All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 28, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
October 28, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings and welcome, my friends.
It is the award-winning thrill-packed, ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps in bounds, Rush Limbaugh program, fun frolic and frivolity for all, as well as serious discussion of issues.
And by the way, it's Friday, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Well, as a friend of mine said this morning, no frosting today on Joe Wilson's yellow cake.
No frosting.
It's a great line.
No frosting on Joe Wilson's yellow cake today.
Carl Rove will not be indicted.
This is the pre-pub, anyway.
Uh Lewis Libby supposedly will be indicted.
The uh everybody's waiting on the initial release of the uh documents in the CIA uh leak case.
There are two stages today.
There'll be some the indictments and the uh whatever documents uh that are are with them will be released any time now.
Uh and the uh press conference by the independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, which we will carry live here on the EIB network is scheduled for two o'clock Eastern, a little less than two hours from now.
Greetings, my friends.
It's great to have you with us.
It's 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
I'll tell you what this all boils down to.
Now, I want to know who Robert Novak's source was.
I do that that I'm gonna have a tough time not getting tongue-tied here today on this, folks, because I am frosted.
I'm getting more and more fraudul.
We've had a two-year, this is this is so familiar to me.
We have had a two-year investigation.
We have had a two year now, I I will admit this is an announcement of the actual indictments, and I am waiting for that.
I'm only going on what everybody else has been told today, and some seems like some serious uh and solid leaking that's going on today.
Two years.
We've been investigating for two years.
Who knows what?
We've got as of now one indictment.
Now, there could be others.
There could be some surprises here, but as of based on what the best speculation, the best speculation at this point, we got one indictment on scooter libby, not for perjury, but for lying to investigators.
There's a difference between the two.
Uh perjury before the grand jury is one thing.
Uh lying to investigators uh is lesser of the two charged uh two types of charges.
But after after two years of investigating who outed this brave, courageous babe at the CIA, Valerie Plame, we've got apparently this.
We've also got the independent counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, who has told Carl Rove, uh, you're not going to be indicted today, but we're still gonna hound you.
We're still gonna follow you around, and we're still gonna find out.
And they've been investigating this week, uh, Rove's friends and buddies and associates and neighbors to find out if he said anything that contradicts what he has said uh in the in the grand jury.
You know, and you you think back to the uh all the the independent counsel investigations of Ken Starr and others into Bill Clinton, uh, and and you look at the the serial perjury, the suborning of perjury, the using of the uh Oval Office to conduct a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
You find the independent counsel we're not gonna indict this man, he's the highest official in the U.S. government.
It would just be a problem.
So now we've got the indictment of uh of Libby that appears to be imminent.
I heard Bob Barr today on CNN.
Bob Barr's a former U.S. attorney, former congressman from uh Georgia.
He was he's now also a CNN consultant.
And he said that what he's hearing is that what is also being looked at here is the National Security Council.
Maybe that's where the leak of Valerie Plame's name came from.
Somebody had it Novak has said it's not a high White House official.
So that leaves out uh uh Carl Rove and Scooter Libby, and it leaves out the president, leaves out Dick Cheney.
And now they've apparently, according to Bob Barr, and he's not sure, but he's heard that they're looking at the National Security Council.
If they're looking at the National Security Council, and and keep in mind also, folks, and oh, I'm getting ahead of myself here.
One thing I should warn you about, just to prepare you here for the um uh media coverage that's going to ensue.
They are stuck on the notion that what is ultimately being looked at here is a phony and fraudulent reason to go to war.
And that's that's uh the uh David Gergen was talking about this indictment today indicates that uh we're we're looking here at what what what went on and what caused us to go to war, were there lies.
They're not gonna get off of this.
Despite the fact that the uh the one known indictment or supposedly known indictment is involving lying to investigators, the media is going to remain stuck on this notion that what we're actually looking at here, what the Fitzgerald special prosecutor team is looking at is seriously conducting an investigation of how we lied to the American people in order to get us into war in uh in Iraq.
Um and Jeff Greenfield on CNN was echoing Gurgen uh in this in this point that that the Libby indictment will open up the whole process of how we went to war.
