He’s getting exactly what he thinks a drug addict should get, railroaded. If he wasn’t a radio personality and was busted with 1000 Oxy pills he’d be in jail telling his roommate he’s getting screwed. Instead he’s saying it on the radio and his followers are contradicting their beliefs to defend him.

    Gandalf,
    We are not allowed to be in possesion of a class B controlled substance without prescription. It IS a part of the war on drugs.

  25. 25.

    John Cole

    November 9, 2005 at 12:23 pm

    Davebo- You never cease to amaze me.

    An impartial observer might note that the 28 GRAMS of cocaine, the ounce of marijuana, and the cash made this a serious offense in and of itself.

    BTW- How many pills did the police find on Rush?

  26. 26.

    Shygetz

    November 9, 2005 at 12:26 pm

    And yet you’re not denying the point. Because you can’t. The point is, the “War on Drugs” is to stop illegal drugs on our streets, and the illegal sale and distribution. Has/did Limbaugh do any of this?

    Wow, he did it again! His anus must be getting awfully sore after so much traffic.

    From the 2003 Issue Brief to Congress on the War on Drugs, entitled “War On Drugs: Legislation in the 108th Congress
    and Related Developments” as compiled by the Congressional Research Service, 2003. Page CRS-1:

    The term “drug,” in this context, means a substance that is illegally taken into the body to affect mood or behavior. Examples include marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. A legal pharmaceutical, when obtained by illegal means or used for nonmedicalpurposes, becomes an illegal drug under this definition.

    Wow. Stunning proof of your hackishness. Shall I hold my breath waiting for a retraction?

    What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we’re not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.–Rush, 10-5-95

    I want to let you read along with me a quote from Jerry Colangelo about substance abuse, and I think you’ll find that he’s very much right…”I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don’t buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that.”…

    What he’s saying is that if there’s a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it….And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we’re blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they’re weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we’re going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn’t. It’s not our responsibility. It’s up to the people who are doing it. And Colangelo is right.–Rush, 9-23-93

    Compassion is no substitute for justice.

    And I don’t hate him because of his drug problem–I hate him because he spouts bigoted, misogynist views and demonizes anyone who disagrees with him. The Oxycontin bit is just funny.

  27. 27.

    Geek, Esq.

    November 9, 2005 at 12:28 pm

    I believe the privilege is waived if the doctors are part of the illegal activities, i.e. if they wrongfully give him the drugs.

    Other than that, this looks like a fishing expedition.

  28. 28.

    Steve S

    November 9, 2005 at 12:41 pm

    The state is not in the business of selling supermarket tabloids.

    Well actually, this is Florida we’re talking about, and I believe all of the supermarket tabloids are headquartered there. They probably get Tax Increment Financing as well as tips from the prosecutors. :-)

    Actually I wonder how much of this isn’t being leaked by Limbaugh? It’s not like leaks about drug abuse are going to affect Limbaugh’s reputation. He’s already regarded as a scumbag by mainstream America, and his dittohead listeners won’t abandon him because of this.

  29. 29.

    Mithrandir

    November 9, 2005 at 12:43 pm

    So far everyone’s including illegal possession, sale & distribution, and lethal illegal drugs in their arguments. Still not hitting it on the head. (Which is probably why Rush hasn’t been prosecuted, eh?)

    First I’ll repeat that I can’t say Rush didn’t do something illegal. I’m not denying that.

    – Possession of Class B without a prescription. Well, I guess he’s gotten prescriptions so this doesn’t hold. Are the prescriptions legitimitely obtained? No? That’s the charge then. But it still doesn’t negate his prior statements for the “War on Drugs” (so far, all quotes provided as “evidence” are PRIOR to this incident. Doesn’t really support the argument.) Nor does it legitimize his pursuers (more later).
    – 1000 vs. 19 simple possession and/or quantity does not prove intent to distribute. Watching someone sell a single Oxycontin pill to someone else proves intent.
    – Crack vs. cocaineIf you’d recall, it was found that crack was more lethal, more often than powdered cocaine. So punishments were changed to deter the possession of a more dangerous substance.

