All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
October 24, 2005, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I know that, Altamont.
I can read the clock.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Here we are at 800-282-2882.
The email address, Rush, is at EIBnet.com, rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, it looks like the president did not take my advice, so you people have an idea of my in with the White House.
My suggestion last week, of course, was to nominate Harriet Myers to be new chairman of the Federal Reserve.
She's used banks all of her life.
She probably filled out her own tax forms, and the president trusts her.
But Bernanke, Ben Bernanke, is already a member of the Federal Reserve Board, has just been nominated to replace Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve.
Also, I want to update you on something here, folks.
I alluded to this last week.
Talking about independent counsels, there has been a long-going, ongoing independent counsel investigation called the Henry Cisneros investigation.
It has been spearheaded by the independent counsel David Barrett.
And I told you last week that the Democrats tried to secure a vote to squelch the report of this investigation.
They had previously attempted to cut the funding off from this investigation.
It's gone on for 10 years.
And there's obviously something in this report.
There have been 200 motions filed recently, total, to keep this report private, to keep it secret.
There's obviously something in it that people don't want anybody to see.
And I'm told it's branched out to include long-ago things that go beyond Henry Cisneros.
And I told you last week that the reporting made it look like Chuck Grassley, the senator from Iowa, had caved with the Democrats.
But it's just the opposite.
He stopped their vote to squelch this report.
And the latest on this is from Byron York at National Review Online that Senator Grassley has now asked the three-judge panel that oversees Barrett's investigation for a copy of his report on the Cisneros investigation.
The report has been finished since August of 2004, but its release has reportedly been blocked by Clinton-era figures who do not want to see it made public.
As chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have a particularly strong interest in this report, given that it is my understanding from the media that it focuses significantly on areas within my committee's jurisdiction.
Grassley wrote this to the judges asking for the release of the report on October 19th, five days ago.
As you know, the judicial panel is a creation of the Congress.
It wouldn't exist but for its establishment as part of the law creating the independent counsel.
Now, a fair reading of the law is that given my legislative responsibilities in the Congress, the court should provide a copy to me if requested, said Grassley.
There's been a great deal of attention in the media regarding this report.
The Congress and the taxpayers have a right to know its contents.
A good amount of taxpayers' money has been spent on this, and there's been widespread media speculation about its contents.
The speculation is of concern and raises very troubling issues about the administration of the tax code.
Oh, Grassley says that this report has something to do with the tax code, and it involves a Clinton-era figures.
Hmm.
He concludes by saying, I cannot legislate based on the rumors and whispers.
I need the completed report.
It is for these reasons I'm requesting a copy of this complete report.
So there's more movement here on the David Barrett Independent Counsel report looking into the Henry Cisneros investigation.
We've got these Howard Dean soundbites.
Are you ready to go on this?
Soundbite 16 first.
He's on with Stephanopoulos yesterday.
And Stephanopoulos says, you believe there was a cover-up even if Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't bring indictments.
Oh, sure.
And the evidence is very clear.
Half the stuff the president told us about Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction, the trip to Najer, the purchase of uranium and all that stuff.
We know that's not true.
It was in the 9-11 report.
We know that the president wasn't truthful with us when he sent us to Iraq.
What got Roe and Libby in trouble was because they were attacking, which the Republicans always do, attacking somebody who criticized them and disagreed with them.
They make the attacks personal.
They go over the line.
That's what they're investigating.
It's a fundamental flaw in the Bush administration is the personal attacks on people for meritorious arguments.
They never make the argument.
They always make the personal attack.
That is just incredible.
Listen to this.
We need a professional psychiatrist to analyze Howard Dean.
This is beyond my scope, folks, beyond my pay grade, which is pretty high.
But it is beyond my pay grade to figure this out.
He may as well be describing his own party.
The only route they have back to power is via the personal attack, the criminalization of policy differences.
And to sit here and talk about meritorious arguments and Joe Wilson, that's who he's talking about.
Here's the next question.
