All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 22, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
December 22, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, a lot of people ask me, Rush, I I wish I knew what it was like to be right so often.
What is it like to be you?
And frankly, my friends, it's it's so commonplace, it's just what is to me.
I mean, I don't it's not something I sit around and reflect on and revel in.
I just am right.
There are those occasions where even I go, yeah.
And today we got a bunch of them.
At least a couple.
Greetings.
Nice to have you.
We are ditto camming all three hours of the Rush Limbaugh program today.
It's on now for those of you at RushlinBoard.com.
This is the EIB network.
Three straight hours of broadcast excellence, and the phone number of you would like to be on the program, 800-282-288-2.
So you know they they have postponed the Saddam trial.
Well, not postponed it, but I mean they've the next session's going to be on the 24th of January.
This guy's gonna die before his trial is finished.
But anyway, today, Saddam Hussein.
I just want to go to the top of the building and shout, listen to me.
Saddam Hussein accused the White House today of lying.
Citing pre-war assertions that Iraq had chemical weapons and its denial of his statement that he had been tortured in American custody.
Speaking at the start of the seventh session of his trial, a former president rekindled his battle of words with Washington.
The White House are liars.
They said Iraq had chemical weapons.
They lied again when they said what Saddam said was wrong, referring to a White House dismissal of his claim that he was tortured.
So the Iraqi judge said, well, all right, fine.
If the Americans are torturing you, we'll send you to the Iraqi uh guards.
But he's carrying, and I told you people what was going to happen.
He is going to mount as his defense everything the Democrats in this country are saying about George W. Bush.
It's j I just I I this is one of those times where yes, even I am impressed or happy uh that that I am right.
I I don't know if McCain or Spector will hold hearings on uh on the Saddam torture.
I wouldn't be so well that we ought to ask McCain to do it.
Senator McCain, your torture bill already in spirit being violated.
Saddam Hussein is being tortured.
He says so.
And he got to be right because he's also says the Democrats are lying about pre-war intelligence, and everybody knows they're not lying about that.
So we need some hearing.
Spectre, get get up to speed on this.
Obviously, we're not going to inspect uh or investigate this uh well, I don't know that we're not, but I'm I'm wondering where it is, the investigation of all these genuine CIA leaks.
Now, about that, this next, folks, is just juicy.
Now, I I am uh I'm dry where was I yesterday?
Where was I yesterday?
Oh, I'm I had to go to a doctor.
I had to go to a follow-up appointment.
Uh I I have up until yesterday I had eaten maybe two in in well since what uh in ten days I'd eaten two bananas and uh a couple of saltine crackers and the rest of it was uh you know protein shakes and stuff.
So I had to go to the doctor yesterday, clean bill of health, everything cool.
I'm driving home for the doctor.
And I uh I'm punching around the satellite radio, and there's really nothing on.
I'm just I'm just nothing, nothing's appealing to me.
The idiots that I normally listen to are even worse than usual.
And I'm just don't feel like listening to music, so I I just my finger started going to button number four.
And I said, Don't do it, don't do it.
This is to sh there is divine providence.
Don't do despite my best efforts to not hit button number four, my finger hit button number four, and up popped CNN.
And I'm listening to Wolf Blitzer talking to their legal expert, Jeffrey Tubin.
And their world has been turned upside down because they have just learned that the Clinton administration also signed executive orders.
Bill Clinton personally signed executive orders authorizing warrantless searches of American citizens for the purposes of domestic spying.
Now, of course, this doesn't fit the template.
The template is this never happened until Bush did it.
There was no president who ever exercised this kind of authority and broke the law until Bush did it.
But the problem is that the Washington Post in 1994 had a story quoting Jamie Gorellick, not only suggesting that they did it, but suggesting that they had the inherent authority to do it without even telling Congress about it.
And you can just hear they were they were this this is this upset the whole Apple cart.
This just shattered the worldview.
This can't be happening.
So Wolfe brings in Tubin, the legal beagle, the legal expert, to ask him to interpret this.
And Blitzer says, uh, Jeffrey, did the Clinton administration essentially suggest that they were entitled to do exactly what the Bush administration has now done.