    Is Oxycontin a dangerous or lethal substance? No – it’s addictive. It shouldn’t be distributed or obtained illegitimitely because of that. But it’s still “small potatos” compared to larger scope of the War on Drugs. This fact makes the prosecution over-zealous, and really look politically motivated. That doesn’t mean there’s a Democrat out there pushing for Rush’s conviction. It means the reasons the prosecutor is going after him don’t have to do with the Public Good. He’s going after him because of who he is, not how dangerous he is, or how “bad” he’s been.

  30. 30.

    jcricket

    November 9, 2005 at 12:50 pm

    John – Again, if Rush wasn’t obstructing the investigation by hiding behind doctor/patient privilege, I might agree. If he said, “yes, I went to many doctors. Yes, I did this purposefully to avoid triggering ‘alerts’ with each doctor. Yes, I possessed enough pills to violate several laws.”, I might agree. He’s not saying that. He’s not contrite, beyond expecting us to simply accept his 30-day stint in rehab as the only punishment he should suffer. He’s not throwing himself on the mercy of the court. So I don’t see this as a slippery slope on those grounds.

    Again, his doctor shopping and use of his maid were done to stay below the limits and avoid detection, which may only be provable if they subpoena medical records. His lack of contrition/allocution makes it far more likely the prosecution will have to be far-reaching in their investigation.

    Rush’s lawyers are arguing this is unacceptable breach of privacy, the prosectors are arguing the opposite. Both are, imho, within their rights. The only thing I fault them each for is the constant leaks to the press. That’s not acceptable. Regardless of who’s done it in the past.

    Seriously. I don’t think prosecutors should be allowed to go on unlimited fishing expeditions, especially against private citizens. That’s why I oppose most of the PATRIOT act. That’s why I think there should be laws against SLAPPs. That’s why I oppose caps on damage awards. That’s why I oppose unlimited detention of “enemy combatants” or the relaxation of rules regarding interrogation. The prosecution, generally, already has enough tools and money at their disposal.

  31. 31.

    Steve S

    November 9, 2005 at 12:50 pm

    My mother had knee surgery two years ago and was given Oxycontin for the pain. They came in a bubble-pack sheet so you could keep track of how many you took. She was supposed to take like three a day, as needed for a month. Something like that.

    Now I warned her not to take too many of them, because it might adle her brain and turn her into a Republican.

    Regardless, she only took like a third of them. No more than she needed. Her fear was that if she took too many, she’d become addicted, and she didn’t want that to happen. So she suffered through a bit of pain, and then when she was done she sold her leftover tablets to Limbaugh. KIDDING! She actually tossed them down the garbage disposer.

    The point is… Rush in his ’93 testimony was right to a degree. He also had a choice.

    The question ultimately is, how do we pay for our choices? As Rush found out, the addiction to the drugs is already pretty damaging. It destroyed his hearing… his wife left him. What more punishment does he need?

    I think Limbaugh needs to answer that for us.

  32. 32.

    John Cole

    November 9, 2005 at 12:51 pm

    A.) Oxycontin is most assuredly lethal, and here in WV, where it is called ‘hillbilly heorin,’ there have been a rash of overdoses.

    B.) The intnet to deliver is not what makes someone guilty under possession with intent to deliver statutes. The possession of a quantity of drugs over a certain weight automatically triggers said ‘intent.’

    Regardless, I will ask again- “How many pills did the police find on Limbaugh?”

  33. 33.

    Steve S

    November 9, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    Is Oxycontin a dangerous or lethal substance? No – it’s addictive

    Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing because of Oxycontin abuse. So I don’t know how you can say this isn’t dangerous.

    The standard dosage for this drug is like 2-4 pills a day. He was taking 40 a day. That’s why he had the supply of thousands.

  34. 34.

    jcricket

    November 9, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    I believe the privilege is waived if the doctors are part of the illegal activities, i.e. if they wrongfully give him the drugs.

    Other than that, this looks like a fishing expedition.