And this is where Dean says that he would not accept a no indictment circumstance.
Stephanopoulos says, one final question for you and your Merlot Democrats.
Everybody agrees that Patrick Fitzgerald is an apolitical prosecutor.
Oh, do they?
Are we just creating that when he's apolitical?
He's a man's man.
He's a prosecutor's prosecutor.
They're setting this guy up, folks.
It'd be unassailable.
If he finishes the investigation this week without bringing indictments and without issuing a final report, will you, as the chairman of the Merlot Democrats, accept that as the end of the matter?
No.
Why not?
Because I fundamentally don't think these are honest people running the government.
And there you have it.
So the official position of the Democrats is that if there are no indictments, there will be hell to pay.
If there are indictments, there will be hell to pay.
But they've got themselves set up now for this indictment scenario.
And if it doesn't happen, then Katie barred the door.
They've got themselves so convinced that their presents are going to be great on Christmas morning.
And again, it's a little premature.
We don't know.
This mass collection of reporting, you know, there's a lot of hopes and dreams in it on the mainstream press's part, but there also seem to be so many leaks that it is.
You know, I know I've got a jaundice view of these people, but I have a tough time believing all of them would be making it all up.
So we'll just have to see.
I spoke of Cindy Sheehan earlier.
Let's talk a little bit about the Democrats for a moment here.
I know that some of you, this dispirits.
I mean, this just depresses.
Yes, it just takes the wind out of your sails.
And you go back to 72 and Watergate.
Anything, no matter what was going on, then the Republicans lost because nobody was going to vote for a Republican after Watergate because it's so horrible and so forth.
How can we escape that this time?
Well, you're talking to Mr. Optimism here.
And I still fall back on the notion here that the Democrats don't offer anything that's relevant to the American people today.
I mean, if you are a typical mainstream Democrat, you still see this country as in the post-Great Depression era.
still see this country as a bunch of soup lines.
Yeah, Hurricane Katrina was, as I told the people at my stellar Broadway show the other night, Hurricane Katrina brought back to life the Great Depression for them.
Iraq brings back Vietnam.
This brings back the CIA business, brings back Watergate.
But where are the American people?
The American people, for the longest time, you look at the number of people who are invested in the stock market, have the, what's called the ownership society, the American people don't look at their country that way.
Now, if the Democrats, and folks, we also don't know the endgame of any of this.
I just want to address some of you who are feeling pessimistic about this because I know you have to be out there.
And it's possible to win elections if your opponents get so demoralized they don't show up and vote.
And if the Republicans and conservatives get so demoralized after all this, out of heck with it, I don't want to pay any attention to this stuff anymore.
All I do is get disappointed.
And yeah, they could win.
But if I'm right about the conservative base, all this stuff is going to do nothing more than energize them.
Tom DeLay, this phony indictment, this investigation of where it's going in the mainstream press, the New York Times, all of them just being so eager for Bush's downfall.
It's easy to make comparisons to Nixon, but Bush is a far more loved figure than Nixon was, even in the Republican Party.
And I'm telling you, the number of Americans who vote, of the number of Americans who vote, the percentage of them that hold the same view of this country as the Democrats do is a minority.
Most people in this country don't look at life in America as the Great Depression today.
They don't look at it needing the old New Deal coalitions of expanding government programs to protect us and to keep us safe.
In fact, the growing number of people are concerned about how big the government's getting.
And that's one of the reasons that there's so much angst at a Republican president now.
And then you add to it this business on the war.
I keep trying to tell people, and it doesn't, I think people, it's easy to forget this because there are other things that are more easily at the forefront of one's mind, like the CIA business and Tom DeLay.
But two dozen anti-war protesters camped outside the Los Angeles mansion of, what was the date of this?
Is this old news?
This Newsday story, is that from today?
Well, there's no date on this, but I thought I had this story last week.
Anyway, it's still good.