The answer is no, not exactly.
What the Clinton administration said all along is that they believed that they were following the FISA statute.
Hang on.
They thought that the FISA statute was all the authority they needed to uh conduct the surveillance uh that they did.
However, they did say in that comment that there was certain inherent authority.
The Clinton administration never used that authority as far as they were concerned.
And I think that's where the conflict is here.
Okay, okay, okay.
So the Apple cart's been upset.
Oh no, you mean everything Bush has done here has been done by Clint.
Oh no, we can't have the this can't possibly be true.
Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey, what's the truth?
It can't be true, can't it?
Well, you're right, Wolf.
It's not really true.
Yes, Jamie Gorellick said that there was certain authority, but they never used it.
And that's where the conflict is.
Now stick with me on this.
So Wolf then said, and I like Wolf.
Now I don't want anybody misunderstanding here.
I think uh Wolf Wolf wants to get things right, but you know, he works editors and stuff that have a worldview.
Wolf said, and that's why they're doing this, because Wolf, wait a minute, this doesn't jive with everything I've been told.
So he's looking into this, and he says, Well, the Clinton administration Justice Department, including Jamie Gorellick, what they were arguing was that U.S. authorities could go ahead and wiretap or even search, I guess physically search embassies, foreign embassies here in Washington, consulates everywhere else around the country without necessarily going for a formal court order.
And if Americans got caught up in the process, maybe that was just too bad.
It was a little tighter than that.
They said that that surveillance could not include Americans.
The executive order said it it could not include uh any any surveillance of Americans, and and that's what's how the executive order proceeded.
Okay, now stick with me on this, folks, because the the explosion's about to go off here.
Wolf then says, well, Senator Corning, John Corner, Texas, and many other Republican supporters of the administration make in Gorellic's own words when she said that the president has, quote, inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.
I mean, what they argue, the Republican Senator Corden included, is that physical searches are no different in effect, are the same thing as wiretapping.
Now, let me set this is this is happening yesterday, Wednesday.
We have all known this since Monday.
Maybe since the weekend.
Those of us have been looking into this, we know what Gorelic said.
We know when the Washington Post archives and found that 1994 story.
Byron York did the original research on this at National Review Online.
And that's why the mainstream press will give it no credence because he's a right winger.
They think there's two different worlds here, folks.
But now it got out.
It can't be suppressed.
And now they're just figuring this out on Wednesday.
So now they've got to figure out a way.
OK, yeah, it looks bad, but it really isn't.
So the question the Republicans are argued, Jeffrey, that that it really is no different.
This that this uh search is the same as wiretaps.
Jamie Gorellick at least appeared to say there were certain inherent powers in the presidency that went beyond uh what FISA uh provided.
Stop the tape.
She didn't at least appear to say anything.
She stated unequivocally.
We have read the quote.
We have the quote.
We have put the quote on the website.
She, by the way, is denying it to this day.
She's denying it today in the in the uh Washington Times, but which is even better.
But we've got the quote from the Washington Post.
I guess she misspoke in her own diary.
Uh but but the uh to her own diary, lied to her diary, whatever, lied to the Washington Post.
There's got to be one of these excuses, but uh she didn't she didn't appear to say anything.
She stated the president has inherent powers in the presidency that go beyond FISA, go beyond Congress.
The the Clint Clinton administration always asserted they never went beyond those powers, But there does appear to be a statement of a claiming inherent authority.
The Bush administration now appears both to be claiming that authority and perhaps using it in this very controversial program that we've been talking about since last week.
But there's no evidence that the Clinton administration actually went ahead and wiretap American citizens without informing or using the FISA court.
Absolutely not.
In fact, what the Clinton administration has has did said and did was that they followed the FISA law and the FISA law prohibited uh wiretaps of Americans uh without a court order.
Okay, so yeah, Clinton authorized, but Clinton never used it because Clinton was responsible.
Bush!
Bush, he's spying, he's power mad, he's got a lust for power, and we need to impeach him.
I've never seen anything like it.
But Clinton, oh, yeah, he authorized it, but he never used it.
Now, watching all this yesterday was Victoria Tenzing.
