All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:26
September 18, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, Brian, is that FedEx arrived yet?
It hasn't, so we're screwed until three o'clock.
I'm just waiting on my new Mac Pro computer here, ladies and gentlemen.
I mean, I wasn't going to be able to install it this morning anyway.
I just like to get it in-house.
It's uh it's on the FedEx van for delivery.
You watch now that I mentioned that, hooligans will start holding up FedEx vans out there.
Here in South Florida, greetings, folks.
Welcome.
Hope you had a great weekend.
El Rush Mo, raring and ready to go.
Full week of broadcast excellence from the EIB Southern Command.
Our telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Well, lots of exciting stuff going out there today, uh, folks.
The latest uh from uh from this whole controversy over the Pope and words.
I uh there's some things that happen that are simply propitious.
And this is one of them.
The Pope utters words.
He quotes an old emperor from many centuries ago.
And now the Muslim world is going bonkers, rioting, killing a nun in Somalia, shooting her in the back while she was praying.
Um these uh these Muslim extremists, Islamo fascists, are proving everything that the Pope's words indicated.
New York Times had an editorial uh on Sunday that just totally misses the point, but boy is it expressive and illustrative.
First off, from Reuters uh dateline Dubai.
Uh, an Iraqi militant group led by Al-Qaeda vowed a war against the worshippers of the cross in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world.
The uh the statement was made in internet statement by the Mujahiddin Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of Al Qaeda said, We tell the worshipper of the cross, that being Pope, that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya.
We shall break the cross and spill the wine.
God will help Muslims to conquer Rome.
God enables us to slit their throats and make their money and descendants the bounty of the Mujahideen, said the statement.
Yeah, this is a peaceful religion.
There's no question about it.
Pope simply utters words.
But guess, guess who one of the staunchest allies of Al Qaeda happened to be yesterday?
Uh well, not Jacques Chirac, it was the uh the New York Times.
The New York Times has an editorial entitled The Pope's Words.
The Pope's Words.
There is more than enough religious anger in the world, so it's particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as evil and inhuman.
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies, and the Pope has apologized.
And he keeps apologizing.
And he's apologizing even more.
And he ought to just be quiet.
Uh it's not going to gain anything.
These are opportunities.
How long does it take for these rental mobs to round up these people to get in front of AP and Reuters and UPI cameras to go out there and pose as an angry mob, thereby making sure these pictures show up all over the world.
Muslim leaders the world over demanded apologies, threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican warning that the Pope's words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam.
For many Muslims, holy war jihad is a spiritual struggle and not a call to violence.
Well, it may be, but there's still a whole heck of a lot of them to whom it is more than a spiritual struggle.
It is an actual struggle that has led to a world war.
I I you know the the utter denial of a reality that is you have to you have to close your eyes and blindfold yourself to miss this.
A doctrinal conservative, that would be his greatest sin, Pope Benedict the 16th.
His greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping off point for tolerance and interfaith dialogue.
All right, if the New York Times is upset at the Pope's words, demanding he apologize for quoting words from centuries ago that offended Muslims.
Uh maybe we can strike a deal.
You know, I like to offer solutions on this program.
Maybe what ought to happen is that if we get the New York Times to apologize to Carl Rove and Scooter Libby and a number of other people they have impugned and maligned and offended with their printed words and their editorializing, And maybe we can go to the Pope for one more apology.
Maybe he wouldn't mind adding one more to the list that he has already made.
If you read this whole editorial, and I haven't bothered to read the whole thing to you, but what becomes obvious here, ladies and gentlemen, that the people of the New York Times and the Libs, the Libs view religion in an in a totally different way from anybody else.
That's the only conclusion that you can come to here.
Uh religion is simply a device whereby practitioners try to make themselves feel good in an otherwise screwy and out of control world.
It's like it's like the religion of the Church of Oprah.
It's like the religion of the Church of Environmentalism or the religion of the Church of Animal Rights or Feminism.