    The court will state privilege does not apply if they find that the doctors are part of an illegal activity. But if Rush specifically took actions to avoid detection, the prosecution can only prove that by showing the (by themselves) legitimate prescriptions from the different doctors. The doctors may not themselves have intentionally participated in the illegal activities, and Limbaugh is the independently acceptable “transactions” as reason to deny the prosecution access to evidence that proves a pattern that adds up to illegal activity.

    It’s similar to when someone makes many small sub $10k money transfers to avoid the reporting requirements.

    John, I guess I have limited capacity for outrage, and this doesn’t peg as high on my outrage-meter as yours, given what else is going on in the world. Even if it were Al Franken I’d probably be a bit more PO’ed, but not much, especially if he were as obviously guilty as Rush.

  35. 35.

    Steve S

    November 9, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    Regardless, I will ask again- “How many pills did the police find on Limbaugh?”

    That’s a good question. Most of the intial sources of the story only talk about the money and the sales…

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/limbaugh/100303_limbaugh.html

    The more recent stories now talk about the prescription shopping.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/limbaugh.no.deal/

    Although, Rush was also investigated for Money Laundering

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/11/19/limbaugh.painkillers.ap/

    Is it your contention that the Prosecution is shopping for charges? Or is it likely that they are pursuing multiple trails?

  36. 36.

    a guy called larry

    November 9, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    Hope that’s supposed to be funny, because otherwise that’s just f’ing stupid.

    Take it as you like it. That was the occupation Capone claimed on his business cards, phone book, etc. I’m sure he had his way of saying “I’m not making this up, folks”.
    Limbaugh may say he’s an entertainer when he’s called on his bullshit, but any other time he expects to be taken at face value, such as about fifteen minutes ago when he said “here’s how you’ve got to look at this”, referring to the Republican losses of yesterday. or three minutes ago, he’s railing against Mary Mapes about the Rathergate stuff. If that’s what you call entertainment, fine, but not me.

  37. 37.

    Mithrandir

    November 9, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    I’ve been looking for a number in trying to answer, John. All I find is the maid’s statements, which I won’t repeat because they can’t quite be corroborated, can they? (If they could, charges would’ve been drawn already, right?)

    I do stand corrected wrt all points on Oxycontin. I also had not seen stories connecting Oxycontin to (Rush’s) hearing loss.

    However, that doesn’t lessen the witch hunt that’s happening here. Nor does it excuse the hatred I see written here. Had this been someone not so far to the right, we’d all be done with this, and we WOULD pat him on the back for admitting his weakness and getting help for it.

  38. 38.

    Mithrandir

    November 9, 2005 at 1:26 pm

    Larry: you’re still taking the statements out of context. The WHOLE context is as an entertainment show. So, I’ve “got to look at this ….” ? No I don’t. And I likely don’t. (For example, you’re listening to him now & I’m not) If I do it’s coincidence and independent of Rush. Those who listen are listening listen primarily for an entertaining opinion on the news. They don’t take that as their “News Program” for the day. Those who don’t do this should do themselves a favor and not listen.

    It’s like reading Balloon-Juice for news. It isn’t news, it’s opinions about news.

  39. 39.

    Jon H

    November 9, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    Hm. Has Rush been pro-Alito?

    He might want to rethink that position, given Alito’s tendency to grant police and prosecutors whatever they want.

  40. 40.

    Davebo

    November 9, 2005 at 1:37 pm

    John,

    4,350 pills in one 47-day period according to the Housekeeper.

    And yes, the example I cited was weak due to the other drugs found, but the fact remains the guy was charged with intent to distribute over a dozen pills.

    I have no idea what police found on Rush or if they even searched his home. But it’s obvious to anyone even slightly informed that Limbaugh was illegally obtaining elicit drugs.

  41. 41.

    Davebo

    November 9, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    Had this been someone not so far to the right, we’d all be done with this, and we WOULD pat him on the back for admitting his weakness and getting help for it.

    Shades of Terrell Owens here. I’m happy Rush has, allegedly, kicked his illegal drug habit and I hope he manages to stay clean.

    But patting him on the back for admitting his weakness? That would be easier to do if his admission had been voluntary and not forced on him after being exposed.