Two dozen anti-war protesters camped outside the Los Angeles mansions of mansion of Friends producer Marta Kaufman on October the 8th, hoping to catch Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Yeah, this is an old story, but there were 30 protesters out there protesting Hillary Clinton for her stand on the war.
And you've got Cindy Sheehan ginning herself back up.
And the Democratic Party base, if this CIA investigation, let's put it this way, if this CIA investigation doesn't get us out of Iraq, then they're still going to demand the Democrats and their candidate do it.
And for all this talk about what's happening with conservatives and Republicans, do not make the mistake of assuming that the Democrats are unified.
They are unified behind their hatred of Bush, and they're unified, but that's always been the case.
And look where that's gotten them, which is my point.
But when it comes to policy, I mean, they've got some huge problems, particularly when you start running a national campaign.
And I will tell you this.
I don't care what happens in this investigation.
This is 2005.
And if the 2008 presidential race is about this, people are going to have been tired of it and want to move on and don't want to relive this kind of stuff.
And if they can't, if they continue looking in the past, if they continue looking backward to find a way to go forward, they're going to have more trouble than they can possibly imagine, folks.
So don't throw in the towel on any of this stuff.
This is by no means an indicator of where we're headed in the future.
It's easy to fall prey to the press momentum on these indictments.
It's easy to fall prey to all the rest of it that follows from that.
I'm telling you, don't do that because we see how quickly things change and how fast the reversals seem to take place.
And it's just, it's too premature to start going, oh, hell, I'm out of this.
I've had it.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue.
More of your phone calls are coming right up.
Stay with us.
As promised, back to the phones.
Number 800-282-2882, Susan Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
On the subject of the war, I just want to say I'm the wife of a United States Marine, and everyone kind of forgets that there's still a war that's going on.
No, we haven't.
No, we haven't.
In fact, the media is out there eagerly counting up to 2,000 deaths, Susan.
Nobody's forgotten about this.
Well, at the risk of sounding redundant, my husband is so proud to serve under President Bush.
And I can't think of one of our friends or his colleagues that is not.
So I just had to say that.
I appreciate it.
I understand.
But don't think people have forgotten about Iraq.
That's what the CIA business is all about.
What I don't understand, and I really do not understand this, but I guess I do.
Sam Berger was at the National Archives, and he was caught red-handed with classified documents that would directly relate to terror threats in the United States.
Yeah, but he forgot that he did that.
He forgot he stuffed those documents into his socks.
Well, let's see.
The first thing he said, which was a lie, it was an honest mistake.
Then they caught him, was under his sock, in his jacket.
What happened to him?
Nothing.
He's on probation, a $50,000 fine.
Yeah, yeah, that's pretty big for a guy on a government salary.
And we're talking directly could impact lives and the war on terror and the 9-11 Commission.
So, anyway.
Okay, now, let me take you seriously here.
I'm working on very little sleep and a lot of spent energy last night, so I'm getting giddy.
And I don't mean to sound disrespectful to you at all.
Please forgive me if it sounded that way.
Why do you think, why do you think?
I mean, here we've got Sandy Burglar dead to rights.
We've got the Justice Department that's run by the Bush administration.
They choose all the prosecutors and the lawyers, the U.S. Attorney, and so forth.
Why do you think this is?
Well, I think that there's an obvious blatant hypocrisy in the media, and they don't want to fry him.
They believe that his intentions were good.
No, but this is not the media.
The Justice Department could have nailed Sandy Bergler to the wall.
They didn't do it.
The Justice Department could have made this guy pay huge price for this.
There could have been a damn well big investigation and trial to find what the hell was going on.
This is all about 9-11.
Doctored evidence, what's going on?
9-11 Commission report.
We know about Abel Danger.
Who's trying to shut this down?
What is it about this that they don't want us to know?
Here's Burglar.
And now you've got this Barrett report.
And apparently, I was just talking about the Independent Council of Investigation of 10 Years of Henry Cisneros.
And apparently, it's got data in it about IRS abuse during the Clinton years.