Former assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration and well known uh in Washington circles.
She's watching this, and she's no doubt pulling out her beautiful red hair.
So she calls CNN.
She says, I have to go on the air.
I have to straighten these people out.
Wolf Blitzer says, Stand by for a moment, Jeff, stand by.
Victoria Tenzing has called us.
She's a former.
She's a former Justice Department official.
She's well known Washington attorney.
Vicky, you're hearing the discussion I'm having now with Jeff Tubin.
You wanted to weigh in.
So go ahead.
What's your point?
The Clinton administration did carry out that authority when they went into Aldrich Ames's house without a warrant.
And they argued before the House, Jamie Gorellick did, that they had the inherent, the president had the inherent constitutional authority to do so.
And that was in Byron York's report on Monday.
And it was taken from the Washington Post in 1994.
And we told you about it on this program.
The Clinton administration got a warrant, did not get a warrant to go sneaking into Aldrich Ames's house.
He's the CIA uh spy that turned tail and was you know giving uh secrets to the Russians.
So here she calls and she makes this statement.
And uh and and Bliss uh blitzer says, Well, Aldrich Ames was the former CIA uh analyst convicted and serving a life sentence.
Jeff, are you familiar with the technical points of that Aldrich Ames search?
You know, I I I really am not.
It's worth it.
Stop the tape.
We're not surprised.
Of course you're not, because you don't suspect the Clinton people would do anything about which you accuse the Bush administration.
Of course you're not aware, but it's been in the paper for three days.
No less than the Washington Post.
It was at National Review Online.
It's been on this program.
It's been all over the quote unquote new media.
There are two worlds out there.
These people have no clue, folks.
They have no idea.
This is what I was talking about earlier in the week.
When I said, I am amazed at the at the overall ignorance.
I know what causes it.
They've got this worldview, and any fact that challenges it doesn't get in, it bounces off, it gets to an editor, it gets to a producer.
Oh, there's a bunch of wackos that think that screw that.
And they discard it.
Here's the rest of Tubin's comment.
James played guilty, so there was never a court test of the appropriateness of that search.
So uh I don't know no court ever passed on it.
But how what authority was used, uh, I am afraid to say.
I certainly just don't know what was used.
Well, I can tell you what Jamie Gorellick said before the House Committee.
And she said we we relied on the inherent authority of the president to conduct warrantless searches.
All right, that's the quote.
And do you know of any other examples of Vicky besides the Aldrich Ames example that you cite?
Uh no, I don't, but I'm well aware of that one.
All right, right.
And then so they did use they did nobody was crying for impeachment when Bill Clinton did it in the Aldry James case.
So let's go now to the uh Washington Times today, headlined by Charles Hurt, warrantless searches not unprecedented.
Told you this earlier in the week.
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, FISA with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
Quote, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence Purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general.
That again, the quote from Jamie Gorellick in 1994 before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
So she admitted Clinton has done previous presidents have done, and that there was this inherent authority.
Such warrantless searches, uh searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times bogus story on Friday that the Bush administration had a program to uh intercept communications between Al-Qaeda suspects and persons in this country.
A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits the government, primarily NSA, to continue electronic spying without a court order if it's directed solely at the premise or communications of official powers such as governments, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So yesterday, the mainstream press has brought been been made aware of something that the rest of the country has known for three or four days or 11 years, uh, and still it has not made it beyond CNN.
Yesterday afternoon, New York Times still on the story.
Still on the same story they were on last Friday.
We'll be back and continue in a moment.
Okay, we are back.
El Rush both serving humanity, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
By the way, a little warning.
I got a new toy last night.
And I I just couldn't, I couldn't stop playing with it.
Uh his new little toy, and I've I I've it well, the bottom line is I went to bed at 3:30, so I'm a little giddy here.
And those are those always make for exciting times.
Uh that always makes for exciting times.
Anyway, I want to see if I get this straight now.
The Clinton administration kicked down the door of Aldrich Ames, the door to his house, conducted a warrantless search of a U.S. citizen.
I have not read anything that the Bush administration ever did this or has done this.
Have you?
