This is just too good to not comment...

elwoodblues · #1 12-23-2003, 02:30 PM

Limbaugh's comments regarding the release of his medical records (interspersed with my comments - in blue)

All right, ladies and gentlemen. You know, it's been real frustrating here for the past - what has this been? - past three months. It has been very frustrating to sit here and see what gets released and then reported in the media and to have to remain silent about it for a number of reasons. The occasion for silence is now ended because of the medical records hearing that occurred yesterday here in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Now, the judge ruled against me on the privacy of my medical records despite the fact that we claim that the prosecution in this case did not follow the law as written by the Florida legislature in securing those medical records.

Where have we heard this before? "That authorities in Florida did not follow the law as established by the Florida legislature." We've heard this in the Gore-Bush recount, when the Florida Supreme Court decided to change election law in the middle of the process, in order to keep counting counties that had been counted over and over again. All these chads, all these magnifying glasses. Is he really trying to link the Bush/Gore case to this...that's a stretch even for him. 
So what has happened now, we've issued a press release, a statement, if you will, that just went out, and it's already been reported by some places. I want to read this to you and then have just a few comments about this, and then we will move on.

The headline of our statement - it's not really a press release; we just issued a statement in response - "My Lawyers to File for Stay, Appeal Judge's Ruling Denying Motion to Quash Search Warrant on Seizure of Medical Records." Here's the statement. Now, this is odd for me because it's got my name in it and I don't like reading about myself, but there's some quotes in here. So even though I never talk in this third-person business, please permit me in this case because it's a written statement that I'm going to read.

"Judge Jeffrey Winikoff today denied a request by Rush Limbaugh's attorneys (my attorneys) to quash the search warrants issued for the seizure of my confidential medical records. Roy Black, my attorney, said, quote, "We respectfully disagree with the court's decision and will be filing an appeal today. These records will show that there was no doctor shopping. But the larger issue is that the seizure of Mr. Limbaugh's private medical records without going through the process outlined by the state legislature is clearly an invasion of Mr. Limbaugh's constitutional right to privacy. Mr. Limbaugh was not Dr. Shopping. Two things, we won't know if he was Dr. Shopping until the records are released...while we'd like to trust Rush on this one, some documentary evidence is usually required. Second, Rush is usually the first person to claim that there is no Constitutional Right to Privacy...apparently now there is. 

"He should not have to sacrifice his privacy to prove his innocence. The burden is on the prosecutor's office, not only to prove otherwise, but also to go through the appropriate legal process that protects an individual's right to privacy. We are confident we will prevail on appeal," said Roy Black. In his order, the judge wrote, 'the state is hereby prohibited from disclosure of any of the seized medical records to all third parties absent further order of this court.'" Now, why would the judge say that? Why would the judge put in his order that the state is hereby prohibited from disclosure of any of the seized medical records to all third parties?

I'll tell you why, because the state has been leaking information to the press throughout this investigation. They have been planting information that is not established, throughout this investigation. Of course you've got an eager media lapping it all up. More on that in just a moment. "The judge's order directs Mr. Limbaugh's attorneys to file any motions or pleadings he deems appropriate." So we did; we filed for a stay today. We want to appeal this. If we have to go to a Circuit Court of Appeals, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, we will do so. Why would Rush go to the US Circuit Court...how is this a federal issue? Again, for someone who rails against activists courts and the federal government having too much power, this seems a tad bit hypocritical. This doesn't stop the state from opening the records. They can do it. But we'll just see how much the state respects our desire to follow the legal process all the way out on this.

Now, let me take you back to the beginning of this. Do you recall how you first heard of this story, ladies and gentlemen? It was in a tabloid newspaper. Nothing from law enforcement. You first heard about this in a tabloid newspaper, and everything in that tabloid newspaper article was accepted as gospel. Where did the Clinton/Lewinsky story first break...a tabloid newspapers. Tabloids are bad when they write about me, but when the write about you (and I can make a ton of money off of it) they are great. The media ran with it. It was The Truth. Then, we heard stories that I was involved in a drug ring investigation. This was leaked by "anonymous sources," "high-placed government sources close to the investigation." Next, we heard that I was being investigated for drug trafficking - again leaked by anonymous sources, high-place government sources, close to the investigation.

With each of these leaks the media did solemn reports on the possible severe penalties, and the investigation continues, and then they would casually whisper "No charges have been filed." Next, we heard that I was being investigated for money laundering, again leaked by anonymous sources, high-government sources, quote, unquote, close to the investigation. Now, ladies and gentlemen, what happened to all that? Hmm? What happened to all those things? What happened to the drug ring investigation? What happened to the drug trafficking investigation? What happened to the money laundering investigation? Have you heard of them since they were leaked? No. I wonder why? Why haven't we heard about these investigations? Maybe they just haven't indicted you yet, Rush. Maybe the investigation didn't turn anything up. Time will tell.

Now maybe we can answer the question. Now, these same high-place government sources have gotten permission to see my medical records. Why do they need my medical records? I mean, if they've got a drug ring investigation going and they've leaked all this to the press, and if they've got drug traffic investigation going and they've leaked all this to the press, and they've got a money laundering investigation, why do they need to invade my privacy to see my medical records? The answer is, because they need my medical records to discover, to learn whether I have committed a crime called doctor shopping.

Drug ring, drug trafficking, money laundering. Now they need my medical records, my private medical records to find out if I've committed a crime called doctor shopping? You mean with all these previous leaks, they now have to invade my privacy to learn whether I have broken the law? Why, I thought based on the leaks I've broken the law all these times! How many of you did? How many of you thought, "Gee, whiz, this is really getting bad." Doctor shopping? Doctor shopping. And they need to invade my privacy to even find out about that. These medical records, by the way, will prove legitimate medical conditions requiring treatment. In fact it was... That's exactly why they need your medical records. When you are the only one in possession of the evidence of the crime, that seems like a legitimate use of subpoena power to me. 

Well, I don't want to get [into that.] I'm so tempted to just tell you, but I'm just not going to make their job any easier. Always leave 'em wanting more...what a showman. 
...
...