And the Democrats are trying to suppress that.
Charles Grassley's trying to get that report in his hands.
But, you know, again, Republicans are just different about the justice system than Democrats are.
Republicans don't have doubts about their ability to win at the ballot box.
You've got Hillary, I mean, you've got Burglar here, and they'd rather spend their time going after Martha Stewart.
Well, I just think Republicans have their eye on a bigger prize, and they're not going to be distracted by gnats like Sandy Berger.
And I also, I mean, I know I'm biased, but I just think there's just more honor.
You know, they want to honor the office of the National Security Advisor.
As much as we don't like Bill Clinton, he still was President of the United States, and we have respect for that office.
I think there's something to that.
I do think that there is this desire.
Okay, look, previous administration, I'm not going to be the guy that goes out and tries to put in jail the previous holders of this office and their associates.
I'm just not, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Democrats don't give a hell's half acre about that.
Whatever it takes for them to get their hands back on the government, they'll do.
If it means putting me, Delay, Bush, Rove, Libby, whoever they can in jail, they'll do it.
They don't care.
It's the only way they can.
Doesn't matter.
If they could put you in jail for a reason, they'd find a way.
If they could put your husband in jail, they'd find a way to put him in jail.
I mean, it's but the Republicans just are not cut from the same cloth.
There's this not there is not this same philosophy about waging the battle.
And leave it to the experts to explain why.
I can only speculate.
But I appreciate the call, Susan, and God bless you and your husband.
And thank you so much for sharing the truth about him and his love for country with us.
Here's David in Omaha.
You're next on a cell phone.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thanks, Rush, and God bless you and the work that you do for our nation.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I'm wondering when, and I believe it will happen, that Mr. DeLay will be exonerated and totally set free.
I'm wondering when Ronnie Earl and people like him are going to be, you know, made accountable for their actions.
Let me ask you a simple question.
When is the last process?
Who is the last prosecutor in this country you can remember being hit up for misconduct, sanctioned, penalized, called on the carpet?
Can you name one for me?
No.
Nor can I.
But there have been.
These guys are elected.
Now, Ronnie Earl's elected, and whatever retribution he gets will come at the ballot box.
But in terms of about the only way that this can happen, I think, is for complaints to go to like the Texas Bar Association.
And that's just a bunch of lawyers, and they're not going to, you know, they're not going to do anything to Ronnie Earl.
I'm telling you, you've got overzealous prosecutors.
You've got political prosecutors now.
Some of them are out of control.
They get obsessed with the power that they've got.
Who knows what messages they get from higher ups to carry out their orders or objections.
But there's really nothing anybody can do.
You have to try to beat them in court.
And it all goes back to what I keep saying.
A prosecutor makes charge.
Everybody believes it.
It's not a political bias.
It's just human nature.
We have this thing.
And the reason it's in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, independent or innocent till proven guilty, is because everybody thinks that the minute you're accused, you are guilty.
Anyway, I got to run.
We'll take a brief time out.
We'll get right back to it, Najiffe.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
Here's Bart in Tucson.
Nice to have you, sir.
I'm glad you waited.
Oh, thanks, Rush.
Mega Uberman Dittos.
Thank you.
I was wondering, Rush, given if assuming Rove is indicted and it's as political as it appears to be, I know there's a lot of assumptions there, but assuming all that, how viable would it be for Bush just to preemptorily pardon him?
He can't.
No.
I mean, he could, but he won't.
When I say can't, you want him to bomb the White House next?
I mean, he could do it, but I don't think he would do that until after some kind of a conviction, depending on what the conviction is.
He's not going to do that to stop the investigation.
Look, Bush, folks, Bush has said, he said it today.
They asked him, he was at a cabinet meeting, and they asked him more and more about the investigation, indictments.
And he said, look, I've answered this all day.
I've answered it all week.
I've answered it all month.
I appreciate you have a job to do and you got questions.
I'll answer it again.
It's a serious investigation, and I can't come.