It's all designed to make the practitioner feel better about his own worldview, but it is it has no depth, it has no foundation, and it has no meaning.
these people forget that we are dealing with evil They don't even acknowledge it.
They haven't even reached the point where they can forget it.
They don't even acknowledge it.
And real religion, uh whatever its problems may be, real religion is all about fighting the dark side and fighting evil and fighting sin, is it not?
That's the purpose, and and to help provide faith for answers to questions that we are capable of asking, but that we will never be able to answer.
The New York Times says, you know, we just we need love.
Jackie DeShannon, what the world needs now is love, sweet love.
Uh that's not what's needed.
I mean, the Pope has exactly bowed down on his hands and knees.
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean any offend anybody.
It weren't even my words.
Let me go.
Leave me alone.
And it's still not enough.
You can't apologize to these people.
Uh what is I think necessary here is a is a muscular and forceful, unflinching devotion to God that looks evil in the eye and calls it by its true name.
We're we're uh and and I think in uh large part, much of the population of this country uh indeed feels that way about it.
The New York Times, which will fight to the death for their own free speech rights, predictably hypocritical in suggesting the Pope was wrong for exercising his.
When I want to go back to this this whole point that, you know, the the demanding the Pope apologize for offending and maligning and so forth and so on.
Boy, I'll tell you if anybody needs to be at the front of that line, it is the editorial writers and even some of the reporters at the New York Times who have sought out and tried to destroy numerous human beings in and out of the Bush administration in Washington simply because they are in the Bush administration or support the Bush administration, simply because they are uh they are conservatives.
They notice that the the uh restraints, the constraints, and the shackles the New York Times argues for everyone else are shackles that they would never ever dream of allowing to be placed on themselves, even if those shackles were the shackles of fairness and responsibility.
Brief timeout, we'll be back.
We'll continue in just a second.
Stay with us.
You got another commercial you can play.
I'm still lighting the cigar.
I'm having a little trouble with it.
Yeah, play the McCain torture bit.
Yeah, do that.
Speaking of Senator McCain, let's go on to the audio sound bites.
They got a lot of them from yesterday, the Sunday shows uh this week with George Stephanopoulos.
McCain was the guest.
And uh Stephanopoulos said the president said that your logic is flawed.
He suggests you and Secretary Powell are by the way, uh folks, what one one quick thing here.
I I this just spurred a thought in my fertile mind.
Uh Armitage is Powell's right-hand man.
Powell is opposing the president in his attempts to define common Article III of the uh uh Geneva Convention.
Is it possible to connect any dots here?
Uh is I think it I think it is.
Uh well, what dot what dots do I want to well, I think the dots are rather obvious here.
There's a there's a there's a there's a little cabal that's arranged in Washington trying to thwart the policies of the um of the Bush administration.
By the way, New York Times, if you're gonna demand a Pope apologize, how about demanding that Armitage apologize?
How about demanding that Armitage and Powell apologize for allowing two and a half years of time to go by where an administration was uh was distracted, numerous members of that administration were impugned and maligned, all the while everybody involved knowing full well that it was total BS.
And I have to think half of the media knew it as well.
They were just hoping that something would come up in the process of the investigation that would lead them to Carl Rope.
Anyway, Stephanopoulos said the president said your logic is flawed.
He suggests that you and Secretary Powell are equating America and Al-Qaeda.
Is that accusation fair?
Well, I just don't think it's right.
The difference between us and Al Qaeda is that they are very bad people.
They are people that when they are in our custody uh they deserve nothing except the fundamental rights that all prisoners under the Geneva Conventions, and for the benefit of our viewers, the Geneva Conventions were uh signed and agreed to by the United States and uh literally every other country in the world in 1949.
We have been adhering to that through many wars.
Vietnam, Korea, and conflict since then.
Yeah, well, uh Vietnamese didn't abide by them, did they, uh, Senator McCain?
Uh they're bad people.
The difference between us and Al Qaeda is that they're very bad people?
Really?
Well, that's that's a change in position.
At least we're making progress here.
We're going to admit the enemy is a bunch of bad guys.