There's no we haven't heard one report of this kind of thing happening during the Bush administration.
So did Barbara Boxer, when she learned that Clinton did this.
Did she ask four legal scholars to look into whether Clinton should be impeached?
Did her legal advisor, John Dean, have anything to say about it.
The thing is, we don't oppose this.
We are consistent.
We conservatives and we patriots are consistent.
We don't oppose this for national security purposes.
In the case of Aldrich Ames, he was a spy.
He was selling secrets to the enemy.
Now, there's folks, there's a reason.
I could have said to Ruskies, I could have said to Russians, I could have said to Kami Pinkos, but I said the word enemy because that word irritates liberals as much as the word censorship.
They hate the word enemy, and do you know why?
Because they don't think we have any.
They don't like Al-Qaeda being called the enemy.
Al-Qaeda is not the Bush is the enemy in their world, but there is no real enemy.
We talk about the enemy.
They think we're exaggerating, we're extremists, we're over the top, we're off our rockers.
So I love just ramming it right down their geeky little throats.
But that's exactly what he was doing.
Ames was selling secrets to the enemy.
And yes, the Soviets were our enemy.
Make no mistake about it.
They seem to think, the left seems to think that Democrat presidents are free to use these warrantless searches, in turn American citizens like FDR did, use the IRS like Clinton did, and all the rest.
We believe in the rule of law, as does President Bush.
We oppose internment.
We oppose misuse of the IRS.
The President does have the power to protect the nation during war.
He does have the power.
He has the power to intercept communications from the enemy to sympathizers in the United States.
I think there's no doubt Bush wants to prevent another 9-11, where the hijackers are receiving communications in Florida and other parts of the U.S. from Al-Qaeda bigs overseas.
This is the sole motivation for this.
But to listen to the left, you would think all he wants to do is spy on them.
Now, what are you people doing out there on the left that you're afraid somebody's going to discover?
This kind of inordinate fear.
And look, I'm a civil libertarian.
Don't misunderstand here.
But this is, You know, we're we are at war and we've got an enemy who has used these kinds of communications to plot 9-11.
But you, you people on the left don't want any ability to find out who's doing or participating in these communications.
You're not consistent.
You're all for civil liberties except when it comes to protecting the country.
And then all of a sudden, you want to impeach the president who's doing this.
You are so fearful that some private thing that you're engaged in is going to be discovered.
It's got me wondering, what are you doing?
What are you doing that you don't want us to know about?
Because I'll guarantee you, it's nothing we don't already know about.
We know what you're doing.
We know who you are.
We know what kind of perverts you are.
We know what kind of weak linguiney spine little people you are.
We we know what kind of things you do out there.
But there's nothing you can't keep any secrets.
He is only caught in the act, I guess, but at any rate, folks, I must take a break.
As you hear a heartbreak, as they say in broadcasting, be back in mere moments.
You know, folks, I I there's one, there's a there's a good way to put all of this in perspective for you.
These these little I'm gonna have to really impose myself some discipline on myself here, because I I am on the verge.
These liberals, these people that are all upset about Bush trying to protect the country and trying to impeach him for that.
These are the same liberals, ladies and gentlemen, they went after Robert Bork's video rentals.
Does anybody remember that?
They went after Bork's video rentals.
They went through Clarence Thomas's trash can.
Remember that?
They are old.
You they can spy all they want.
They can violate the law when they spy if they want.
But boy, when you are a Republican and you're trying to protect the country, we're gonna nail you and we are going to impeach you.
There's no question in any reasonable person's mind, the president wants to protect the country, prevent another 9-11.
The hijackers were receiving instructions while in Florida from overseas.
He wants to be able to stop it.
The FISA process is too cumbersome, too slow to do it.
So he uses his legitimate constitutional power to do it.
And this is why saying that the uh president authorized spying on U.S. citizens or authorized domestic spying is just a contemptible lie, and we know that it is.
These liberals here, they want to be able to go through your trash can, they want to be able to go through your pharmacy records, they want to be able to go through your medical records, they want to be able to go through your video store rentals, they want to be able to go to the library and find out what kind of porn you might be reading.
