All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:10
June 29, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Still waiting.
It hasn't arrived yet.
You found a Pelosi comment that you printed to me on the Supreme Court decision?
Let me go look.
Oh, well, one of the goody-goody.
I wonder what this says.
Show is full of surprises today.
Hey, folks, we are back.
Broadcast Excellence, all yours.
Rush Limbaugh, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
America's real anchorman, highly trained broadcast specialist serving humanity.
800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
All right.
Miss America, Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House of Representatives, has issued a statement on the Supreme Court Guantanamo Military Commission's decision today.
And I read from the statement now.
And I've not seen it, I don't know what this is going to say.
I just literally ripped it off the printer, and I don't want you to tell me sternly, I want to read this and I'm going to learn it with the audience as one.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the U.S. Supreme Court decision trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.
Quote, today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.
This is a triumph for the rule of law.
The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our constitutional rights.
We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.
God woman is deranged.
Do you realize she has just equated our enemy with you, United States citizens?
This is unbelievable.
All are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.
This is a triumph for the rule of law.
All are entitled.
You know, actually, bring it on.
Ted Kennedy just had a statement.
I didn't read it.
It was on television.
But you knew we had a caller who called this today.
The Democrats are going to step in it.
They're going to paint a big bullseye on themselves.
They're going to tell the American people, this is great.
This is good.
Bush overstepped.
The rule of law is what counts here.
And these terrorists need to be given the full force and protection of the U.S. Constitution.
If bin Laden is sick in the cave, wherever he is, this is some of the best medicine he could get.
Seeing his allies in the United States Congress and the Senate on the Democratic side lining up with his enemy, George, against his enemy, lining up with him.
This is absolutely stupid.
This is just stupid.
Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.
This is a triumph for the rule of law.
Can you imagine FDR being faced with this or Abraham Lincoln?
Baby.
Okay.
I think, you know, Coco, I got an idea for you for the website tonight.
I want you to grab the 19 terrorists that flew the four airplanes on 9-11.
And I want you to put your pictures up there, starting with Mohamed Atta and all these others.
And then underneath those pictures, I want that statement from Nancy Pelosi.
Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.
This is a triumph of the ruler.
Put Zarkawi's picture up there with him.
The rights of due process, especially the first paragraph of her statement.
And I want this as big as you can make it.
The 19 terrorists and these guys in Club Git Mall and all over are from the same family.
And here is the Democrat minority leader in the House of Representatives standing up for them and their rights against the United States, her own government.
Wow, this is, I, I mean, look, there's a part of me that loves this because these people are typing themselves, typecasting themselves.
They are identifying themselves.
This is, in a political sense, folks, this is fabulous.
But there's much more than politics here.
There is an actual war on terror.
U.S. national security is at stake here, preventing other terrorist attacks like are happening all over the world, by the way.
Suicide bombers, homicide bombers, whatever you want to call them.
These things are happening all over the world.
We are not immune to this anymore.
And these people like Nancy Pelosi want to, you know, this is Bill Clinton's war.
This is how he was fighting it.
And look where it got us.
They call this George Bush's war on terrorism.
This is Bill Clinton's war that Bush is having to fight because Clinton didn't take it on.
We're trying to clean up a bunch of messes after the passage of a bunch of years where nothing was done.
Rule of law for crying out.
The rule of law.
I mentioned Andy McCarthy had a piece at National Review Online, and he wrote this piece before the decision of the Supreme Court came out today, when he said, make no mistake, if this happens, and it did, the decision today, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al-Qaeda, which no president, no Senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance.
And that's a pretty good way of putting this.
The Supreme Court's just conferred the rights under the Geneva Convention to people that are not a party to it.
They don't qualify.
And the Supreme Court has basically just made a treaty with al-Qaeda.
The president didn't do it.
The Senate didn't do it.
And the American people certainly wouldn't vote for it.
And yet the Supreme Court did it.
This is what is meant by runaway courts, out-of-control courts.
And I got to read to you what Mark Levin wrote on his blog.
He's got a blog at National Review Online and back on the three days ago.
He said, I'm getting a bad feeling about the outcome of the Hamden decision relating to military commissions, which is about to be handed down to the Supreme Court.
