All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 21, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:04
October 21, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, Mike, I've decided, let's start at Soundbite 1 instead of Soundbite 4.
After looking at this stuff, greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited play and the award-winning, thrill-packed, ever-exciting, and increasingly popular Russia Limbaugh program on the air program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations.
It's Friday, and you know what that means.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open live Friday.
And this is, of course, your lucky day, ladies and gentlemen.
Monday through Thursday, as you know, I exhibit dictatorial, benevolent, dictatorial control over this program, determining what topics, subjects, and news items will be discussed.
However, on Friday, I take one of the greatest career risks known to exist in all of major media.
I turn over the selection of such news items to you, a bunch of rank amateurs.
Now, I still love you.
Don't misunderstand, but I am the highly trained broadcast specialist here, and you are the amateurs, but that's what makes it fun.
Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
A special greeting to those of you on the left coast or arising late.
Welfare recipients just getting up to go to breakfast.
We've been at it a long time here on the East Coast.
A lot going on here.
Not nearly as laid back as it is on the left coast.
Lots going on here today, folks.
You know, I got to love Max Mayfield.
But before I say anything else about delay, I have to tell you I love Max Mayfield.
He is the director of the National Hurricane Center, and he's been doing press conferences regularly this week, about 11 o'clock to 11.30, rather than doing all these little 90-second shots on 1,500 television stations and networks.
And he said today, for those of you in South Florida or anywhere near the track of the upcoming Hurricane Wilma, he said, you can do all the advance warning we may.
We can warn you people, and we can get you in touch with your local officials and all that.
But he said it, it's a quote, it all comes down to the individual taking personal responsibility for his surroundings and his well-being.
End quote.
Now, he didn't say this, but I had an interpretation.
Hello, New Orleans.
Because Max said, hey, look, you're going to sit around and blame somebody else.
If you don't try to help yourself, you've got nobody to blame but yourself.
He didn't say it that way, but it all comes down to the individual taking personal responsibility for his surroundings and his well-being.
The Democrats are fit to be tied.
The Democrats on their kook left-wing websites are fit to be tied.
Tom DeLay had the audacity to actually smile in that mugshot of his.
Why, that mugshot looks better than his official portrait.
If you ask me, walked in there.
I don't know how mugshots work.
I've never been mugshotted, but I don't know if they take 15,000 pictures and put out the worst or if they give you one chance, snap the picture and send you on your way.
But whatever it was, DeLay has this big smile on his face.
The Democrats have put that mugshot on t-shirts and are trying to sell it.
But it's in fact, ladies and gentlemen, the Associated Press.
Let me find this.
The Associated Press, in their slug, their first story about this story by their reporterte, their infobabe, Laurie Kellman, Delay's mugshot smile hurts Democrat chances in 06.
That is a headline from the Associated Press.
Now, I told you people from day one that this is what Ronnie Earl of the Democrats wanted.
They wanted this mugshot and they wanted his fingerprints and they wanted to perp walk.
Now, they didn't get the perp walk, but they wanted the mugshot so they can use that picture for the rest of Delay's life.
Now, it probably won't survive the rest of DeLay's life because it's a good picture.
The Democrats are all upset.
MoveOn.org trying to sell t-shirts.
A number of other groups with the mugshot on it.
You just have to love it.
Let's listen to Delay's lawyer.
There was a lot of action today.
Delay went into court, had the appearance, had the arraignment, posted bond, $10,000, and they filed their motion to change venue and change judges.
So we'll start with first off the judge in Travis County.
And this is a guy who his name is Bob Perkins.
He has given money to John Kerry.
He's given money to the Democrat National Committee.
He has given money to moveon.org.
And the delay camp wants him to recuse himself.
He did recuse himself during the Kay Bailey Hutchison case 10 years ago and did it without having a third judge decide that, just decided on his own to recuse himself.
In this case, he is choosing a different path.
Once again, the Travis County Courthouse, the judge, Bob Perkins.
It seems to me that this is going to be continuing to be an issue anytime there's a Democratic judge and Republican defendant or vice versa.
And we probably need to get some hearing on that made by the presiding judge of the region.
And I just think that'd be the fairest way would be for them to hear that.
Yes, sir.
And I understand that Mr. Earle seems to think it's just a Democrat-Republican thing.
But I noticed yesterday, moveon.org, to which you have contributed, was selling t-shirts with Mr. Delay's mugshot on it.