Well, if it's a serious investigation, and if a serious investigation thus leads to the indictment of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, for Bush then to say, ha ha, got you, they're pardoned.
He's not setting up that kind of strategy.
I wouldn't look for that.
And besides, I don't think if I'm Rove and if I'm telling, I want to, after all this, I can't wait for the day I'm exonerated.
I don't care if it's 20 years from now and Chelsea Clinton is president.
Just kidding, folks.
Just kidding, as I say, getting giddy here.
But no, I couldn't wait.
I couldn't wait to the day I could talk about this and tell the truth about it.
And a pardon doesn't give you the chance to do that.
So I wouldn't look in that direction.
Oh, well, don't.
That's what guys like Clinton do.
Pardon their big donors and all that.
We're not going to do that.
We're not going to, hey, look, if we didn't do it, we'll say we did.
If they sentence us to two years in jail, we'll go for 10 just to get along with the left.
And frankly, I've about had it with this kind of attitude about all this.
Serious investigation, my wallapaloozin.
But if this turns out to have indictments about these, whatever you do, these recollection problems and so forth, if there's no original crime committed here, if the purpose of this investigation shows no crime was committed, and in fact, we have so-called crimes covering up a non-crime, I am going to be livid, folks.
I don't care whether this is a prosecutor's prosecutor.
I don't care whether he's Republican or Democrat.
This business of politicizing the political process and dragging people in.
I don't know if you people, how many of you people, I've never have been called into a grand jury, but let me tell you about it.
You go in there and there are 23 of your fellow citizens, and depending on what you think of them, the deck's stacked against you.
Then you've got the prosecutor and however many of his people are in there and you.
And your lawyer's not there, and they can ask you things 15 different ways.
And there's no lawyer to object because there's no due process.
And after a multiple number of appearances with many, many hours, if you trip up and get confused, and I'm not saying if you don't lie, if you just get confused and then they make that a crime, you know, obstruction or perjury or what have you, then we're getting the press to, we can call an independent counsel to investigate anything that turns out not to be a crime and then create a crime in the process of the investigation.
And, you know, I just, this is this, and you couple that with the Republicans' desire to, well, no, it's a serious investigation.
And if there are crimes committed here, we will plead and we'll admit it.
And if you want us to go to jail for two, we'll go to five just to show you we're nice people.
You shouldn't dislike us and so forth.
That's an exaggeration, but it sort of captures my irritating, irritated attitude I have about the differing ways these things are approached.
Andrew in Evansville, Indiana.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Rod.
It's good to be on.
Thank you.
You bet.
I had an idea I wanted to run by you and see what you think about this.
You've had some experience with out-of-control prosecutors.
What if the states started passing laws that punished prosecutors, put them in legal jeopardy for frivolous or political prosecution?
Why couldn't we do something like that?
Because they're out of control all over this country.
Look at Spitzer up in New York.
I forget the guy's name down in Kentucky, but he's suing the governor down there.
It's getting to the point where, you know, for the left, the prosecutors are like the new court system.
They get in there and they can sue the governor.
They can sue everybody they want.
No, the prosecutors are the new political system.
Yes.
Is what you mean.
You know, I must confess, before I'd answer that, I'd like to seek true legal expertise on what kind of laws there are.
I'm not sure how the – I think we're talking about an area where the legal industry is required to police itself.
You can't – one thing you do, you can sue for wrongful prosecution if you think it's happened to you, but that's after the fact.
There's nothing that can be done.
A judge, for example, cannot stop an investigation.
A lot of people have said, Roish, why don't the judges just throw this?
Judges can't throw out an investigation.
They can tell a prosecutor enough's enough, move on.
But a judge cannot cancel any kind of a police investigation.
Now, once charges are filed, these are basis charges thrown out.
But once an investigation is underway, there's nothing that can be done.
That's why they have so much power because it's only after the fact.
I mean, look at Delay.
About all you can do is try to wage a media war, which is what DeLay did.