I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that since its 2004 Rasul and Hamdi decisions granting unlawful enemy combats detained at Guantanamo Bay the right to file habeas corpus petitions in civilian courts, the justices no longer feel limited by the Constitution or precedent and will intervene further in the executive's war-related policies.
If so, it was predictable, and it has been predictable.
And it's exactly what's happened.
The president of the United States, I don't care who it is, it's the commander-in-chief.
The Supreme Court has just usurped commander-in-chief authority.
Quick call before we go to the break.
This is Steve in Dayton, Ohio.
Hi, Steve.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
I got to tell you, after the last two stories, I almost had to hang up there so I could go vomit.
But I decided to tough it out.
Had a couple comments about, primarily I want to talk to you first about the Haditha thing, even though that wasn't what I mentioned to the call screener.
Something that none of the talking heads have mentioned yet is one possibility.
I think it's a very realistic possibility.
Isn't it possible that those people that were supposedly murdered by our soldiers were actually killed by the enemy and made to look like our soldiers did it?
Of course, anything's possible.
That's why the investigation is ongoing.
Right.
And the second point was about the court ruling and Gitmo.
Where are all the people that are always talking about the level playing field and what happened to our soldiers that were beheaded and tortured and left alongside the road?
You know, I can tell you where they are, and I'm getting blue in the face saying this.
Here is exactly where they are.
They won't say it publicly, but they're not outraged by it because we deserve it.
We're the evil United States of America.
We started this war.
We caused all this to happen.
We invaded their territory.
They didn't do anything to us.
We invaded their territory.
It's just, we have an unfair advantage.
We're the lone superpower of the world.
It's George Bush's war.
I can guarantee you none of what is being...
The New York Times would not leak one story where Bill Clinton is still in the White House.
There would be no effort underway here whatsoever to undermine Bill Clinton's authority to wage war under the provisions in the Constitution granted to the Commander-in-Chief.
None of this would be happening.
This is all this is war.
Let me tell you something.
The best way to say this: as far as the American left is concerned, the war is in this country.
And the enemy is us, conservatives, and George W. Bush.
Back after this.
Isley Brothers and Rudolph.
Never gets any credit, Rudolph Isley.
Fight the power.
Got a great, got a great quote here, an idea from a, I don't know who sent it.
It's in the email, no signature.
New slogan for the Democrats.
Don't worry, if you attack Americans, we'll defend your right to do it.
Signed the Democrat Party, United States of America.
You attack America or Americans, fear not.
We Democrats will defend your right to do it.
Columbus, Georgia, Robert, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Rush, I think you need to put a picture of Osama bin Laden on the website above Nancy Pelosi's quote so we know exactly who she's talking about.
Yeah, we can add bin Laden to it.
That'd be a good idea.
Rush, can I ask you for a prediction?
Yeah.
How many Academy Award nominations do you expect Al Gore's film to get next year?
Let's see.
How many Academy Award nominations?
Well, is this thing actually the documentary class?
I don't know how many.
I'll guess it'll get four.
Writing, star, cinematography, editing.
It'll get a lot of nominations.
No question about that.
Ted Jennison, Michigan.
You're next to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Rush, God bless you, and good afternoon.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I have a concern over the arrogance and the audacity of the United States to believe that these people that are being detained at Gitmo are their sole trophy.
These people were captured as a result of coalition forces on a coalition operation.
Why doesn't the coalition decide what happens to these people than just the United States?
You know, it doesn't matter.
I mean, I understand your point.
It shouldn't matter whether the coalition captured them or the United States did.
The Supreme Court does not have any commander-in-chief authority under the Constitution.
And these prisoners do not have no way, shape, manner, or form, protection under the Geneva Convention.
However, it has just been granted by the world's foremost and last and final authority, the United States Supreme Court.
So it wouldn't matter if coalition forces were involved in this.
The Supreme Court's just said, screw it.
The president can't do this.
We didn't hear Tony Blair saying he wanted to do it too, although he probably did.
Your question illustrates the fallacy here.
I like Andy McCarthy's point.
The U.S. Supreme Court has effectively just made, signed, and ratified a treaty with Al-Qaeda.