I raised money.
Well, let me just say I haven't ever seen that t-shirt, number one.
Number two, I haven't bought it.
Well, so what?
I mean, given money, this is a wacko fringe group.
Well, it is a fringe group in terms of normalcy.
They are the Democrat base.
But I still folks, if you go get the AP slug in the story, now they've changed it from the first time it came out.
They've normalized it.
But again, Delay's mugshot smile hurts Democrat chances in 06.
Lori Kellerman, AP, clearly having a difficult time hiding her disappointment that Delay was not frowning.
Even the headline of her article, Delay Smile May Foil Democrat campaign ads, couldn't cover up her frustration.
Delay smile may foil Democrat campaign ads.
Pretty much indicating what this is all about as far as people who have animus toward Delay.
They want the mugshot.
They're trying to criminalize people they cannot beat at the ballot box.
Here is more of Dick DeGurin, who is Delay's lawyer.
He, too, is a Democrat.
He's explaining why he filed a motion to have the moveon.org judge removed from DeCase.
We've filed a motion to ask the judge to either excuse himself from the case or to have the presiding judge of the administrative district hear the recusal motion.
The motion is serious.
It deals with not just the fact that the judge is an active Democrat, as he has every right to be, but that he has supported causes and persons that have been in direct opposition to Congressman Delay, including MoveOn.org,
an organization that raises money by insulting Tom DeLay, and including the Democratic National Committee, to whom the judge contributed within days of the case involving the Republican National Committee ending in the judge's court.
Now, this next bite, I love this answer from this lawyer.
I love this answer.
I have personal reasons for it.
I will admit it.
He's having his press conference, and he tells the press, look, just read our motion.
He consider asking me all these questions.
Just read our motion.
The motion talks about Judge Perkins and his political activities, which have been in opposition to Congressman DeLay.
And frankly, a judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
That's what the canons say.
And so that's what we're asking.
There are several quotations from moveon.org that are very insulting to Congressman Delay.
They're set out in the motion.
I encourage you to read the motion in terms that even reporters can understand.
The latest thing on moveon.org's website is that they're trying to raise money by selling t-shirts with Tom DeLay's mugshot on the t-shirts.
And I just don't think it looks right for the judge sitting on Congressman DeLay's case to have contributed to an organization such as that.
Okay, listen to me on this, folks.
This is basically the lawyer.
He's filed a killer motion.
He wants the press to read it.
I have a little experience with this.
And here's what you have to know.
They will not read the motion.
And even if they do read the motion, they will be unmoved by it.
The press has a template on this story, as they have on every story.
They have an agenda.
They have a desire.
They have a hoped for and a dreamed of outcome.
Anything that crosses their path that provides doubt or challenges their worldview or challenges their template on this, they will ignore.
They will say it doesn't advance the story.
So I'm telling you, I have direct experience with this.
If these motions, this motion today that DeGuerin has filed, does not comport with what the press wants this case to end up being, how they want this case to end up, they will give little, if any, attention to what's in that motion from DeLay's perspective.
Now, you mark my words.
Despite the lawyer's plea, despite the fact that he said, well, this is written in language, not legalese, anybody can understand this.
They will not make, they won't read it.
And if they do, they'll act like they haven't.
If they do read it, they will not give it any appropriate weight unless it advances the story.
And by that, I mean if it advances the prosecution's case against delay, then they would use it.
But if it was a bad motion, they would talk about it.
If the judge rules in favor of delay, you might not hear much about that as much as you would hear if the judge rules against delay, because the judge ruling in favor of delay will not, quote, move the story forward, unquote.
Moving the story forward is defined as getting closer and closer to delay's guilt.
I know what I'm talking about in this, folks.
I have lived it.
I have breathed it.
And when it comes to trying to get the press to look objectively at both sides of a story, not possible because they have chosen a side.
And anything that advances their side, heralded.
Anything that doesn't, they won't even mention it.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
All right, back to the audio sound.
By the way, some clown in a 19 or 2005 Chevy Impala, Capitol Hill Police is surrounded.
The guy claims he's got a bomb, two people in the car, and some guy claims he's got a bomb.
Capitol Hill Police there has met people are there.
A possible suspicious package in the car.
They have not evacuated the U.S. Capitol.
But I think they're now looking into the car.
They're testing to see if it is actually a bomb now.
Canine units are there and all that.
This has been going on for about 25 minutes.