  42. 42.

    a guy called larry

    November 9, 2005 at 1:48 pm

    Mithrandir, like I said, if that’s entertainment, fine. But Capone did sell furniture as well, and many people have their opinions shaped by what they hear on EIB.

  43. 43.

    Veeshir

    November 9, 2005 at 2:11 pm

    Can you feel the love?
    I can.

  44. 44.

    Krista

    November 9, 2005 at 2:18 pm

    Veeshir, I think people are just so disdainful of Limbaugh because he was so damned sanctimonious and judgemental about drug usage, when he was guilty of the very thing. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

  45. 45.

    Shygetz

    November 9, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    But patting him on the back for admitting his weakness? That would be easier to do if his admission had been voluntary and not forced on him after being exposed.

    Amen. Saying you’re sorry after you’ve been caught means that you’re sorry you got caught. One of the most important lessons I learned as a child.

    And again, the hate is not due to the drug abuse. The hate is due to Rush’s hateful and vile spewings on a variety of topics. The drug abuse is merely karmic/poetic justice, and funny as hell.

  46. 46.

    don surber

    November 9, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    The real villain is prosecutorial powers that are not tempered by the Constitution. Ask Ray Donovan about this. Ask Mike Espy. Ask DeLorean. Ask Marion Berry

    People who want to argue Rush, Clinton, whatever are boors who are overlooking a particularly evil threat to the liberty of everyone

  47. 47.

    jg

    November 9, 2005 at 2:31 pm

    Everything is politically motivated if you’re in politics, right? Its liek diplomatic immunity. They can get away with almost anything if they scream ‘politically motivated’ loud and often enough. Plenty of people take up the chorus.

  48. 48.

    jg

    November 9, 2005 at 2:33 pm

    The real villain is prosecutorial powers that are not tempered by the Constitution. Ask Ray Donovan about this. Ask Mike Espy. Ask DeLorean. Ask Marion Berry

    People who want to argue Rush, Clinton, whatever are boors who are overlooking a particularly evil threat to the liberty of everyone

    To everyone? Hardly. Just to people who think there is an attainable position that puts you above the law.

  49. 49.

    BARRASSO

    November 9, 2005 at 2:54 pm

    It’s funny how if George Cloony was caught doing the exact same thing, while Rush was still addicted, Rush would be calling for Cloony’s medical records, finacial records, his eventual sentencing to life in prison and rough Oz style wicked hard ass-raping, not the usual mild country gravy style ass-raping. Then would come the constant barrage of how the evil libruls in Hollywood are the cause of all the drug problems in America.

    I however am a forgiving sort so I will only call for a short ten year sentence and mild mango salsa style ass-raping.

  50. 50.

    a guy called larry

    November 9, 2005 at 3:25 pm

    So, is this the first doctor-shopping case they’ve ever had in Florida? There’s not some standard method of obtaining evidence that doesn’t pry open the doctor-patient privilege? Cops have to catch a perp with a pocket full of scripts and another full of drugs? If a crime falls in the forest…

    I don’t know about Florida, but here in the Wolverine State we elect the prosecutors, which pretty much makes every case “politically motivated” in some way. If you choose your cases wisely, you might make a judgeship, be appointed to a federal bench, who knows, maybe SCOTUS someday. Choose wrongly, you’re out on your ass. There was a prosecutor around here some years ago, Richard Thompson, who had a thing for a guy named Kevorkian, you’ve probably never heard of him. Anyway, seveal failed attempts later, he was voted out. That’s the way the fortune cookie crumbles. This case may take that path, you never know.

  51. 51.

    HH

    November 9, 2005 at 4:14 pm

    John – There are literally legions of phony Limbaugh “quotes” out there, up to and including the distortions of his statements on Chelsea Clinton. Did you even read the Geocities link you used as a source? “Also, Limbaugh took it upon himself to legitimize the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, and the Bohemian Grove Satanic Coven, by painting them as just “good old boys” clubs engaged in light-hearted social gatherings.” I mean seriously, what the fucking fuck? It really doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether Limbaugh is a hypocrite or not, the prosecution is going overboard period, and links to Geocities sites are rather irrelevant at this juncture.

  52. 52.