And they're not allowed to do that either.
A president negotiates treaties.
When it comes to treaties, the Senate ratifies them.
Well, the Senate hasn't ratified this.
Now, there are Democrats in the Senate that obviously would if they had the majority, but they still, there's so much that's extra-constitutional here.
It's stunning, folks.
I keep saying, though, there's good in everything.
A lot of people are once again telling us exactly who they are.
This Pelosi quote, her statement, folks, I can't believe that the Democrats let this go out.
They cannot be this blind.
They just can't.
Well, maybe they are blind with rage and hatred.
Maybe she doesn't have to run it by anybody.
There has to be somebody on her staff saying, wait a minute, because they're, oh, look, you have to understand the Democrats are looking at this purely from a political standpoint.
They're not looking at this from the war on terror and victory and all that.
They're looking at this politically.
She thinks that statement is going to help her.
That statement is written for these kooks in the fringe out there in the liberal blogosphere that now make up the base.
But aside from that, if she thinks, if the Democrats think that that's magnetic, that it's going to attract supporters, rule of law for enemy combatants?
You know, war?
I am speechless about this.
That statement of hers is, make no mistake, it's who she is.
And that's the silver lining in the clout.
But I just cannot believe that we actually have people in this country today that are this warped.
Yes, I do believe it.
I guess I've believed it for a long time.
It's why I'm here.
Dan in Huntsville, Alabama.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, Giga Ditto.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, I want to weigh in on two things.
The first thing is the desperation on the part of the Democratic Party to align their cut-and-run mandate with the option that General Casey is briefing the president on.
There is a clear-cut difference between an option and a mandate.
The second thing I want to talk to you about was I'm locked up with you on this flag-bearing amendment, but I thought you missed one thing.
What's that?
That this vote was one short of passing because three of our own voted against it.
That's right.
And that, to me, is a travesty.
And to me, it gives the political left a victory on this issue.
Well, one of the three was Mitch McConnell.
Exactly.
Surprising vote.
And, you know, I'm getting my share of heat on this.
I'm getting learned conservative types on my side sending me notes.
You know, I really respect your mind, and you were brilliant on the Dubai Ports Dale, but they're just falling in with the wrong crowd on this flag-burning business.
I've gotten this ever since the issue first came up back in 1989.
Noted conservative scholars thought that I was sounding like an average back alley conservative, unsophisticated, pandering to the base and so forth, which is why I spent so much time yesterday saying this is about, again, the Constitution.
This was an attempt to amend the Constitution illegally, whereas the Supreme Court just ruled by fiat back in 1989.
I guess the scholars on the elites missed that aspect or weren't worried about it.
But speaking, Mike, get the flag-burning commercial out there.
We got a new client here, Democrats.
Demco is the name of the company.
Get flag-burning commercial handy.
Yeah, we're going to get this for you, folks, since the flag-burning thing has been brought up.
New advertising.
And by the way, I predicted this.
One area we'd have entrepreneurs in the Democratic Party is if you could legally burn the flag and somebody has already, I mean, sprung into action out there.
We have a half hour remaining on this program, ladies and gentlemen, and I can't let the program end today without letting you hear some audio sound bites from the future hope of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, who was on Good Morning America today.
You remember Fuzzy Zeller made a joke after the Masters in Tiger Woods, and it got him in a lot of trouble, nearly ruined his career.
I wonder if Obama's career will tank because of his remark that nothing's more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith.
The politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps off rhythm to the gospel choir.
White men have no rhythm, essentially, is what Barack Obama's.
What do you bet that there's no similar treatment whatsoever?
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh, a man with whom you could and would totally trust your wife, your daughter, your little kid, and your pets overnight in the Motel 6 while you're on a business trip serving human.
You see Dawn's eyes rolling on that.
You have to hear this.
Last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews, even Chris Matthews was raising some eyebrows last night.
The 049, Bob Shrum, Bob Shrum, who has yet to steer any Democrat presidential candidate who has hired him to victory, is nevertheless one of the most preeminent and prominent spokesman analysts pundits for the Democratic Party.