But they are not going to allow us to do legitimate searches when it comes to the defense of the country.
And look at Chuck Schumer!
Chuck Schumer who's all upset voted against Patriot Act.
We can't have this.
He's got a couple of clowns on his staff that went and got the social security number or credit card number of credit reports from Michael Steele, Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, black guy wants to be a senator from Maryland.
They went and got his credit report, and they plastered it all over the place.
Still has been no apology.
Talk about spying, talk about dirty tricks.
They didn't ask Fizay to get a warrant to go get any of his private credit information, Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele of Maryland.
If we think about this, we can come up with a probably a whole two hours worth of examples.
The point is this, we know what the libs and the media and the Democrats are up to, and it's no good.
It's just that simple.
It's like my mom used to say, son, that person's up to no good.
You know, you don't need to make it complicated, you don't need to get all flowery with the language.
We know what the libs and the media and the Democrats are up to, and it's no good.
We see them systematically trying to weaken this nation.
And if Iraq goes to hell in the process, so much the better.
They're already invested in defeat in Iraq.
It doesn't affect them, they don't think, as they go on their vacations in Vale and Aspen and Martha's Vineyard and the like.
It's not going to bother them at all.
So what if we're hit again?
So what if it's only another 3,000 people?
Their power means more than any of this to them, and I'm dead serious when I say it.
And this is not fatigue and a lack of sleep speaking.
They Don't care if we get hit again.
Another 3,000 people, so what?
As long as it doesn't happen every day, and they don't have to do something to stop it.
It ain't any big deal.
That's the whole point of wanting to go back to a pre-9-11 lifestyle and set of circumstances.
To look at all of this as just eh, random acts.
There's no organized war rush.
You're just paranoid.
we just have to develop a level of understanding with these people and they, we can make them see that it's not worth what they're doing.
And let Steven Spielberg make a movie about it and that will solve everything.
Yeah, well, we don't have time to wait for all that, and we certainly don't have the uh time to risk liberals in power with that kind of attitude.
I know some of you liberals probably offended.
You think I'm saying you don't care if there's another 9-11.
Yeah.
I'm saying it because I don't see one shred of behavior on the part of any one of them except Lieberman now and then that is oriented in that direction.
You're trying to undermine everything that's being done to stop another 9-11 from happening, every damn thing that's being done to try to stop that.
Liberals, Democrats trying to undermine it with their willing accomplices in the media.
You know, it isn't working.
We know it isn't working on uh on a host of levels.
There is a great piece in Newsweek today.
It's actually uh uh uh uh uh on the website at MSNBC, which is where Newsweek's web content goes.
And the headline of this story is Where's the Outrage?
Bush's defense of his phone spying program has disturbing echoes of arguments once used by South Africa's apartheid regime.
Why Americans should examine the parallels?
Story by Arlene Getz.
Arlene Getz.
Back in the 1980s, when I was living in Johannesburg and reporting on apartheid in South Africa, a white neighbor proffered a tasteless confession.
She was quite relieved, she told me, that new media restrictions prohibited our reporting on government repression.
No matter what Pretoria was detaining, tens of thousands of people without real evidence of wrongdoing.
No matter that, no matter that many of them, including children were being tortured, sometimes to death, no matter that government hit squads were killing political opponents, no matter that police were shooting into crowds of black civil does she mention in this story Winnie Mandela's necklacing?
I I'm not even going to read the rest.
I'll I'll just wager that she doesn't mention that.
Uh Winnie Mandela, if if you were um opposed to the uh anti-apartheid movement, you were black, didn't matter.
Winnie Mandela's forces would come grab you, and they get a tire.
And they would fill it with gasoline, put it around your neck and light it was called necklacing.
Nelson Mandela's uh ex uh wife, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
At any rate, Arlene Getz says, I thought about that neighbor this week as reports dribbled out about President George W. Bush's sanctioning of warrantless eavesdropping on American continent.
Once again, this is published yesterday or today, not yesterday.
She is clueless, literally clueless, thinks this is the first time this has happened, has no idea that Clinton and Carter authorized and use the same thing.
She says, I'm sure there are many well-meaning Americans who agree with their president's explanation that it's all necessary evil.
But the nasty echo of apartheid South Africa should at least give them pause.
For a South African, the deja vu was frightening.
They behaved exactly the same way it used to happen here, vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view.
So she's all upset that people are not believing the media.
Where's the outrage?
We in the media are trying to tell you, we are trying to tell you why aren't you listening?
Think of apartheid.
We're not listening to you because you're lying.
We're not listening to you because you're wrong.
We're not listening to you because you don't have all the facts.
We're not listening to you because you're not reporting all the facts.
We're not listening to you because we know what your agenda is, what your motivation is.
You want to bring down a president, and you want to put your buddies on the left in power, and the country can't afford that right now, Ms. Getz.
You can't fool us anymore.
She says, as I've watched this debate play out, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that not enough Americans really care.
Aww.
Big time newsweek journalists and nobody's listening.
Why did I go into this business?
I don't get paid anything.
I have to live in horrible places around the world, and now nobody's listening.
I don't have any influence.
Uh Ms. Getz, can I can I proffer to you a uh a different analysis that you might want to uh look at?
Maybe just maybe.
The American people are a little smarter than you think.
And maybe, Ms. Getz, just maybe.
We don't care if our government spies on Islamic terrorists.
In fact, Ms. Getz, maybe we want them to.
Maybe we want the government to ferret out any sleeper cells in this country.
You ever stop and think of that?
The audacity of trying to draw analogies to this with apartheid tells us exactly where these people are.
They're panicking.
They're pulling their hair out.
They're all upset.
They don't have the monopolistic influence they used to have.
I have been telling you people this for many, many moons.
By the way, I didn't know that Clinton and Carter agreed with apartheid.
I mean, Bush is just doing what they did.
Why wouldn't she write this story back when Clinton and Carter went in the office?
I mean, if if if what's going on now by Bush reminds her of apartheid, then I'm certain the same that could be said about Bill Clinton and George Bush, or uh Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, especially the first black president.
Why didn't we get these stories back then?
And why do we get these stories or these uh the uh uh the sense of warning from Barbara Boxer?
Why does she go consult legal authorities, scholars like John Dean, and uh suggest maybe that we look into impeachment of Bill Clinton?
Oh, sorry, there's a reason.
We already did that.
Uh we'll be back.
Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us.
Merry Christmas, holiday revelers.
It's Rush Limbauthy excellence in broadcasting that we're you know one of the funniest things going on on it, and it is funny.
I mean the uh transit workers in New York is now charging racism because Bloomberg, the mayor, called their union leaders thuggish.
So the Reverend Sharp and a bunch of others are calling this uh this this race.
It's it's patently absurd, but I still love it when liberals are called racists by their own constituents.
I think 70% of the transit workers in New York are uh people of color, and so they're being discriminated against.
They put up a website, the transit workers did to get feedback from the people expecting all kinds of support.
They got opposition four to one, and some of the retorts that they got made them shut down the website.
One guy wrote in and said, You know what?
I understand what you people are doing, but you have to understand something.
I make half of what you are being offered.
I am missing two days of work because I can't get there, and you are ruining my Christmas.
You have an offer on a table that half the people in this city would jump at.
And there are other comments like that, and then you if you want to talk about racism, how about the race of the people being affected by the strike in New York?
How about that?
But never mind.
I just I just I mean, when when when a bunch of liberal leaders are called racists by their union constituents, I just I just I just eat it up.
Here's Mike in Long Beach, California, as we go to the phones for the first time today.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, thanks, Rush.
Merry Christmas to you.
Same to you, sir.
Thank you.
Um I know you're very tired today, but I I do need your help with uh a question that's puzzling me here.
Go right away right ahead.
Thank you, sir.
So in 1994, you have Jamie Gorellick essentially uh asserting that the president has this executive authority to uh do these warrantless searches to get a foreign intelligence.
Yes.
Inherent by that she means constitutional.
Okay.
Jamie Garelic, in my mind, is very famous for erecting the wall that ended up preventing agencies from sharing foreign intelligence.
So I'm wondering if you can explain this apparent uh schizophrenia at the Clinton Department of Justice, because I'm really confused.