    Lines

    November 9, 2005 at 4:20 pm

    If Limbaugh ate a baby, HH would find a way to defend him, it sounds like.

    Crooks and Liars is your friend, HH. go find the clips yourself.

  53. 53.

    jcricket

    November 9, 2005 at 4:33 pm

    How’s this source for you HH?

    Or this one Or Wikipedia or Oh, Search on Limbaugh at Media Matters

    Yes, as a practical matter it does matter that Limbaugh was not just a public figure, but one that rails against the behavior of others he was practicing himself. Yes, it does matter that he only went into rehab when caught, never apologized for what he’s said about others and still won’t admit the core facts (dr. shopping, using the maid, possession of enough pills to be charged with intent to distribute).

    Legally speaking, his prior statements mean little, unless we’re talking about sentencing. But for you to pretend that people’s reputations and actions during a criminal investigation don’t effect how their case is prosecuted is ludicrous.

  54. 54.

    Steve S

    November 9, 2005 at 4:47 pm

    There are literally legions of phony Limbaugh “quotes” out there, up to and including the distortions of his statements on Chelsea Clinton.

    He called Chelsea the whitehouse dog. It was on his short-lived television show, which I was watching at the time.

    Trust me, he did it. It was no accident. That’s exactly the kind of thing he thinks is funny, and it’s largely why his show bombed… cause he’s not funny.

  55. 55.

    RSA

    November 9, 2005 at 4:52 pm

    Personally, I get a warm feeling of Schadenfreude seeing Rush caught up in his own hypocrisy. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy with what the legal system is doing. I disagree with this, for example:

    If it was anybody else, I’d say maybe the prosecution was out of line.

    Statues of Liberty wear a blindfold for a reason.

  56. 56.

    RSA

    November 9, 2005 at 4:52 pm

    Oops. Justice, not Liberty. (D’oh.)

  57. 57.

    Kimmitt

    November 9, 2005 at 5:27 pm

    I agree with RSA, except that I imagine the Statue of Liberty is at least averting her eyes these days.

  58. 58.

    Lines

    November 9, 2005 at 5:43 pm

    If Rush wasn’t a public celebrity, this case would have been cut and dry, with him in jail for 25 years under Florida law. The fact that Limbaugh is a celebrity has drug this case out far longer than it should have, and leaks were bound to happen. Those leaking should be punished as the law allows, but that doesn’t mean that Limbaugh should just be free to break the law and go on his own little way.

    He had 1000 pills and he lied about withdrawls just under the $10,000 mark. He lied to the American public, then when it seemed as if he was definately going to jail, he put himself through a program.

    He endangered his maid and he broke the trust of multiple doctors when he obtained multiple prescriptions.

    But its still a good thing that Tommy Chong went to jail for selling a bong, right?

  59. 59.

    RSA

    November 9, 2005 at 5:58 pm

    But its still a good thing that Tommy Chong went to jail for selling a bong, right?

    Not by me. Let ’em all go.

  60. 60.

    Kimmitt

    November 9, 2005 at 8:05 pm

    If Rush wasn’t a public celebrity, this case would have been cut and dry, with him in jail for 25 years under Florida law.

    Due respect, but upper-middle-class (and above) white guys don’t get prosecuted for abusing prescription drugs. It just doesn’t happen. Rush is absolutely right that he is being prosecuted because of his fame.

  61. 61.

    james richardson

    November 10, 2005 at 6:50 am

    and when OJ was declared not guilty, black americans cheered and white americans scratched their heads. it’s all about people, and people get pissed. people hate hypocrites. people hold grudges. people like revenge. rush used his pulpit to denounce the weak to no end. that he is now learning the true meaning of irony brings me pleasure to no end. he is not a private citizen. his name and opinions are known and followed by millions in this country. he chose to put his life into the public sphere and made a lot of enemies in the process. now he is paying the price. i am not worried that private citizen joe everyone would be put in the same situation re doctor/patient confidentiality.

  62. 62.

    Larry

    November 10, 2005 at 11:10 am

    If the Karmic Wheel had been properly aligned, it would’ve rolled over Rush’s voice box instead of his ears.