And Chris Matthews said, Bob, Peter King was sitting here, U.S. Congressman.
He said the difference between the New York Times, Bill Keller, and a communist, Alger Hiss, is simply a matter of degree.
Shrum, do you have a reaction like that?
Let me tell you something.
For the administration to start throwing around words and Republicans to start throwing around words like treason and giving aid and comfort to the enemy is not only totally irresponsible, it repeats the mistake Richard Nixon made, for example, on the Pentagon papers.
The New York Times has done a lot more good for this country than George W. Bush ever has.
Ooh, man, they are getting touchy and sensitive out there.
New York Times has done a lot more good for this country than George W. Bush ever has.
These people have lost it, folks.
They are literally off the reservation of rationality.
There is no rationality to them or about them at all.
All right, rising star, Barack Obama.
Good morning, America, to talk religion.
We have a bite here where the rising star, the future of the Democratic Party, you know what this guy's like?
I'll tell you what.
What did he do?
One speech.
He's the Democrats Mario Cuomo.
It's amazing.
They've got figures and they get characters and they just plug different people into these various iconic figures of their past.
And now Barack Obama will take them back to some glory period.
Robin Roberts was interviewing Barack Obama.
Good morning, America, today.
She said, What do you believe is wrong with the way that Democrats deal with religion and, in particular, religious voters?
We have this split inside our politics in which the Democrats oftentimes are perceived as having been reluctant to talk about faith and religion, partly because of legitimate concerns about separation of church and state.
And Republicans are often perceived as being heavy-handed with religion, when in fact, most evangelicals, I think, are a lot more open-minded to a whole host of issues than people give them credit for.
So my point was that we need to have a more complex, more nuanced conversation about religion.
Yeah, why don't you go behind closed doors again and figure out what you all think about it?
That's what this means.
We need a more complex and nuanced conversation about religion.
Let me translate for you.
It means the Democrats got to go behind closed doors and figure out how to hide who they really are.
You can't convince me that the Democrats actually care about evangelicals because they despise them.
My gosh, it's not just Democrats that despise the Republican elites that despise them.
I've told you people the stories.
The last thing in the world that these Chablis Republicans want to be thought of as in bed with the Christian right.
It embarrasses them, especially because their wives don't like it.
No, they don't because it's about abortion.
And the wives will go up and nag the husbands.
How can you possibly be in this party and contribute to this party when Zeke, what's his faith, the thing when he's saying about abortion and they're burning abortion clinics?
How can you say that?
They get all henpecked.
They run around and they take it out on people like me.
So there's some elitist disdain, but the Democrats, come on, folks.
It ain't going to happen no matter how much nuance Barack Obama wants, especially he's out there the other day saying that, you know, basically that white men can't clap.
White men can't jump.
White men can't dance.
They don't have any rhythm out there.
They go in there and clap off rhythm to the gospel choir.
And I know who he had in mind.
But who?
Democrat white guys, right?
Al Gore.
And Sophie.
You ever seen Al Gore clap anyway?
It's the most.
Who got in trouble for us the word spastic the other day?
I'm not going to repeat that.
Somebody used the word.
They didn't understand what it meant.
Some politician or something.
You've seen Al Gore clap hands in the shape of claws.
And it's uncoordinated.
I can't think of it.
I'd love to use other terms, but it looks just like, notice it the next time you see Al Gore clapping.
And then when you add the rhythm to it, he's, of course, totally, totally lost.
We have more Obama.
What's the next question?
Robin Roberts said, well, we saw, of course, in the last presidential election, moral value is very much on the minds of voters who went to the polls.
But it's also when evangelicals talk about the way Democrats traditionally vote when it comes to gay rights, comes to abortion.
So it's not so much the family values that you talk about, but how Democrats vote.
So how does there have to be change there?
There are going to be differences on issues, and not all these issues that touch on religious faith are easily resolved.
I mean, the fact of the matter is that there are going to be contentious debates around abortion and gay marriage, and that's part of our democratic process.
My simple point is to make sure that we don't get so locked in to a particular perception about how one party or the other thinks that we miss the enormous complexity and diversity of religious views all across the country.
This is gobbledygook.
This is sheer gobbledygook.