In the past, there's been this effort to s to uh come up with some sort of established some sort of uh moral equivalence that has been ridiculous.
Uh they deserve nothing except the fundamental rights that all prisoners under the Geneva Conventions.
Well, there you go.
They uh the they're all fighting for a uh for terrorist rights.
Al Qaeda Bill of Rights.
The fact of the matter is that according to the Geneva Conventions themselves, Al-Qaeda and any other terrorist from uh from a just a ragtag organization, not state state sponsored, not wearing a uniform, doesn't even apply.
But of course the U.S. Supreme Court said, oh yes, they do.
Supreme Court playing commander-in-chief uh said the con Geneva conventions do apply, but they don't.
Everything's upside down here.
Uh look, folks, there is there is no question here that this is being seen as a political opportunity.
Somebody raised the possibility last week, and I want to put it uh put it out there again because I did last week too.
Uh, but put it out there that um uh there are those who are theorized, even people in politics analysts and pollsters and so forth that sit around and uh, you know, like like global warming experts try to predict the future and analyze why certain people are doing certain things.
And there's there's a a segment of the political analyst community which believes that McCain understands he's got a problem with the Republican base, but that he would be helped if the Republicans lose big in November, lose the House, maybe even lose the Senate.
Because his theory is that that would scare the Republicans into voting for whoever Republican they thought could win the presidency in 08 and maybe take along some uh pick up some house seats and Senate seats along the way.
If that's true, and I don't know that it is, but if it's true, it means for McCain, it's entirely personal.
And I think a large part of it is personal for McCain based on his uh own prisoner of war experience.
But I mean, there's there's little doubt here that the there's a cabal lining up against the administration here for reasons that don't make practical sense.
So you have to look at them through another prism, such as a political prism, to try to understand them.
The big argument these people put forth is, well, we're worried about what'll happen while our guys are captured if we don't uh adhere to the Geneva Convention.
Are you telling me that beheading is permitted by the Geneva Conventions?
Are you telling me that blindfolded mass murder and shotgun death is permitted by the Geneva Convention?
Do you think that Al Qaeda considers itself subject to the Geneva Conventions when it holds prisoners, and even if it did think itself uh uh uh accommodatable to those things or accountable, do you think they would obey it?
The idea that our people aren't mistreated already is crazy, and the idea that our people are going to be treated fairly if captured because of the way McCain and Graham and all the others are conducting themselves here is ridiculous.
Next question from Stephanopoulos.
But the administration says that all they're doing is taking the McCain ban on torture, the McCain ban which passed overwhelmingly last year, and applying it to the CIA program.
What's wrong with that?
We want to do it by amending the War Powers Act.
What we don't want to do is have nations in the world interpret or quote, modify, depending on what you say, the Geneva Conventions.
They have not been touched for 57 years.
They are the standard.
The Vietnamese treated us rather badly for quite a period of time.
That didn't mean that the United States of America wanted to interpret uh the Geneva Conventions any other way.
In fact, they insisted that the Vietnamese treat us under those, and indeed for reasons that are still not clear to me, it was improved.
Uh uh this ask you, does does it sound like this is all about McCain, as far as you're concerned?
It it's all about him.
Um here's another one.
Stephanopoulos says, Do you think the fact that America was holding the Geneva Conventions had any impact on how the Vietnamese treated you?
Sure it does.
We have to hold the moral high ground.
We're the we're the nation that people look up to.
We can't lower our standards because others do.
We are not like Al Qaeda.
We're not like the bad guys.
We're the nation that people look up to.
There's a war on the battlefield and a psychological or ideological struggle going on.
All right.
Now there's a premise here and an assumption that offends me too, and that is that we're already torturing these people.
Uh and we're not.
Tough interrogation, getting the answers necessary.
Uh apparently it's been working, whatever we're doing.
We got the bad guys down at Club Gitmo, we captured them.
Uh, we haven't had an attack in this country for five years.
We had uh Richard Meneter's piece in the New York Post last week, went down to Club Gitmo and saw what goes on, and the last thing in the world that's happening down there is torture right.