But now if you listen to Delay, he's talking he's looking forward to his trial.
His thoughts of canceling all this out, they're gone.
But the problem is it's such an unlevel playing field because you may wage a media war and win, but all you've done there is once in a media war.
Let me tell you something.
I was going to elaborate on this.
I hate to tell you this, but it never has been a level playing field.
What's changing now is that policy is being criminalized, but in terms of a legal playing field, it never has been.
It is why in our founding documents, particularly in our legal system, it quite clearly stipulates that one is innocent until proved guilty.
And the reason that's thrown in is because everybody, I don't care who you are, ask yourself, go back to any big case in your day and remember it.
And the minute you heard that X was charged with what, your first inclination was, guilty.
It's just, folks, it's in our DNA.
It's the way human nature is.
O.J., got to be guilty.
Michael Jackson, got to be guilty.
Tom DeLay, got to be guilty.
Why would the prosecutors mess around?
Prosecutors are good people.
They are law enforcement.
And they're enforcing our laws and keeping bad people away from us.
And so they charged them and you're guilty.
And so what's happened, most people have to set out to prove their defense, prove their innocence.
And that's, it's up to the prosecution to prove their case.
And these guys, look at Ronnie Earl.
If they want, they can charge you with anything without even there being any evidence.
And they get their mugshot of you and their fingerprints and so forth.
And you still have to go in.
And then when you're acquitted, you still have the mugshot.
The media still has the mugshot, still has your fingerprints, and they still have the phrase, Tom DeLay, accused of money laundering, and acquitted three years later, said today that, blah, So the accusation will always say, you've been accused of something.
Are the accused, and that's that has always been the case.
It's why the legal system, we've always strived to get the best judges possible, the best prosecutors.
When you start electing prosecutors and you get party politics going on, this really is nothing new.
I mean, you could go talk to people who've been impacted by this, affected by it at the local level where it never makes any news outside the local town gazette.
But this is common.
Now it's being expanded.
Watergate was a good example of it.
And you've got the Democrats.
If Democrats are able to win elections, they wouldn't even be bothering with this.
But Watergate was such folks.
I mean, do you understand what Watergate was to these people?
You cannot understand.
Whatever the most pleasurable experience in your life is, think about it right now.
Whatever it's been, multiply it by a factor of 100 and pretend that you're having it for three years uninterrupted.
That's what Watergate was.
And they want it back.
They want it again.
They want to relive it.
And so this is the excellent opportunity.
And Iraq provides the same opportunity for Vietnam.
And if they have to politicize policy differences again to do it, they will do it.
I don't mean to be negative about this.
I'm trying to be realistic.
I'm going to ask some people with genuine legal expertise.
I have done so, in fact, not very intensely, but I have asked when this delay thing came up.
I've asked some people, and I've pretty much gotten the answers that I've shared with you.
There's not a whole lot you can do.
There really isn't.
Your day comes in court if you ever get charged with something.
And that's where Rove and Libby and whoever else, and we don't know whoever, if anybody else, if anybody at all.
So it's difficult not to jump the gun here because, and by the way, let me one more thing to you.
I have not lost faith here, but I can't come behind the golden EIB microphone here and pretend that this stuff isn't going on and act like it isn't going on.
That would be phony optimism avoiding reality.
I have got to talk about this stuff and within the context that it's out there.
But we should keep our cool, as I am, and see what happens down the road.
It's supposed to happen this week if all these leaks are true.
And once we know something firm, then it'll be much easier to address this, particularly as it plays out in the future.
Got to go, but we'll be back and continue here.
Harriet Myers, Chuck Schumer.
Chuck Schumer says that Harriet Myers doesn't have the votes right now, no matter what.
Doesn't have the votes in the committee, doesn't have the votes in the full Senate, doesn't have enough Republican votes.
I said that on Meet the Press yesterday.
Some others have other comments as well.
We'll take a break.
Oh, and there's an unnamed senator.
There is an unnamed senator.
I don't even know which party.