Back now to the Tom DeLay scenario.
Really, this is something backfiring on the left.
They hoped for a frown.
They wanted DeLay to look in this mugshot like they see him in their nightmares.
The devil incarnate.
Extended looks like a nice guy, which he is.
He just happens to beat them in elections.
He held a little press conference after his arraignment today down in Travis County saying it's a happy day.
He's looking forward to things.
You may be surprised to hear this from me today, but I find this is a very good day.
For the first time in over three years, I was provided the opportunity to go before a court and refute these baseless charges that are the result of a political vendetta being acted out by Ronnie Earle.
Now, unfortunately for Ronnie Earle, the facts and the law are on my side.
The only reason I had to be in that courtroom today was because Ronnie Earle has abused his prosecutorial power and he's pursued these contrived and baseless charges.
DeLay had another great line in this set of remarks.
Because Ronnie Earle and the Democrat Party could not beat me at the ballot box and could not beat me on the floor of the House of Representatives, they are now desperately trying to challenge me in a courtroom.
In short, I have been charged for defeating Democrats.
I have been charged for advocating constitutional representation.
And I have been charged for advancing the Republican agenda.
And I'm going to tell you something, folks.
I agree with him.
I agree with him.
I have thought long and hard about this.
I've looked at this.
It's easy to say something like that in the midst of this kind of a circumstance with a very partisan Democrat prosecutor against a very successful Republican congressman.
But I think he's right.
I think he's exactly right.
I think this is part of the ongoing effort on the part of the American left to try to criminalize conservatism, to try to criminalize Republican Party success because they just cannot find a way to defeat us at the ballot box.
And I have no question that's a great way to put this.
Delay saying he's been charged for defeating Democrats.
And he's smiling throughout this press conference, right up to the end, finishing with have a nice day on this.
Grand jury shopping and make the law up as you go in justice by the district attorney will not rule the day.
The facts and the law will rule the day.
A fair trial with an impartial jury will look at the facts and they will understand that without a doubt, I committed no wrongdoing whatsoever.
I look forward to presenting those facts and putting my faith in the law and order to welcome my inevitable exoneration.
And he finished with thank you once again for this opportunity to talk to you all and have a nice day.
And of course, the press is screw you, Delay.
Screw you.
And we're not going to read your stupid motion either because we don't care what you say because you're a lying skunk Republican, Delay.
We'll see you behind bars.
We're going to get a picture of you frowning yet, Delay.
Tell us to have a nice day.
Screw you, pal.
That's the reaction that's being shared all over the Democrat websites at this moment, probably among some of the press who were gathered, hoping that Delay would be sent to the gas chamber today.
Here is, no, no, no.
Give me David, Nashville, Tennessee.
Put those calls up there, and I look at them, and I plan on that, and then it gets changed.
Nashville, Tennessee, and David, welcome to the program.
Hi.
Kittos, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
This whole entire scene is kind of heartening to us individuals that are conservative Republicans.
We've been taking it on the ropes lately.
We've been taking it in the chin with the Myers confirmation.
We've been feeling down about all the spending and everything.
And all of a sudden, we've got the equivalent of the Wellstone Memorial Volleyball, or the beach ball, rather, in that they've overplayed their hand.
I mean, you've told us a number of times.
You've quoted Napoleon where he said, if your enemy is going to destroy himself, get out of the way.
And they just seem to jump right into our way again.
Well, one thing I would disagree with you.
If you want to say you were demoralized out there, I'm not going to challenge you.
I've been trying to keep people from getting down to that level of pessimism because I think everything going on is an example of overreach, as in the example of the Wellstone Memorial that you gave.
The whole five years has been an example of that.
And they don't learn from it.
What the Democrats learn from it is they don't think they went far enough.
They come back and keep, they draw a new line, more and more extreme, and get closer and closer to that, finally cross that line, and they've got to draw a new line.
And as this happens, their extremism just continues to mount upon itself, multiply.
And in this case, you know, to whatever extent there is some demoralization out there, and I have my theories about this.
I think there's been a little bit of that.
I wouldn't call it demoralization.
I call it anger over a few things.
And I just think the Myers nomination kind of tipped it and caused a lot of what's been suppressed by people to surface.
I think the Myers nomination simply was called a tipping point or last straw, whatever.
But this delay situation, I have believed throughout all this that while the press, particularly the Beltway press, wants to report about conservatives falling apart, Republicans falling apart, the White House losing control, my impression has been that there is anger among the conservative base.