I mean, I know what he's trying to say out there because I can read the stitches in a fastball.
He's saying, look, there's far more than the religious right out there.
Screw that.
There's a lot of nuance and there's a whole bunch of diversity and complexity.
There's all kinds of different religious people, religious people.
We just heard about them today.
Their God is the rat.
We've got people whose God is the tree.
We need to get, we need to understand all these religious people and stop being so stereotypical about certain religions.
But what he's basically saying is you can't just, we Democrats can't aim a fire at the Christians.
But there's some things Democrats will never be able to stop doing, and that's one of them.
Mark my words.
Now, it's time for Obama, Democrat, got to appeal and appease the kooks.
Out there, Robin Roberts says, all right, you said that 90% of us believe in God.
70% affiliate themselves with an organized religion.
So it's very important for, by the way, where is the complexity and nuance in that?
If 90% of us believe in God, which God is that, do we have, is 90% of us believe in a God or 90% of us believe in God in this country?
I'm talking about in this country.
Come on, folks.
Let's be honest with ourselves about this.
90% of us believe in the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
We don't believe in all these wacko gods of nature and wacko gods of spiritism and whatever.
Some do, but not 90%.
So where's the nuance?
Where is the complexity?
And then furthermore, 70% affiliate themselves with an organized religion.
Well, we're not talking about, you know, the Church of Our Lady of the Miraculous Interstate here or our, you know, the Church of what's happening now.
So where is all this complexity and diversity?
So her question is, well, it's very important for Democrats and all politicians to consider that when they're asking for people's votes.
I want to make clear that I also spoke to conservatives to say that the history of separation of church and state is what has allowed religious freedom to thrive in this country.
That when we talk about issues, it's also important for us to recognize that there are folks who are non-believers, who are of different faiths, and we've got to translate whatever moral concerns or religious concerns that we have into a universal language that all Americans can talk about.
It's been done for crying out.
It's the Ten Commandments.
It's been done.
Now, everybody fails to live up to them, but it's been done.
We don't need Democrats writing a new moral code.
Holy hell, if we do that, there won't be one.
That's what they're after.
No guardrails, no moral code.
It's up to anybody.
You know, they believe that morality is self-defined.
This is, it's Barack.
It's been done.
And it's religious people that did it, Barack.
And the arrogance and the stupidity.
I don't know.
I don't know which.
Can you imagine the Democrats sitting around coming up with a new moral code?
What is it?
What he said?
A universal language, moral concerns that we have in a universal language.
All Americans can talk about.
They all talk about it now.
And it's called English.
No, wait.
Spanish, too.
Title of this tune, Stupid Girl.
Ladies and gentlemen, it could apply to so many today.
Let's throw Hillary in the hopper.
I mean, what is this?
You got Barack out there talking about religion the past two days, so Mrs. Clinton has to get in on the act.
It's a CNN story.
Appearing before a religious conference earlier this week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat New York, told the audience cannot keep a straight face told the audience that as a child attending Sunday school,
she would babysit the children of migrant workers so that their older siblings could join their parents at work.
I was fortunate that at an early age, through my church, I was given the opportunity to expand my horizons, Clinton told the 600 adults and teenagers attending the Sojourners Covenant for a New America conference.
Politically, the story served two purposes for Hillary.
It allowed her to promote a developing Democrat message tailored to the faith community that ties the party's compassionate legislative agenda directly to moral values.
And personally, it allowed Clinton to speak about her own spirituality.
The latter is not new for the former First Lady, but it is a theme we could hear more and more about if she decides to run for president.
How in the world is this taken seriously?
I just, these people in the drive-by media have got to be snickering like all the rest of us.
This is pathological.
This is pathological.
Told the audience that, what is it?
Our back page ad in the Limbaugh letter when Hillary said she wanted to be in the Olympics.
And I said, fine, you're too late.
Should have joined the East German team.
She wanted to be an Olympic athlete.
She said this last month at a Purchase New York College Symposium on Title IX.
I tried everything.
I ran every race.
And if I was really lucky, I finished second to last.
I couldn't jump.
I couldn't run.
I couldn't swim.
Didn't matter.
Go to East Germany.