Something tells me he's a Republican, but I'm not sure.
I'll have to find the story here in the stack.
But apparently, when he met with Harriet Myers during the original interviews, before she'd filled out the questionnaire, he asked probably what he said was the easiest question she'll ever be asked.
Why do you want to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court?
And he said his answer made him feel like he was talking to a Miss America pageant contestant.
In other words, it just wasn't very substantive or uplifting or what have you.
Something along the lines of, well, I'm, well, I can't, folks.
I don't know.
I'm not a Miss America pageant.
Let me find the story.
The story has his characterization of her answer, right?
Yeah, we'll find that.
Share it with you.
We come back plus your phone calls.
Don't vanish, folks.
And by the way, all of them, turn on the ditto cam.
Lunch is digested now.
America's anchorman, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy holding court.
Ha ha.
Here, the EIB network conducting our own investigations daily.
Where do we go next?
Alan, in the Castro Valley, California.
Hi.
Hi, I'd like to point out that Ken Starr went after President Clinton for perjury because the leak involved there was not the same as the leak involved in this situation.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on a minute.
There wasn't any leak in the Clinton.
He lied under oath to a grand jury, Alan.
Okay, and it's over.
No, no, it's over.
It's not okay.
It's over.
You're wrong, and you're off.
Your premise is flawed.
Besides, I can't understand you very well anyway.
What?
What was what?
Nobody targeted Wilson's wife.
He was going to say it was unfair to target Wilson.
See, this is how this stuff has cascaded.
Wilson's wife wasn't.
Nobody targeted her.
That's the impression.
If anybody targeted her, it was Wilson himself.
Wilson targeted his wife.
Wilson let her name known.
And David Corn of the nation is thought by some to have been the first to put her name and identity in print.
There was no vendetta against Valerie Plain.
The administration found out who she was after the fact, after Wilson had already done what he did.
There was no, but Clinton's got nothing to do with it.
That's the point.
When Clinton was found to be in contempt by a federal judge, not the media, they took his law license away for five years, disbarred him from the Supreme Court for practicing there for a while, and everybody running around still found it fashionable to savagely attack Star.
And now look what's happened.
This prosecutor, why this man is prosecutor's prosecutor?
He's apolitical.
This man is tremendous.
He is absolutely fabulous and so forth.
And this is nothing but leaks so far.
Joe and Ann Arbor, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes.
I've got a question for you.
You've mentioned a few times that the Democrats want to impeach Bush, and I agree.
I've thought that from day one.
Yes.
With a Republican majority, how can they do that?
Well, it's two different things.
Try to impeach him to bring impeachment charges and actually accomplish it are two different things.
Then there's the conviction, which you're right would probably not happen.
But it doesn't mean they're not going to try.
I think that's what all I've really said is that they're going to try to impeach him because it's a political tactic.
It will be something just like this.
This is effectively the kickoff of the 06 campaign here, this investigation and these leaks.
Well, not the investigation, but the way the Democrats are playing it and spinning it.
Look, folks, there's no difference between a journalist and a liberal today.
And so when you say liberals, they both got the same agenda.
And this is all about ginning up 2006 and getting started.
In fact, Maurice Henshey, Democrat from New York, and Gerald Nadler, another Democrat from New York, along with 39 of their House colleagues, have called for Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation to be expanded to examine whether the White House and the president and members of the White House Iraq war group conspired to deliberately deceive Congress, which they say is a high crime.
Some say, no, it's not, because it's not lying.
There wasn't, they used political persuasion.
The Democrats had a chance to vote against it.
There was not unilateral action here.
That's another big thing.
All the Democrats.
What a bunch of idiots.
If it's so obvious that Bush and Cheney lied, how dumb are these Democrats to fall for it?
You'd think none of them did by now.
Back in just second.
I forgot to tell you, Ditto Cam is on, folks, and it'll be on for the remainder of the program.
We got a brief top of the hour EIB obscene profit timeout.
▲
Export Selection