I mean, not even close to it, just the exact opposite.
So the premise here, deeply flawed uh uh as it as it is, uh, because it's always it's assumed by everybody here that we're torturing.
We're out there actually allowing people, uh uh in at Club Gitmo or wherever else, to be mean and to torture and uh and to about that.
Let me ask you if we people say, well, it doesn't work.
You know, it just all the people lie.
They'll do anything to stop the torture.
Well, can somebody explain to me why would George W. Bush or the people that run Club Gitmo be interested in false confessions?
Why would they be interested in obtaining lies?
Why would they be interested in engaging in uh behavior of prisoners that resulted in intelligence that was bogus and worthless?
None of this makes any sense, other than if you look at it through the angle that for McCain, for whatever reasons, they will reveal themselves in due course.
This is personal.
We'll be back.
Don't go away, folks.
Always, ladies and gentlemen, having a good time, the uh upbeat arbiter of optimism.
A real anchor man for the United States of America, living legend Rush Limbaugh, a brand new week.
Uh broadcast excellence, one more uh uh soundbite here from Senator McCain with George Stephanopoulos yesterday.
The question, you say you don't want to shut down the program, but the president was pretty clear at his press conference on Friday.
He says, unless the CIA, unless the intelligence community says we can go forward, and we can't, they believe under the rules you were suggesting, the program shut down, simply not going to exist.
We are confident that uh they can continue program, that they can continue to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, which have been in effect in many wars, and in fact, some wars which were far more dangerous in some ways than this, and that they can meet the intelligence requirements of this country.
This is a matter of conscience, an American conscience.
Are we going to be like the enemy or like the United States?
Stop the tape a second.
Stop the tape.
That is so disingenuous.
I'm getting mad.
Now I'm are we gonna be like the enemy?
Come on, Senator.
If you think we're even close to being like the enemy, then you don't deserve to be a United States senator anymore.
If you think that we are that close to becoming the enemy, you need to run for president on that basis.
Run that, make the make make the point of your campaign.
We're too close to becoming like Al Qaeda.
We're too close to becoming like the military Islamists, and I, John McCain, need to run for president to turn this country around.
That is offensive as hell to me.
It is it it's getting to the point now uh where this this doesn't deserve even the respect of uh of of common disagreement and listening to someone's views.
I mean, how long are we supposed to sit here and listen to sheer idiocy?
It's a matter of conscience and American conscience.
We are we gonna be like the enemy or are we going to be nobody's proposing beheading.
Nobody is proposing killing these people.
Nobody's proposing torture, and it is not going on now.
Here's the rest of what he said.
There's a war that we are losing in some ways, as General Powell pointed out, and that's our standing in the world because of our treatment at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, et cetera.
We have to keep the moral high ground.
Uh Senator McCain, uh, Senator Graham, Senator Warner, Senator Collins, Senator Snow.
The issue is how do we protect America?
The issue is how do we protect the citizens of our country?
The issue is not how we protect the enemy.
That is not the point of this war.
It has never been the point of any war.
How do we protect the citizens of this country is the focus?
That's the objective.
That's the purpose.
The purpose is not to go out of our way to make sure we protect the enemy all the while worrying and hand-wringing that we are becoming like the enemy.
No such thing could be further from the truth, Senator, and the the humiliating thing is that you know it.
It is shameful for you to even imply that we are headed in that direction.
Where were you, Senator, back in World War II when we were interning Japanese Americans?
FDR was criticized for it after the fact and a little bit during the fact, but we were at war and the Japanese attacked us?
Did we end up becoming like our enemy in World War II when we were bombing Dresden and firebombing ten Japanese cities using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
When have we ever become like the enemy?
Did we become like the enemy in Vietnam?
When have we ever become like an enemy we are fighting?
Were that the case, especially based on the way we treat prisoners of war?
And by the way, Senator, if any country out there who has been an enemy of ours had obeyed the Geneva Conventions, would it have meant they would be uh uh approaching uh uh behavior such as America?
Would The fact that uh any country, let's say Al Qaeda does agree with the Geneva Conventions, which is absurd.
I can't believe I'm saying this.
But let's say Al Qaeda decided, you know what?
If you guys stop torturing at Abu Ghraib and at Club Gitmo, we will behave uh just like you do at the uh the hands of the Geneva Convention.
Is it gonna mean that Al Qaeda will become more like America, Senator McCain?
No one is changing the Geneva Conventions.
Our Supreme Court decided to apply the Geneva Convention to terrorists.
Then the court decided that a section of the convention not relevant to an international war would be applied to terrorists.
That's common Article III.
And now McCain, Warner, Graham are insisting that interpreting that section of the convention that supposedly prevents humiliating or degrading treatment of terrorists should remain so vague as to make interrogations impossible and expose those doing the interrogations vulnerable to lawsuits by the terrorists.
In other words, if this doesn't change, the reason why the president is shutting down the program or says he's going to shut it down is because he's not going to have brave American interrogators and military personnel and CIA agents tried as war crimes at The Hague.
Which is what the president has made clear, and he's made clear that he's not going to allow it to happen.
He's made clear that that would be one of the outcomes of this.
Senator McCain, you and your comrades are dismissing the real focus here, and that is how do we protect our citizens, not the enemy?
The president is constantly talking about protecting our citizens.
And the need for these interrogations toward that end.
But McCain and Graham and Warner constantly talking about terrorist rights and how Europe will view us.
Why it sounds Clintonian?
It sounds like it'd be coming from Al Gore.
Sounds like Howard Dean could say it.
Sounds like any democracy like Dick Durbin.
Senator McCain and Dick Durbin are indistinguishable.
Senator Graham and Dick Durbin are indistinguishable.
And if you think our Supreme Court, as currently constituted, wouldn't allow our CIA to be held for war crimes, some of them like international law, after all.
I mean, we got to abide and care what they're doing in other countries and their legal systems.
McCain says he wants to keep the program.
It says if we don't change it, we'll be like the enemy.
It's not about being nice to the enemy.
It's not about protecting the enemy.
That in fact, no nation who ever sought to protect the enemy ever emerged victorious in a war.
Here's uh Secretary Powell, ladies and gentlemen, this morning.
I don't know where he was, but he said this about Common Article III.
As a soldier, I believe that the Geneva Convention, all parts of it, especially Common Article III should not be uh modified, explained, clarified, or redefined in any way.
Well, okay, so he's got infallibilities.
He's a soldier.
He says common Article III of the Convention shouldn't be touched.
And he was a soldier, so he can't be criticized.
He's infallible, guys.
He could have been tortured because he was a soldier.
So we can't, we can't disagree with Secretary Powell.
Nobody's changing as I say the Geneva Convention.
These guys are all upset.
Well, if we interpret it our way, then what's the rest of the world going to do in the way they interpret it?
Uh you leave it up to the rest of the world to it.
They're going to interpret their way anyway.
Particularly the enemy.
Let's move on to Vice President Lindsey Graham, who was on face to nation with Bob Schaefer.
Question, Senator Graham, explain to me what you mean when you say if an American is captured, let's say in Iran.
What would happen if a CI agent were captured in Iran trying to suppress their nuclear program and the Iranian government put this person on trial as a war criminal?
And the Iranian prosecutor had a foul marked secret, gave it to their judge and their jury, and said, convict this man, and they never shared uh the evidence with the American agent.
We would go nuts.
We would say that secret trial violates the Geneva Convention standards for trying people.
What would we do if the Iranians sentenced an American to death based on evidence the American never saw?
We would go crazy.
Why are you bringing up Iran?
Why don't you go into Iraq?
Why don't you talk about American troops are already being murdered in captivity and other American citizens?
Why do you bring up a hypothetical it hasn't happened yet?
The fact of the matter is, I don't think we are outraged enough by what happens to American prisoners of war around the world.
I don't think we care enough.
I don't think we we we do nothing but strenuously object.