And I knew they were not going to drop this line once they got on it.
Uh they're all talking about, oh, this is a bad day for the way oh, any time anybody in the executive branch is indicted, even though Rove's not been indicted yet, he's still a pig in a pig pen with a cloud of dirt following him around, and and as this bad news to the White House is going to be really unsettling.
And so what we're faced here with now is the notion in the media that an alleged false document about from whom Libby first learned Plaim's name brings the war into question.
And also, don't forget this.
This whole story started one year after we went to war.
Novak's column came out a year after the war in Iraq started.
The idea that this is ultimately an investigation into how this war started and whether it was started on a basis of lies and so forth is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the media, but they're going to try to create that impression by continually pounding it to their audiences throughout the uh ensuing weeks.
Uh Gergen today said that uh that that debate, in fact, Wolf, that debate on uh whether there were lies that got us into the war in Iraq, why that debate's already started, and it will intensify with this indictment.
The debate is in the media, the debate is in the liberal media.
Uh, and uh it was started by fools like Gergen and is being used by the Katrina media as a means of continuing to assault this White House.
They're bringing out the old Watergate guys on television.
They're bringing out the old Clinton ice to say how this raises questions about lies and the war.
They're bringing about it can't get rid of pictures of Joe Wilson walking along with David Broder along the street, uh Valerie Plame's picture on TV at uh at all the time, and this is this investigation by not wrapping this up.
It's been two years.
And of course, uh you may not know the genesis of this, but but when the CIA said his referral over to the Justice Department, John Eshkoft recused himself in appointing a special prosecutor because he says a senator, he's got political ties, as he passed it on to his uh his assistant, uh deputy was James Comey.
And Comey did the same thing.
Come he passed it on and passed it on to Fitzgerald.
So basically, Fitzgerald has had free reign here.
There's nobody at the Justice Department that can say, okay, that's enough.
He's uh uh he was free to define the terms of the investigation, free to take it wherever he wanted.
Uh James Comey uh uh gave him that latitude in a couple of letters.
And so we've been at this for two years, and after two years we have one indictment.
Again, this is still speculation waiting on the release of documents, but we have we have one indictment on lying to investigators after two years of this, and the independent counsel today says, now we're not wrapped up here.
He can't use this current grand jury, can't get an extension.
They already expired their extension, so he's got to uh he's got to do something else.
It doesn't appear, as we sit here and speak at the moment, it doesn't appear that there was any violation of any underlying law, and this indictment has nothing to do with the war.
And I think, folks, what you need to keep in mind here, as the press conference of Patrick Fitzgerald approaches at 2 p.m., we are only hearing one side of this, and the defense is at an enormous disadvantage until the trial or a trial actually begins.
So far, it's only the prosecutor talking and making his case and setting the stage, and it's all only the media hearing what they want to hear from the prosecutor, hearing what they want to hear from Leaks, and then running with it as they had been for the last three weeks, as though they know everything's going to happen.
And again, I want to point out all the past two weeks and especially this week intensely.
We've been told every day that indictments are coming tomorrow that Rov and Libby are going to be indicted, and this is investigation specifically into who lied to who to get us into the war with Iraq.
That's what we were going to learn this week.
This this this this media scandal, this media hysteria, this unhinged mainstream media has been promising us a whole lot of things that did not happen today and don't look like they are going to happen today.
And yet they're going to keep alive this myth, this hope, this dream about what this investigation is actually all about.
We've got other things, of course, uh on the docket, if you will, given that it's open line Friday, so sit tight, we'll come back.
Your phone calls as well part of the mix.
Again, the numbers 800-282-2882.
We will be right back.
We are live today from the EIB Southern Command, where um I didn't get it.
I got it got in late last night.
Well, not late.
I mean, it seemed late because the sun was down, it was already dark, and I wasn't able to get a full picture of uh what all had happened here until I arose this morning.
And as I look outside my my bedroom on the second floor toward the ocean, in the in in a normal day, I see about 75 to 100 yards of sea grape and other vegetation on the dune, and then another 75 to 100 yards beach for the go to the water line and cut through all the sea grape as a pathway to walk to the beach.