  63. 63.

    HH

    November 11, 2005 at 12:51 pm

    Ah yes, Wikipedia and Media Matters, such unbiased sources. They’d never take anyone out of context right?

    Okay I was tired of the people “swearing” they saw this and forked over the $3 for the Lexis-Nexis transcript and yes, the transcript posted in comments sections everywhere refuting the distortions is indeed accurate:

    Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.
    RUSH LIMBAUGH
    November 06, 1992 Friday
    HOST: Rush Limbaugh

    EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Roger Ailes[…]LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show’s era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them–one of them in particular is.

    DavidHinckley of–of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has–he’s got–it’s very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.’ Could–could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at–see who is the cute kid in the White House.

    (A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

    LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That’s not the kid.

    (Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

    LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That’s–that’s the kid. We’re trying to…

    (Applause)

    LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I’m just getting. Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That–that was an absolutely terrible–I am–I am sorry.

    And of course, Hillary Clinton and Rush Limbaugh both acknowledge that Lmbaugh personally apologized to her a few years ago.

  64. 64.

    HH

    November 11, 2005 at 12:53 pm

    He called Chelsea the whitehouse dog. It was on his short-lived television show, which I was watching at the time.

    And as we see this is just the latest distortion of what actually happened from someone who “swears” they saw it, when in fact they’re quoting one of the litany of distortions of fact from great truth-teller Al “I devoted a whole show to Levittown and I still got proven wrong” Franken.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. texas holdem online strategy free online texas holdem game online texas holdem says:
    May 23, 2008 at 5:46 am

    free on line slots

    The best no deposit bonus casino gambling casino online bonus free casino game no download comment jouer au poker craps game

  2. chase credit card payment says:
    May 27, 2008 at 10:50 am

    credit card balance transfer rate

    Don”t instant credit card application cash advance payday loan software cash till payday loan card credit number validation apply credit card bad credit

  3. le meilleur jeu de poker says:
    May 29, 2008 at 6:40 am

    jeux poker online gratuites

    Recently poker gratuites hold telecharger poker tournament logiciel de poker en ligne télécharger texas holdem en ligne jeu de streap poker

  4. sistema ruleta says:
    June 2, 2008 at 8:38 am

    salle poker en ligne

    Cher apostar jugar portales internet jugar video poquer internet casino on line legali casino online con bonus casinos portales internet

  5. pokerroom bonus says:
    June 2, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    kostenlos poker spielen ohne anmelden

    Considérer poker spielen download java black jack jeu de streap poker jeu du casino gratuit jeu world poker

  6. pokerroom bonus says:
    June 2, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    kostenlos poker spielen ohne anmelden

    Considérer poker spielen download java black jack jeu de streap poker jeu du casino gratuit jeu world poker

  7. texas holdem says:
    June 3, 2008 at 11:09 am

    juego al instante web

    Find pacific poker com telecharger poker en ligne video poker home uk online casino internet casino gambling

  8. online video poker says:
    June 4, 2008 at 3:15 am

    keno gratuites

    Contact strip poker online webcam juegos casino portales online casino betrug juegue casino gratis encuentros poker

  9. jouez au poker en ligne says:
    June 4, 2008 at 8:58 am

    armiger bandit

    Il jeux video casino telecharger poker mac slots gratis holdem poker spiel como jugar poker

  10. ganar premio internet says:
    June 6, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    apuestas online

    Ir poker caribe portales web best internet poker casinos francais en ligne supprimer casino online slot maschine

  11. poker gratuites france says:
    June 8, 2008 at 7:47 am

    poker per pc gratis

    Muy le casino français gratuites play casino play texas holdem poker regel texas holdem cartas poker

  12. free online slots game says:
    June 9, 2008 at 3:41 am

    slots machines gratis

    Au-dessus juego casino portal internet poker online casino gratis paysafecard casino bonus juegos de casino on line

  13. strep poker says:
    June 9, 2008 at 6:53 am

    holdem poker strategie

    Jesuis juegos de casino on line casino gratis online betting poker casino online no deposit bonus video poker pc