But see, it's crumbled.
Now, as a child attending Sunday school, she would babysit the children of migrant workers so that their older siblings could join their.
By the way, I want to apologize.
I left out a major religion when I was commenting on Barack Obama, and that is the Church of Oprah.
Services every afternoon at 4 Eastern Central and Pacific time.
Sermons daily.
Church of Oprah.
I forgot about that one.
Here's Alex, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
He's 14 years old.
Thank you for waiting.
Hello, Alex.
Thank you for having me on.
You better.
I would just like to comment on the Supreme Court's ruling.
My father is in the Navy, and it seriously makes me sick to my stomach to hear that our leaders would vote for the enemy who are killing our fathers, our sons, our husbands, our daughters, our wives.
It makes me sick.
And I feel like I know more than these people do, and I'm only 14.
You know, join the crowd.
There are millions of Americans that are just as sick as you are over this today.
And you've got it right.
I mean, it's like somebody emailed me earlier.
The Democrats have a new slogan.
Don't worry, if you attack America or Americans, we Democrats will defend your right to do it.
And we're allies on the Supreme Court.
Yeah.
I can imagine how this makes you feel.
I've got mixed emotions about hearing you say this.
On the one hand, I'm happy that you are mad about it and that you're informed and mature enough to understand it, but I'm enraged that you have to hear about it.
And you have to experience the feelings that you do.
Alex, I can try to explain it to you.
I don't know if I could do it in the limited amount of busy broadcast time we have here.
But the best way to understand it is that the people in that court and who think like them in the Democratic Party and elsewhere in the country literally believe that the biggest enemy we face is George W. Bush and the United States government.
It is not the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 and those who'd like to continue those kinds of attacks.
They really do not consider them to be the enemy.
It is Bush that overstepped his authority.
It's Bush that is denying people their civil rights.
It's Bush that's denying these terrorists their due process rights as American citizens.
And it's infuriating.
And all I can say is welcome to the club.
This is Ron in Pittsburgh.
It's great to have you, sir.
How are you?
Pretty good, Rush.
Ditto's from Pittsburgh.
Thank you.
I got a solution to the Gitmo.
What are my solutions for the Gitmo detainees?
I think we should let them loose.
Sure, go ahead with a couple.
That's right.
Put them in the two C-5s, fly them to Baghdad, and have the 82nd Airborne waiting for them when they get off the airplane.
Rush, this is so furiating.
This is unbelievable.
I have a close friend who's leaving for Iraq, coming up here shortly in the next week.
And I'm just furious.
And everybody I talk to is furious.
Let them lose.
Let them lose.
Well, that's not going to happen.
That's the one thing that's not going to happen.
The Club Gitmod head honcho down there, this really doesn't affect us.
These people are staying.
And Bush said today, President Bush said today, they are not going anywhere.
This does not affect their status as prisoners.
I have time for one more.
And let's see.
Brian in El Paso, Texas, you're next.
You've been waiting out there a longer time than anybody else.
Thank you.
Dittos, Rush.
The Gitmo detainees are now eligible for bail.
What happens and what's going to be the public's reaction the first time one of these guys goes up to New York City, gets put in front of a Jimmy Carter judge, and he gets bail and is free to walk the streets until his trial.
That's an interesting question.
You know, the normal reaction is, oh, come on, Brian, don't be foolish.
These clowns are not going to get bail.
But who would have ever thought that what happened today would happen?
So I'll have to ask legal experts that I know and trust about that.
Nothing's going to happen to these guys right now.
And I don't know what the timetable is.
This decision is over 100 pages, and it literally broke around, was it 10 or 10.30?
And I haven't even, I mean, the decision hadn't even been published by then, and I haven't certainly had a chance to read it, nor have I had a chance to talk to people who already have read it.
So I may have more answers tomorrow as to what the specifics of this ruling mean in terms of timetables and all that.
In the meantime, I must go.
We'll be back and wrap it up in just a second.
Tomorrow's Open Line Friday.
And if you people want to keep venting, you feel free.
Have at it.
I have to run now.
I've got to do a bunch of stuff.
We'll be back tomorrow and do it all over again, and I'll look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection