{"id":23247,"date":"2005-12-14T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T06:35:26","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T06:35:26","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T06:35:26","slug":"what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/","title":{"rendered":"What the Judge\u2019s Ruling Means"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

I\u2019m getting a lot of e-mails from people who say they\u2019re confused by the media reporting on the latest ruling in my case, and I was going to wait to comment on it if I got a phone call. We haven\u2019t gotten any phone calls about that, so let me use the e-mails as the peg, if you will, around which to try to explain this to you.<\/line> It is not nearly as complicated as the reporting has made this out to be. You have to understand, as I have learned, my case is a story just like Iraq is a story and just like anything else is a story, and for the media — particularly the local media here in south Florida — there is an action line, and that action line is: Anything bad for me moves the story forward. Anything that happens favorable to me is not considered news because it doesn\u2019t move the story forward or it doesn\u2019t move the action line.<\/line>The action line is that I\u2019m wrong; they\u2019re right, and anything that they twist and turn to fit that template, they will do. Now, on Monday, Judge Crow ruled in a way sort of split the baby. The subject that was being argued in court was that prosecutors went in, and they wanted the judge essentially to let them talk to my doctors. <\/line>Now, this is after two years of claiming that they needed my medical records. Remember two years ago they\u2019re out there saying that they already had evidence of ten counts of felony doctor shopping. They already had that. They leaked that to the media. It was all over the place. Everybody assumes that they\u2019ve got that; it\u2019s looking really bad.<\/line><\/p>\n

Then they demanded to see the medical records and they said, during the appeals process, until they saw the records they wouldn\u2019t know what, if anything, to charge. Well, what about those ten felonies they already had? Well, they didn\u2019t have anything because there aren\u2019t any. So the appeals process goes on and on and on.<\/line>They finally get the records. They get the records within the dates of the search warrants, and there\u2019s nothing in those records to show doctor shopping. So they go back to court, say: We need to talk to Limbaugh\u2019s doctors.<\/line>Well, there\u2019s a problem. Florida statute says there is confidentiality between a doctor and a patient. It\u2019s called the doctor-patient privilege. It\u2019s like any other privilege that exists, lawyer-client, what have you — and the prosecutors went in and they basically said to the judge: Judge, look, this is silly. We\u2019re investigating a serious crime here, and we can\u2019t talk to the doctors. We don\u2019t have any element of one crime. We don\u2019t have the elements of one crime here \u2019til we talk to the doctors.<\/line>The judge said: Well, the statute says you can\u2019t. There\u2019s a privilege — and the prosecutor said: Well, come on, Judge. Common sense is we can\u2019t go anywhere unless we talk to the doctors.<\/line> So that was the argument. We made the argument that the privilege stands no matter what and they can\u2019t compromise it. So the judge in his ruling on Monday said: Well, we\u2019ll let you issue subpoenas because I can\u2019t — the judge said, I can\u2019t — stop you from issuing subpoenas.<\/line>There was a two-pronged ruling. You can subpoena the doctors. Now they wanted to subpoena the doctors under what\u2019s called ex parte<\/emphasize>, which means they want to issue subpoenas to talk to the doctors to go fishing to see if they can find evidence of a crime.<\/line> The judge said: You can\u2019t do that. You can\u2019t talk to the doctors about Mr. Limbaugh\u2019s condition unless he waives that privilege — which of course I haven\u2019t and won\u2019t. <\/line>They said: Well, we want you to waive it for us, Judge, because we can\u2019t move our investigation forward. <\/line>So we all waited on the ruling. That ruling came Monday. The judge said: You can go ahead and subpoena the doctors, but you cannot ask them one thing about Limbaugh\u2019s medical condition. You cannot ask them one thing about what they said to him or what Limbaugh said to the doctors.<\/line> So the press goes to the state attorney\u2019s office and their spokesman says: We got what we wanted. We can subpoena the doctors. <\/line>That\u2019s why you saw reports that the prosecution won. They said: We got what we wanted. We can subpoena the doctors.<\/line> <\/line>Well, they can subpoena the doctors all day, but they can\u2019t talk to the doctors about anything they said in court that they wanted to talk to them about. They just can\u2019t — unless they cheat, unless there\u2019s nobody in there to ride herd on them, unless there\u2019s nobody getting a transcript. They can\u2019t do it. <\/line> Now, they can bring the doctors in and I have no doubt they\u2019ll try to intimidate them and frighten them into saying something, but they can\u2019t do it. So they didn\u2019t win anything, but it was reported to the press as a win because “subpoena the doctors” moved the action line forward. It advanced the story along the lines of the media, the local media, is interested in being advanced.<\/line>But they — the true definition of this is, it was two parts. <\/line>I can\u2019t stop you from subpoenaing the doctors, the judge said, but nothing has changed. The statute is the statute, and I can\u2019t change it, and you can\u2019t get any personal information from Limbaugh or his doctors without them waiving the privilege, which hasn\u2019t been waived.<\/line>So the bottom line to this is, if you want to know the truth: This prosecutor has said in open court: We have not one element of any crime. He has said: We don\u2019t know what, if anything, to charge until we see the records. <\/line>They got the records. They\u2019ve had the records since May. They can\u2019t find any crime. Now they want to talk to the doctors. It\u2019s a clear fishing expedition. They can\u2019t talk to the doctors. They can subpoena them. They can bring them in. They can ask the time of day. They can ask the doctors how they conduct their office procedures, but they can\u2019t discuss a thing about me. They can\u2019t ask them, and the doctors don\u2019t have to answer. <\/line>So the upshot of this is that this is a loss for these people, but in this case, since this is not really a legal proceeding anymore. They\u2019re gonna go — I don\u2019t know this, but I would bet you they\u2019re going to — try to bring in a doctor or two and try to intimidate them and see what they can make out of it, and they\u2019ll report that and the media will move the story forward and so forth, and people will be waiting with bated breath.<\/line> Much of the confusion on this has come from the spokesman for the state attorney\u2019s office and much of the confusion, most of it\u2019s been, on the TV side. Because here is what TV has widely reported, and this is wholly inaccurate. The TV has reported this: ?Florida prosecutors are claiming a small victory in the Rush Limbaugh case. A judge has ruled the prosecutors can subpoena Limbaugh\u2019s doctors if the discussion is relevant to the prosecution of a crime, but they won\u2019t be able to look at Limbaugh\u2019s medical records.? Well, the state has based its whole case on the medical records. So if they can\u2019t look at the medical records, and if there\u2019s nothing in them anyway that gives them a crime — and they\u2019ve admitted this in open court — then they\u2019re blocked. There\u2019s nowhere to go. But the press, all they heard was: We can subpoena the doctors, and we can talk to them, and if it\u2019s relevant to the pursuit of crime, why, we can talk.<\/line>Bammo! That fits the action line and moves the story forward.<\/line>Now, this records argument is what the state attorney\u2019s office made in court but they essentially lost that. They were given the records [last July], but then they were told after that [Monday]: You can\u2019t talk to the doctors about what\u2019s in the records. <\/line>This was — you don\u2019t know all this because I haven\u2019t given you… Well, it is actually on the website, if you want to follow the follow the progression of events here. But I understand the confusion, and the confusion is simply the way it\u2019s been reported.<\/line>My attorney, Roy Black, put out a statement<\/a> and we put it on the PR Newswire on my website, and it spells this out in crystal clear fashion. But one of the things that happened, we put out a statement and the state attorney\u2019s office had a live voice talking, and as far as the media is concerned, a live voice talking carries more weight than a printed statement, and that live voice from the state attorney said: We got what we wanted. We can subpoena the doctors, period — and so that moves the action line forward. That advances the story along the lines local media wants it to be advanced, which is: They\u2019re going to get Limbaugh.<\/line>And, of course, I have no idea what\u2019s going to happen next. It\u2019s been over 26 months now — 26 months — and two or three times the prosecutor\u2019s gone into open court and said: I don\u2019t have evidence of a crime. We don\u2019t know what, if anything, to charge \u2019til we see the records. <\/line>Then they saw the records. Now that\u2019s not enough. Now they want to talk to the doctors, but they can\u2019t talk to the doctors about me or my condition or what I said. Yet it\u2019s all been portrayed as a victory for the prosecutors.<\/line> I mean, you go figure it out. It\u2019s no different than the way the Iraq war is being reported. It\u2019s no different than the way half the other news in the country is being reported. The amazing thing is there\u2019s nothing we can do about it. We can play the process out and keep responding to these people as they take their aggressive action. But it\u2019s what the legal process has become. You know, people trying to criminalize political enemies, and it\u2019s taken on a life of its own.<\/line>I go back: You know, I came out of the rehabilitation center in November, two years ago, and the first week I\u2019m greeted with this news that they\u2019ve got ten counts already. Before they\u2019d even seen the medical records, they\u2019ve got ten counts of felony doctor shopping.<\/line>Where…? I know that this is BS, but of course it\u2019s in the media, everybody believes prosecutors never lie. Why would they go to the trouble? They always — everybody, it\u2019s just human, everybody does, everybody — believes prosecutors tell the truth. Well, what happened to those ten counts if they go to court, all these: We don\u2019t have any evidence of the crime. We need to talk to the doctors. We don\u2019t know what, if anything, to charge, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.<\/line>And now this ruling on Monday: Yeah, you can subpoena the doctors, the judge says, because I can\u2019t stop you from issuing subpoenas, but you can\u2019t talk to them about what you want talk to them about. [But] you cannot ask them what you want to ask them about, and yet it gets reported in the press as a big victory.<\/line>That\u2019s the source of the confusion. <\/line><\/p>\n

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I\u2019m getting a lot of e-mails from people who say they\u2019re confused by the media reporting on the latest ruling in my case, and I was going to wait to comment on it if I got a phone call. We haven\u2019t gotten any phone calls about that, so let me use the e-mails as the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nWhat the Judge's Ruling Means - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"What the Judge's Ruling Means - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"I\u2019m getting a lot of e-mails from people who say they\u2019re confused by the media reporting on the latest ruling in my case, and I was going to wait to comment on it if I got a phone call. We haven\u2019t gotten any phone calls about that, so let me use the e-mails as the […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/\",\"name\":\"What the Judge's Ruling Means - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T06:35:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-05-19T06:35:26+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"What the Judge\\u2019s Ruling Means\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"What the Judge's Ruling Means - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"What the Judge's Ruling Means - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"I\u2019m getting a lot of e-mails from people who say they\u2019re confused by the media reporting on the latest ruling in my case, and I was going to wait to comment on it if I got a phone call. We haven\u2019t gotten any phone calls about that, so let me use the e-mails as the […]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/","name":"What the Judge's Ruling Means - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T06:35:26+00:00","dateModified":"2011-05-19T06:35:26+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2005\/12\/14\/what_the_judge_s_ruling_means2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"What the Judge\u2019s Ruling Means"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23247"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}