  14. poker im net says:
    June 10, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    poker texas holdem online

    Just live online poker omaha poker online spiele telecharger jeu poker gratuites jeu au poker giochi omaha poker in linea

  15. descargar juego de la ruleta says:
    June 12, 2008 at 11:49 am

    five card stud

    Rare giochare omaha poker swiss casino bonus poker game download www casino folies com casino on line gambling

  16. online wagering says:
    June 15, 2008 at 10:45 am

    telecharger poker 3d

    Una vez free video poker game partie poker net juego de poker para descargar giochi jack black poker card game

  17. jeux gratuit poker texas says:
    June 17, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    texas holdem regel

    Wo free poker online texas holdem regel casino games poker spielen ohne anmelden jackpot casino

  18. strip poker download says:
    June 21, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    www geant casino com

    D”uncôté…del”autre 7 card stud high poker en casino jugar apostar streep poker online juegos polly poker

  19. giochi keno says:
    June 23, 2008 at 1:07 am

    texas hold em odds

    You slot machine poker spielen ohne downloaden regency casino internet gambling poker play poker on line

  20. jack black download says:
    June 25, 2008 at 9:37 am

    online casino free bonus

    Compilare poker con bonus juegos de poker jugar card stud en linea no deposit online casino spiel online

  21. online poker no download says:
    June 26, 2008 at 1:50 am

    stud poker

    Ilya poker game zum downloaden eigenes casino online play omaha poker apuestas en linea uk online casino

  22. juego strep poker says:
    June 28, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    texas holdem gratis spielen

    A casino gratis ruleta jugar world tour poker jugar tragaperras linea poker gioco completo gioco texas holdem

  23. holdem poker on line says:
    June 29, 2008 at 10:38 am

    eigenes casino online

    Seprocurer casinos portales internet online poker cheat play free baccarat online noble poker bonus code strip poker game online

  24. casino spiele spielen says:
    June 30, 2008 at 2:30 am

    casino on line italia

    More than one of video poker online aces texas holdem regeln beim poker jeu casino trucos casino online

  25. omaha high says:
    June 30, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    gioco poker scaricabile

    Aggiungere poker game rule poker on line gratuito online games software carte regole texas holdem

  26. poli poquer says:
    July 3, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    play poker online

    Dai on line casino poker caribe portal web juegos poli poker black jack descargas de juegos de poker

  27. online poker says:
    July 4, 2008 at 5:20 am

    telecharger jeu poker gratuites

    Elegir jeu poker portables gioco poker italiano poquer como le poker apprendre à jouer poker software developer

  28. des jeux de poker à telecharger says:
    July 4, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    gratis internet poker

    One of limit 7 card stud poker game rule malette jeu poker poker game poker no limit holdem

  29. party poker no deposit says:
    July 5, 2008 at 6:46 pm

    holdem poker spielregeln

    Eine juegos poker gratis juego dados poker online poker tournament party poker spielgeld reglamentos poker

  30. poker regeln all in says:
    July 7, 2008 at 8:52 am

    online casino free money

    AmEnde poker regeln split free casino cash no deposit online casino gamble craps rules sultan online casino

  31. poker texano on line says:
    July 8, 2008 at 7:19 am

    casino online italiano

    Begin with juego interactivo web free casino download video poker for free ganancia casino portal web video poker tutorial

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - twbrandt - Belle Isle, Detroit, Michigan 7
Image by twbrandt (7/18/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • Jackie on Excellent Read: ‘William F. Buckley’s Bill Never Came Due’ (Jul 19, 2025 @ 5:30pm)
  • Elizabelle on Excellent Read: ‘William F. Buckley’s Bill Never Came Due’ (Jul 19, 2025 @ 5:29pm)
  • WTFGhost on Saturday Late Morning Open Thread (Jul 19, 2025 @ 5:27pm)
  • Eolirin on Excellent Read: ‘William F. Buckley’s Bill Never Came Due’ (Jul 19, 2025 @ 5:26pm)
  • Omnes Omnibus on Excellent Read: ‘William F. Buckley’s Bill Never Came Due’ (Jul 19, 2025 @ 5:24pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!