If you understand the Clintons, there's nothing schizophrenic about this.
This is uh this is a this is a perfectly sensible criminal enterprise.
Criminal in quotes.
Okay, so she she wants Clinton to have total constitutional authority to go wiretap anybody to go investigate anybody, but then she erects the wall, and you're looking at, well, okay, so Clinton's getting all the goods on all the bad guys, but his own Justice Department erects a wall where he can't share it with anybody?
Why do you think that might be?
Why do you think that they would erect a wall to prevent themselves from sharing any information that one agency might have learned about something that they wanted to pass on to somebody else?
Could it be that maybe the wall existed to protect the administration's own behavior, say in the matter of illegal foreign campaign contributions?
Say in the name of uh Johnny Chung, uh James Wong, Charlie Tree.
Uh could it be, sir, that there may be a dual purpose for this wall?
And if the primary purpose was to shield the Clinton administration, not to stop anybody from sharing information to get terrorists, because they weren't fighting terrorism that much.
They may make a big deal about terrorism in the Clinton administration, not until the late 90s during the impeachment saga.
But uh about that didn't do much about it.
So your question is uh is is very very very very reasonable from someone coming from a uh a purely innocent standpoint.
But if you understand Clintons, and if you understand how they operate, that wall makes perfect sense in a certain context.
Speaking of Gorelic, now she's trying to backtrack.
She's in one of the Washington papers, I think it's the Washington Times, I'm not certain, could be the Post, but she's in one of the papers today and gave an interview yesterday, and she acknowledged her testimony before Congress in 1994 that we've all quoted this week, but she said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws.
Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's inherent authority.
The Clinton administration did not take a position on that.
She said, This is patently outrageous.
This woman cannot tell the truth to say her life, save her life.
She goes before this House committee, Select Committee on Intelligence, 94.
President has inherent authority, it means constitutional.
President has inherent, he inherits it.
That means it's constitutional.
That means you and Congress can't trump it.
You can't stop it.
Yesterday she said, Well, this was uh pre-1994, and it was uh it was uh uh undecided whether congressional action would trump that inherent authority.
No, it's not, Ms. Gorelic, as you will know.
The Constitution doesn't give Congress to Trump the inherent constitutional authority of the executive.
It's all there.
You just have to read it.
So it is she saying here as a big-time lawyer that the Constitution means nothing, that the president only has power if Congress gives it to him?
Yes, that's what she said yesterday because she wants to join the forces of those who say Clinton didn't break the law, but Bush did.
She's trying to protect her sugar daddy, Bill Clinton, and trying to join the forces that want to get Bush in deep trouble over this.
But as the Newsweek story mentioned, it isn't working, the mainstream media pulling their hair out.
Why is there no outrage?
Why aren't people mad?
Because maybe the people appreciate what the president is trying to do.
And Ms. Gorellick, answer this.
How is it that your boy, Bill Clinton, had inherent power, but George Bush doesn't not?
How is it that your boy Bill Clinton has inherent power coming from the Constitution?
But when it comes to George W. Bush, a bunch of hick hayseed liberals in the House and the Senate.
Can Trump his inherent authority?
Back in just a second, folks.
Ah, I just uh Brett, ask her.
I don't have enough time.
She's calling from London, and I don't want to just give her 30 seconds.
Uh just notice that she's from London.
Uh, so ask her if she's gonna well, I tell you what, I'll get to her first thing in the monologue segment of the next hour.
I will not I'll do that before the uh monologue, because it'll tie in with something that I was gonna say in the monologue anyway.
That way she won't have to hold on Uh that long.
Some of these international callers, folks, don't you know we don't pay all the freight on those.
Uh some of these international callers pay for it, so uh we try to hustle them to the uh to the front of the line.
She wants to talk about Clinton in regard to all this and why he isn't saying anything.
And of course, not just Bill, but you know, where's Hillary?
I mean, Hillary Schumer ought to be out there holding a little toy train over his head, like he holds guns over his head, to protest the NRA.
Where are Schumer and Hillary on the transit strike?
Helping the little people.
▲
Export Selection