Today you can't see the path because the whole thing's a path.
Use to see one little bit of evidence there was a path, all the leaves on the sea grape gone.
It looks like it looks like winter anywhere else.
No leaves on the trees.
As I drove through town last night, half of the four-mile route that I take from uh from the breakers hotel has nothing but downed trees cut up and sawed in half, lined on the side.
The road leading to my house still has two inches of sand on it.
It's like driving through snow in uh in Missouri in the wintertime after they've plowed it.
Uh lots of landscape damage at uh at my house.
I've got people live on the other side of the island who can see my roof from their second floor.
Lost a huge banyan tree that's right inside the uh the front gate of the driveway there.
Uh uh palm trees, no fronds.
Uh some of them have a two or three, but they're drooping as though they're dead and crying.
It saddens me deeply to see vegetation in this state.
But then I realize it was Mother Nature that did it, so what are we gonna do?
Uh but the sand, uh east side of my house looks like it's been sandblasted.
Sand still caked on the side of it, still on some of the windows.
Had about five or six inches of sand lined up outside the windows and the on the on the lower level.
Uh and it's just you know, it's it's it's amazing to look at.
This is I'd say it's twice, maybe three times the damage that happened during the two hurricanes of uh of last year.
But stands to reason because we got both sides of the eye.
We got the front and back eyewall, we got the east and west eye wall.
Uh so uh and by the way, my damage is minimal compared to what some suffered down here.
It's it's it's uh amazing.
And got the official word today that our little speck of real estate where we live here today, about 10,000 of us will get our power on November 22nd.
We will be last.
Uh we will be last.
Well, they they're doing big population centers first.
And they can't turn on a wealthy enclave first without causing themselves a bunch of PR problems.
Now, where we are, we've got the it so happens that the uh that the street on which our official Southern Command is on does have power, amazingly, so it's got to be an accident.
Uh so we have full line power here in Internet Services and Online, which is why I was able to get back here.
In the meantime, I got to take time out because we're a little long here.
We'll be back and get started with all the rest of the program right after this.
Still waiting on the 12 noon release of documents, by the way.
Still no release of uh imminently to be released documents uh leading up to the indictments or indictment that is to come today.
Let me specify something for you.
I just I just uh uh might have erred slightly when I described the difference between a perjury uh indictment and lying to investigators indictment.
The false statement statute, we we could call it the Martha Stewart statute.
This is what they got Martha Stewart on.
It is Section 1001.
Uh and the statute does not require that you be under oath.
It can involve conversations with agents, FBI agents, but deceit and trickery and the like, which are specified here in this statute, are very, very broad terms.
Prosecutors like this statute, the false statement statute, because it's easier to convict people than for perjury and other alleged offenses.
So actually, uh uh this this charge may put Libby at at uh at greater odds of being convicted of something than if he were charged with perjury.
It's the Martha Stewart statute, essentially, the false statement statute.
Uh except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever in any matter with the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government, knowingly and willfully uh willfully one falsifies, conceals, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device,
a material fact, two, makes any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or three, makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned, not more than five years or both.
That's uh that's if the leaks today, the words that uh word that everybody's put out today about what uh is coming down for Scooter Libby, if that's uh indeed what it is, then this this is the statute that he faces uh faces the false statements statute, which uh think they can get you even when you're not under oath.
That's talking to investigators, FBI agents, and the like.
Uh Kurt in Radcliffe, Kentucky.
I'm glad you called, sir.
You're up first today on open line Friday.
Welcome to the program.
Hello, Rush, megadiddos to you.
I've been trying to get on for years.
I've listened to you forever.
This is my first time on calling you from uh Radcliffe, Kentucky.
I'm just two minutes outside the gate of Fort Knox, the home of Cavalry and Armor.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Rush, I wanted to call and tell you there's there's something that should be upstaging this indictment news.
There's bigger news today.
And it is the release of Paul Volker's UN oil for food scandal report.
Uh part parts of that coming out last night are much larger because the the report has implicated Mark Rich as receiving money in the oil for food scandal.
He's received kickbacks.
Mark Ridge, of course.
Now, but but the timing, and I've got this in the stack, the timing on this is also interesting because this occurred after he was pardoned, correct?
Exactly.
And it was also it also occurred after his uh wife, Denise uh contributed a sizable sum to the Clinton double wide library and massage parlor, correct?
Exactly.
Right after the oil for food or the Saddam funds came back to Mark Rich.
They were then in turn funneled to the DNC, which in turn funneled them to the Clinton campaign organization.
Sounds a little bit like something that's now wait, wait, wait, well, hold it a minute.
Hold on a minute.
Is all that in the Volker report, or is this just you you you're trying to trace it yourself?
Well, portions of that are in the Volker report.
Uh the the of course uh Richard.
Well, but the Volker report doesn't talk about money going to the DNC in the Clinton library, does it?
Well, now no, it does not do that.
Okay, well, let's be very careful here.
Very, very, very careful.
Huh?
They were huge donors to the Clinton machine.
Yeah, well, there's no question.
I mean, I I I I look if if you don't need to tell me, if we want to talk about a climate of corruption, you don't need to tell me where it really is.
This previous administration, a conspiracy to con to obstruct justice, which is what Clinton was trying to do with Monica Lewinsky and everybody else.
Now the Libs want to say, well, it was just about sex.
He was being an honorable guy.
I don't care.
You know, prosecutors who care about process are not supposed to take into account the human effect, are not supposed to take into account the emotional effect.
This is what Fitzgerald is not doing.
Fitzgerald doesn't care what effect this has on the government.
He doesn't care what effect this has on the war on terror.
He doesn't, he's not concerned with that.
He's looking at the legal process here.
Now the prosecutor involving uh with Robert Ray took over for for Star.
Robert Ray specifically decided not to indict because it was the highest official in the land that thought it'd be disruptive for the country.
So we've got two different theories here from prosecutors as to how to go, but there's no question Mark Rich gets pardoned.
Here comes the oil for food program, here comes money back from Mark Rich to his wife to the Clinton library.
I mean, it does look pretty buttoned up as to what it was.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
All right, Fox News is reporting on a crawl that uh that Libya is now gonna be indicted for lying to the grand jury.
So, you know, I'm really at a at a at a disadvantage here, uh, folks, because documents that uh supposed to precede the 2 p.m. press conference.
I don't know, they're still haven't been released, and so all we really have to go on here is the is the speculation of the media and the and whoever their sources are, lawyers close to the case.
Now it's it's gotten so ridiculous that now the networks are running crawl that's the special counsel just entered the doors of the magistrate.
And now they're chronicling this guy's every step.
He put his left foot in front of his right, and then he put his right foot in front of his left, and he moved forward two feet.
Uh as he's walking.
And he walked to the door of the magistrate.
And we're getting a step by step.
This isn't a play by play.
We're getting a step by step of uh of all this.
So I was hoping to have these documents at some time between noon and noon 05, so I have something here to go on other than this is idiotic media circle, you know what, it's getting really frustrating.
Let me let me give you my own slant on this.
Here are the questions I have.
The media is not answering one of my questions.
They're not answering put it this way, they're not answering any of my questions.
Who was Novak's source?
That's what I want to know.
That's the root of all this.
That's what got all this started.
I wonder what would have happened if Novak would have released his source, revealed his source, and what would have happened to this?
Way back.
I wonder how Novak feels causing all this or being involved in it.
We had Chuck Schumer the other day say that Patrick Fitzgerald's a prosecutor's prosecutor.
And I said, yesterday, the day before, that sort of tells me that Schumer's on the inside knows what's going on.
Because the prosecutor's prosecutor is meant to portray Fitzgerald as unassailable, unimpeachable, unattackable.
I think the answer to the question, what is a prosecutor's prosecutor when Chuck Schumer says it is, is a prosecutor that indicts Republicans.
And a prosecutor that won't indict Democrats.
Like Robert Ray was a prosecutor's prosecutor.
He knew what was a state.
He didn't.
I have other questions.
Did this did this low rant pretend important big shot, Joe Wilson, ever get called to the grand jury and and uh was he was he put under oath and testified?
How about the truthfulness of his allegations?
Stand by on audio soundbite number two, Altamont.
How about the truthfulness of Joe Wilson's allegations, which seemed to be central to all of this?
Was he ever called to the grand jury and put under oath?
Could it have been Joe Wilson was the first to actually out his wife?
And then I want to know was Valerie Plame brought to the grand jury to discuss her role in his mission?
And was she questioned about how she actively concealed her identity, like making public contributions to Gore's campaign and the like?
Was she asked about if you're so concerned about your identity?
What steps did you take to keep yourself covert and private and secret and secure?
What was she asked any of this?
In other words, were Wilson and Plaim brought in there and put under oath.
Well, uh it gets down to this.
Uh what how can this be a thorough investigation if Wilson and Plame uh are assisting the grand jury?
How can how can if if if they're assisting, do they have to be under oath?
Or are they just taken for uh uh you know as truthful advocates?
And is the special counsel consulting with them, not putting them under oath, believing everything they say, and then going on now.
These are the questions I have.
And I'm sure some of you do too.
Aren't you a little curious where they've where have they been in all this?
You not curious about this, Mr. Snerdley.
You're not curious about where Joe Will, whether he's been called to testify under oath.
You're not curious about that at all.
You you think that you think that he's provided the impetus for this and nobody's questioning him?
Well, the whole th well, aside from the whole thing being a sham, that's what I'm trying to look at here is to find some ways to illustrate this to people.
I mean, why in the world has this guy not been called or has they?
Why is there no curiosity on the mainstream press part?
Let's go to Larry King live last night.
This is somewhat interesting.
Larry King had on Bob Woodward and Christopher Dodd.
And Woodward says there is some factual problem here.
When Joe Wilson went to Niger before all this blew up, in fact, before there was a war, he came back and he reported, and Michael and others who have read the Senate Intelligence Committee on this know his report was very ambiguous.
In fact, most of the analysts at the CIA said that Wilson's findings when he went to Niger supported the conclusion that there was some deal with Iraq.
Now that I mean, the Democrats, the Democrats, and the Republicans all signed that report.
That is a fact, and you know there are other facts and speculation.
Now the point of this is a lot of us have been trying to say that Wilson came back, and whatever he told, there was no written report, whatever he came back and reported pretty much confirmed what he goes out and starts writing editorials in and op-eds and newspapers about how there was no evidence whatsoever, and the Senate Intelligence Committee found out that he's been lying.
Well, Chris Dodd didn't like hearing Woodward confirm this last night, and this is how it went.
The report was about other issues.
I mean, it did.
I've got it in my pocket.
I'll read it.
The mood here was to sell this.
And we now know because it was false.
The information was false.
And to suggest that there weren't weapons of mass disruption on the nuclear program there was going to be a major blow to that argument.
It's a very important issue.
You walk around with this in your pocket.
Yes, I do.
Because I knew I might be challenged.
So Chris Dodd runs right over, but he's confronted with the facts, and he doesn't want to face them either.
Uh so Woodward makes the point that Joe Wilson came back and basically confirmed.
I'm only bringing this up, folks, in the event that uh I want you to just be armed and prepare when you watch the rest of the press today as they run around and try to say that this case is ultimately going to lead to an investigation over the lies that were told to get us into war in uh in Iraq.
Stephen San Jose, California, great to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Hey, uh, I think this whole thing with Valerie Flame and Libby and all these people, this is just a big yawn.
I can't believe that this has become front and center.
I read your article last night in uh in Limbaugh letter about Kurt Weldon, and I listened to his speech and read his speech the other day.
And that's that's what I think should be front and center here.
That's where the big cover-up is, if anything.
That's where it's Man, this whole thing with Valerie Flame, just going nowhere.
I uh did wasn't it CBS or ABC the other day?
Did it man on street interviews, and nobody even knew who who Libby or Rove or anybody was?
They don't really care about that stuff.
I tell you what, if this if this able danger stuff really got out into the public, that's what people would be interested in.
What do you think?
Well, uh I I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I think they're both important.
Uh and and we give we give the able danger story a considerable amount of time here, just as we did uh Congressman Weldon in uh in the newsletter, which you saw uh uh uh thankfully uh uh subscribed to and you and you uh quoted it here.
Uh the able danger thing is is is going to not go away because Weldon's not going to let it go away.
But I wouldn't I wouldn't downplay this this business here of of Valerie Plame.
I I I I can read my emails and I know that there are a lot of rush, this is no big deal, isn't it?
We don't care about this out here.
Uh folks, uh what you're you it's important that you understand what's going on.
The the media has been totally scandalous in this, just as they have been after the uh hurricane Katrina, and they are attempting to get this president out of office.
They are attempting to force this president to resign.
They are attempting to get if they can to get this to go forward toward impeachment.
They are trying to relive two events at one time Watergate and the Vietnam War.
And it's an all-out press.
It is it is the the whole Washington press corps and their allies in New York and Boston and so forth along the Eastern Seaboard are totally invested in this now.
And I can't sit here and ignore this.
I can't sit here and I know I'm the one that tells you folks, the mainstream press, they don't have the influence they used to have and they don't have the and I'm fully aware of that.
They're not going to be able to get away with this, but they can't just be ignored and laughed at.
Okay, leave let them do what they want to do because it's occupying the news cycle and if I don't talk about this at some point you're going to find out who all those people are and you're going to get mad at me for not talking about it.
But beyond all that, to me this is crucial.
We have so many things we got the the criminal justice system here which is to me got a big question mark on it.
We've had two years of investigation now and we potentially have indictments coming today and not one of these indictments or the big indictment they're talking about has anything to do with the original crime that's been committed here.
And I just I'm I'm I'm hellbent on making sure that you're armed and prepared to deal with what you're going to see when you turn on the media any night of the week or any weekend day.
So we're not letting other things go by the wayside we're not forgetting other things.
We're touching on all of these, some important things that we got into yesterday as well, and the oil for food scandal.
I've got it first up in the stack here.
And as soon as I find out that this document release is supposedly imminent, now the prosecutor has handed up the first charges in the leak case.
That means he's given them to the judge.
When you hand up an indictment, you give it to the judge.
When indictments are handed down, it means they come from the court and go out to the accused, the suspect.
So the indictments have been handed up, and they're going to be handed down here about 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Whatever they are, we're still dealing with speculation.
But don't for the minute think that this is irrelevant or unimportant because people don't care about it.
You need to care about it.
You need to care about it.
If the mainstream press is going to try to conduct another coup d'etat, if you will, and force this president out of office, or try at any rate.
Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Okay, we finally have the data.
The press release has been made public here by the independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, who by the way the uh the liberals the Democrats are all calling him Elliot Ness he's an Elliott Ness out now what is that it means that Al Capone is in the White House these terms here are not accidentally chosen.
Here is the five-count indictment, one-count obstruction of justice, two-counts of lying to investigators, and two-counts of perjury.
Five-count what?
It's Libby.
Yeah, this is Libby.
That's the only one that there's any mention of today.
The only indictment is of Libby, and it's one-count of obstruction, two-of lying to investigators, two-counts perjury.
The details of these counts and the reasons are in the documents, and they're being poured over now.
Apparently they have evidence.
You said one thing here and another thing there.
We still don't have any indictments on who it was that supposedly broke the law and released the name of Valerie Plame to the public or made her name public.
Here's Rob in Binghamton, New York.
Rob, glad you called.
You're on the EIB Network and Open Line Friday.
Well, I guess I just want to be the first to ask you.
You know, a lot of people took you at your word a few years ago when it was Bill Clinton that...
that it the your outrage conservatives outrage over the perjury wasn't about politics it was about principle and I'm wondering if you feel as strongly about Mr. Libby I know I you you your question here I know where it's going and let me answer it as fully as I can for you I don't support perjury or lying to investigators and I'm not going to fluff it off and I'm not gonna say what's the big deal I am going to point out the differences in these two cases though.
In the Clinton case it wasn't just about sex.
There was lying under oath cited as such by a federal judge there was suborting perjury on the part of Monica Lewinsky.
He wrote for her a false affidavit that she presented.
He conducted from the highest levels of this government, the Oval Office.
Bill Clinton conducted an entire attempt to con to uh obstruct justice and lie, and he did lie under oath.
That was the president of the United States, and he was not indicted.
He had his law license suspended, and he was disbarred from the Supreme Court for a number of years from trying cases or working at the Supreme Court as a lawyer.
But the independent counsel said, Well, he's the highest man in the government.
This just wouldn't be right.
We're not going to indict and Mrs. Clinton, by the way, uh, the independent counsel said that she made materially false statements in her grand jury testimony on the Rose Law Firm records, but they decided not to indict her either.
That they thought that she had made materially false statements and that the statements that couldn't be squared about the Rose Law Firm, but nothing was done.
Now, what is this case?
This case is about, and we've been at it now for two years.
This case is about finding out who supposedly broke the law in leaking the name of Valerie Plame and making that name public.
She, a valued and brave and courageous CIA agent.
And after two years, we apparently don't have any evidence that a crime of such was committed.
We don't have any evidence whatsoever that that was a crime.
So after two years, this independent counsel decides to indict Libby on perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators.
Now, you're not gonna have me sit here and defend any of that.
I'm not gonna defend lying to investigators, but I am gonna point out to you the differences in how justice is applied.
And let you make the call on this.
I mean, to me, it's it's it's it's rather obvious.
But I don't know what your point you have not heard me defend Libby.
You have not heard me say the independent counsel ought not do this.
I've just made the point here that the original crime, after being investigated for two years, doesn't seem to have occurred.
Now, I'm looking forward, I always do in situations like this.
If there ever gets to the day that we'll have a trial, I'm looking forward to that coming down.
I hope he goes out and I hope he gets a lawyer that sends chills up the back of the junk department of justice.
There are lawyers like Brendan Sullivan, who was Oliver North's lawyer.
Brendan Sullivan will go in there and make the Justice Department the target of the case rather than Libby's actions, and that's what you have to do.
You have to, even though you're the defense, you've got to fight offense on these kinds of things.
And I I uh I I hope that's the case.
I never attacked this prosecutor during this whole process as the Liberals attack Ken Starr as a sex-starved, dirty old man or having a political agenda.
I've never, and you haven't heard anybody on my side of the aisle, Rob, go after this prosecutor.
We've not attacked him whatsoever.
We have pointed out how the left has built this guy up to be somehow apolitical and Elliott Ness, a prosecutor's prosecutor, unassailable, because they want to make they want to insulate him.
They want to make him bulletproof from any kind of uh attack because he's indicting Republicans or a Republican here, the vice president's chief of staff.
But I I understand you're and I know you're rubbing your hands with Glee out there thinking you've caught all Rush and a little bit of hypocrisy.
But as usual, it's you people that are behind the eight ball and don't see what's actually happening, and can't get it straight what happened in the past because you don't want to admit it anyway.
So that's my answer to you.
I must take a brief time out.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Okay, let me go through this one more time for you Libs out there who think you've caught us all in a bunch of hypocrisy.
Bill Clinton should have been indicted, not over an email either, like Scooter Libby's been, but rather for preparing a false affidavit, having his lawyer introduce it into evidence, testifying to its truthfulness and so forth.
He did all of that obstructing justice, multiple acts of perjury, conspiracy, and contempt, these are premeditated.
They were central to the sex harassment case, and Clinton never disputed them, even though he could have in a hearing which he refused to.
Now, in this case, the underlying issue was whether Plain was covert, whether she was outed, thereby endangering her and national security.
This Libby indictment doesn't even deal with what this special counsel's investigation was about.
Robert Ray, and I misspoke, Robert Ray concluded Hillary Clinton lied repeatedly about her role in the travel office firings, not the Rose Law Firm billing records, but he decided not to charge, even though he concluded she lied under oath.
Now Hillary is said to be a terrific senator.
She's gonna run for her party's presidential nomination, and all is well.
Now is something wrong with this picture or what?
And she did conceal those Rose Law firm billing records for two years in the private residence of the White House and didn't know how they got there.
▲
Export Selection