There's anger at the way this president has been insulted and criticized, impugned and abused by what has been a lynch mob coordinated by Democratic Party, the ultra-left-wing extremist base, and certain members of the press corps.
And I think people have been fed up with this for five years.
Rather than being demoralized by it, some have been demoralized.
I mean, it doesn't make you feel good.
But I've been trying to tell you with each time they overstep, they open the door right into their own nose.
I don't know what's going to happen with this Rove business, but there could be some overarching or overreaching there.
We won't know for a while.
But there clearly is with this delay business, and I have no doubt that it's going to unify conservatives and further focus their anger toward the ballot box next year.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Open Line Friday rolls on.
We will have a ditto cam on for you just a few minutes, folks, for most of the program today.
Here are the amounts of money that have been given by this judge.
What's this clown's name?
Bob Perkins.
What?
What do you mean?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I did.
I call the judge.
I apologize, Judge Perkins.
What's the guy's name?
That didn't mean anything.
I reserve that reference for the U.S. Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.
And by the way, those people, what are they smoking?
They're back with a couple rulings today, too.
So we'll get to them.
But anyway, the honorable judge in the Tom Delay case, Bob Perkins, on July 14th of 2004, $200 to John Kerry.
On July 24th of 2004, $500 to John Kerry.
On July 29th of 2004, $475 to John Kerry.
So let's see, in the month of July of 2004, you know, over $1,000 to John Kerry.
On September 11th of 2004, $200 to moveon.org.
And on October 13th of 2004, $200 to the Democrat National Committee.
So that is just a little bit of a recitation as to this judge's activism and his activity, shall we say, in attempting to assist the advancement of the Democratic Party.
Now, there's an interesting New York Times story today.
Yeah.
You know, there's two different ways to look at this.
The New York Times story is by David Johnston.
The headline, cover-up issue, seen as focus in leak inquiry.
As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the CIA leak case, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Carl Rove and Scooter Libby sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors.
Lawyers involved in a case said Thursday.
Now, somebody's leaking.
To get this specific, somebody somewhere is talking now.
We know that.
Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statement counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe that the evidence shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions.
Rove and Libby have been advised they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said.
But only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges.
The prosecutor has said that he'll not make up his mind about any charges until next week.
With the term of the grand jury expiring in one week, though, some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments.
None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case.
Yet they are doing so anyway.
Now, okay, so this story basically says that it's the cover-up issue that has been the focus of this investigation.
Is there another way of saying that?
Is there another way of characterizing what's happened here, ladies and gentlemen?
If you say that the prosecutor is looking at cover-up, obstruction of justice, could you then not conclude that the prosecutor has concluded there was no original crime here?
Now, what is it that the press has had its underwear in a wad about for two years?
The press has had its underwear in a wad for two years over the fact that some scalawag, some low-rent scum in the White House, Carl Rove or whoever, actually had the audacity to give up the status and the name of an undercover CIA agent and expose her to great danger.
That's been the focus.
Two things.
Number one, that didn't happen.
And number two, since when did the press start caring about the CIA?
Since when did liberals start caring about CIA agents?
In my lifetime, the left has hated the CIA.
They've despised the CIA.
The CIA equaled Nixon and E. Howard Hunt, and the CIA murdered innocent dictators.
The CIA was a rogue agency.
We had to stop it.
And so if the Frank Church Commissioner came along and did it.
Well, another way of looking at this is why I love my buddies at Newsmax.
Headline, New York Times, Carl Rove, Lois Libby, likely cleared on leakgate charges.
That's the way to look at it.
There is no evidence.
Probably, as we have all suspected, because Victoria Tensing, who wrote the law, told us there wasn't a crime committed here.
So, what's happened here is something that, folks, I have to tell you, it's the Martha Stewart syndrome.
What happens is you have a suspected crime.
You investigate whether the crime took place.
You find that that crime didn't take place, but in the course or process of your investigation, you think crimes have occurred.
So, we have a process crime here.
We have no crime, apparently, on what this whole thing was about in the first place.
But in the process, we think we've uncovered criminal activity as part of our investigation.
And so, that's what the New York Times story is all about.
This is what Newt Gingrich was warning about the other night on Hannity and Combs on the Fox News channel.
You know, it's one thing, but if we're going to start dragging people in over two years' time and having them appear four hours at a time, and then we're going to say at some point, that doesn't square with what you said 18 months ago, and you don't get your lawyer in there, and you have no advocate in there, and it's not a due process circumstance in there, and then they can say, Well, you lie, well, you covered up, well, you obstructed justice.
There was no crime in the first place.
Why?
Now, I know that the star investigation started with Watergate or Whitewater and ended up with Lewinsky, but we knew that there were nefarious activities in both places.
The Watergate syndrome was a cover-up syndrome as well.
You see, there's a pattern here.
There's a pattern.
All these initial allegations turn out to be, eh?
Well, we really nail these people.
I'm going to get them in the process.
We can get them in here so confused.
We can say, Scooter Libby said that, Mr. Rove.
What do you say to that?
Then bring Scooter Libby in.
Mr. Rove, Scooter Lib, or Mr. Libby, Scooter Rove said that.
You get these guys so backwards and forwards without a lawyer in there to keep track of things for you and to keep your head straight four hours each time you go in.
It's like Martha Stewart.
Martha Stewart's big mistake was talking to these people without her lawyer present.
She was not convicted of what she was originally suspected of doing.
She was convicted of lying to the FBI, which is not a good thing.
I mean, I'm not advocating that, but by any stretch of the imagination, I'm not suggesting it should be exonerated or paid no attention to.
But, you know, in this case, the impetus for this whole thing probably is not a crime.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has likely decided not to indict top White House age Carl Roven Scooter Libby based on allegations they outed CIA employee Valerie Plame.
Lawyers close to Fitzgerald's leakgate investigation have told the New York Times.
Instead, the paper said, conflicting accounts given by Rove and Libby have been the focus of Fitzgerald's probe almost from the start.
That's in quotes, raising questions about whether the respected prosecutor continued his investigation after determining that no underlying crime had been committed.
Even the Times noted possible violations under consideration by Fitzgerald are peripheral to the issue he was appointed in December of 2003 to investigate.
Now, it's still not clear that Rove and Libby would be indicted even if Fitzgerald could prove that they gave false testimony to the grand jury.
In 2000, the independent counsel Robert Ray concluded that then First Lady Hillary Clinton had provided materially false testimony in the Travelgate investigation, but he declined to indict, explaining that he couldn't prove that her false statements were intentional.
So anything could still happen here, folks.
A couple points that I want to make here before we go to the go to the break.
I got a great note from a friend of mine this morning who said, Rush, I'm sure there's a point that you've thought of, but I haven't heard it expressed.
Well, I hadn't thought of this, not consciously, so I wanted to share his thoughts with you.
What really shows the difference, he says, between conservatives and liberals is what conservatives aren't saying about this investigation.
We aren't trying to smear Fitzgerald.
We aren't suggesting he's a pervert or attack him for his religious beliefs.
We aren't even mentioning his party affiliation.
And I've been told, haven't been able to verify this comes from a good source.
He's a Democrat.
I've been told the opposite.
I've told he's a Republican.
I don't know what his party affiliation is.
But regardless, he's not being attacked.
Nobody's attacking Fitzgerald.
We aren't crying crocodile tears every two minutes about the cost of the investigation.
And we are saying that no perjury or obstruction has been formally alleged against anybody yet, but we aren't claiming that perjury and obstruction of justice aren't serious offenses, that it's politics and everybody lies in politics, so it's no big deal.
This is all the things the Clinton administration did during the Ken Starr investigation.
They just tried to destroy him, call him a sexual pervert, wind on and on and on about the waste of money, claim that, well, I mean, lying, everybody lies in Washington.
Politics, everybody lies in politics.
In fact, even the Clinton administrations, we got stories in the news media about how little white lies are actually good for people because it doesn't hurt their feelings.
So those are some interesting differences that I wanted to pass on to you.
By the way, I've been thinking about this Harriet Myers problem, folks.
I got a solution.
Everybody's got their ideas.
One of the ideas is that Harriet Myers resign, withdraw, and that Bush nominate her to the appellate court and let her get some seasoning and go through some hearings there and then get out of it that way.
I have a different idea.
But before I give you my idea, let me tell you what I saw a news story yesterday.
Let me tell you what I think of it.
Sam Brownback and the vice president, Lindsey Graham, both, no way.
They got together and I know you're laughing, but I'm serious about this.
Let me start again.
Let me start again.
Senators Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback have made a document request of the White House.
Republicans have made document requests to the White House.
We just don't know enough.
I mean, we just don't, we've got to see what you can do.
And some people are thinking that this is the way out for the White House.
Sorry, Senators Brownback, we just, we can't do this.
Use this as a, because this is a signal.
When Republicans ask the White House for documents, you know what a big brouhaha document requests are, executive privilege and all that.
She was the president's personal lawyer.
There's no way they're going to get these documents.
But when Republicans are asking for it, not Democrats, I sense, you know, my nose sensing a strategy here.
I just keep a sharp eye on it.
It is a possibility, but that's not my idea.
My idea is this: a solution to the Harriet Myers issue.
The president announced that he is withdrawing her from nomination to the Supreme Court because he's decided to appoint her to succeed Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve.
He trusts her.
She has filled out her own income tax forms all of her life, and she has done her personal banking all of her life.
She knows banks.
She knows tax reform, tax policy, and the president trusts her so she can go to the Federal Reserve.
Back after this.
Okay, we're back at 800-282-2882.
Open Line Friday underway.
Bob in San Bernardino, California.
Welcome, sir.
It's a pleasure, a distinct honor to have you with us.
Well, it's my pleasure, Rush.
You know, in the last segment, you were talking about that New York Times article, and that article makes reference to the 1917 Espionage Act.
And it recalled to my mind that a few months ago, weren't you talking about Senate hearings on Bolton and Kerry had outed an agent, named him publicly?
Yeah, my memory is that, yes, that did happen.
Yeah, well, why is it okay for people like that to out secret agents or covert people or somehow be in violation of an Espionage Act and be a Democrat and nothing happens?
Well, I understand.
No, no, no, no.
I understand the question.
There's an answer to it.
Nobody demanded an investigation of John Kerry.
But when it comes to the Rove business, Valerie Plan business, I think this thing has been a coordinated stunt from the get-go.
I think Wilson being suggested by his wife to go over to Niger was a coordinated stunt, going back to Jay Rockefeller's little memo that we shared with you.
I think the whole purpose was to undermine the war in Iraq.
Make no mistake who this Wilson character is.
He's an admitted child of the 60s.
He was out at San Francisco State University making a speech the other day.
I've got the story here in the stack.
I'll give you some of his quotes.
But we're out to establish an imperial empire, the neocons in America.
This guy's a fruitcake.
He's off the wall.
He gets sent over there, comes back, gets a chance to sabotage the whole war on Iraq and terror and undermine the Bush presidency.
Then this leak comes out, and bam, the press and everybody's right on it, demanding an independent council investigation.
And there's the president, okay.
I love you, Democrats.
I don't want to make you mad.
I'll do anything I can to get along with you.
We'll do an independent counsel.
Now, for two years, we have had an investigation, and apparently, and I have to say apparently, because I do not know.
I don't know if reporters are actually getting leaks.
It seems to me they would have to be.
I cannot believe that they are so far gone they are making all this up.
I have to believe that the lawyers involved here are not making it up, but I still don't know.
But I will tell you this.
If it comes out that there was no underlying crime to support this independent council investigation, to carry it out for two years and then find crimes in the ensuing two years is pathetic.
We do not try to criminalize Democrats.
That's the difference.
John Kerry outs a covert agent on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
We don't press charges.
We don't demand that the legal side of things get in gear.
We just, we don't do that.
And by the way, don't throw Clinton up to me because that was led by Louis Free and the FBI.
That had nothing to do with a bunch of Republicans that they got involved in it.
But this thing has gone on for two years.
And if it's true that the underlying crime or the accusation, allegation turns out to have had nothing to it.
There was nothing to this leaking.
And she wasn't covert.
I cannot believe that there was any crime committed here.
To then do an investigation for two years and find a series of crimes in your investigation, that's just pathetic.
But to answer your question again, it's because we don't pursue Democrats that way.
We pursue them at the ballot box.
Silly us.
Back in a moment.
Here's Joseph Wilson at San Francisco State University.
It is in the DNA of the people in the Bush administration to go after anyone who questions them.
Neoconservatives wanted to turn this country into an empire, Wilson said of intentions by those who pushed for war on Iraq.
Somebody said, Why don't you run for office?
He said, I won't.
I can't.
I'm a true child of the 60s.
I had too many wives and I've taken too many drugs.
And yes, I did inhale.
So he says he couldn't get elected.
But he's told us who he is.
▲
Export Selection