What do you mean go nuts?
The country's going nuts over your attitude, Senator Graham.
The country is going nuts over your reluctance to understand that this is not about protecting the enemy.
It is about protecting the citizens of the United States of America.
Your attitude seems to make me think and others that you are making that a secondary concern.
Well, that's that's the point.
I have to laugh when he cites Iran as some sort of beacon for judicial integrity.
Where the hell is it written that that Iran has a has a has an American fair and justice system uh that is a model of the world anyway?
Notice all these assumptions.
Notice all these false premises that are accepted by rote.
The bottom line is that if if the CIA captured, or if Iran captured a CIA agent, they'd parade this guy in front of microphones and cameras, he'd be blindfolded and so forth.
And they'd make up evidence.
This is the kind of stuff that makes you fear uh for the country, because uh there are already 45 Democrats that think this way.
And the 45 Democrats are now getting all kinds of cover on this from uh McCain and Warner and Graham, as well as Olympia Snow and Susan Collins.
Gotta take a quick break.
We'll get your phone calls on this and other things soon.
Sit tight, we'll be back in El Mometo.
Stand by for soundbite 8A, Susan Collins.
Want to go back and listen to uh uh Secretary Powell again, his uh brief little remark uh on Common Article III of the Geneva Convention.
He's a soldier now, and therefore he's infallible.
He cannot be criticized.
As a soldier, I believe that uh the Geneva Convention, all parts of it, especially Common Article III should not be uh modified, explained, clarified, or redefined in any way.
All right, now if that's his position that Common Article III should not be changed.
Let's do some play acting, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Let's ask Secretary Powell what no journalist has asked him or McCain or Graham or Warner for that matter.
All right, General Powell, if you were an interrogator, how would you interpret humiliating or degrading treatment?
I mean, if you don't think it ought to be changed, let's hear you define it.
If it's good enough as it is, let's hear it defined.
But of course, no journalist is going to ask this question because the journalists love the McCain and Powell angle angle on this.
Lindsey Graham, Vice President Graham, gives this hypothetical about a CIA agent captured in Iran and then put on trial, a secret trial with no evidence against him allowed to be known by him.
Well, Senator Graham, Iran has signed the Geneva Conventions.
Uh we would expect them to comply with it.
Chuckle, chuckle.
Senator Graham has just illustrated short-sightedness or ignorance.
Iran's already a signatory to the Geneva Convention, yet he gives us an example of them behaving in a way that uh would be outside the conventions of the convention.
By the way.
I hate to do that.
I have to address this, folks.
Please forgive me.
I've been getting numerous emails from Rio Linda asking me about the Geneva Conventions, who can go?
Uh what hotel?
Uh are there expo booths and this sort of thing?
And I, you know, I uh I just I cringe.
They think a convention is like the pig iron workers getting together for a weekend in Kansas City.
Uh convention is an agreement.
Never never mind.
I think you get you get the uh the drift.
Anyway, Iran's already signed it.
Graham gives us a hypothetical in which they don't obey it.
So what good is it?
Uh does Graham believe that Iran would allow one of our soldiers access to their classified information?
He's a belief does he believe that uh Iran would conduct a U.S. style trial with due process and all the rest?
Why don't journalists ask these questions redundant question?
They never will ask these questions.
Senator Graham, do you actually think that Iran will uh will give uh a captured American a fair trial?
You think Al Qaeda will?
Is Al Qaeda even, by the way, if if uh if they are if they're gonna benefit from the Geneva Convention, are they also held to it?
Uh anybody remember the name Francis Gary Powers?
Francis Gary Powers, U-2 pilot shot down over Soviet Russia.
Now I'm gonna we're gonna have to double check this, because this is in the 60s.
But I think that Francis Gary Powers was put on secret trial and evidence against him used that was made up and fabricated, and uh they were a signatory to the uh Geneva Conventions.
Would a CIA agent, let's say, let's do this for how about if Joseph Wilson were sent on a secret mission to uh Iran uh to determine whether or not the Iranians are actually enriching uranium for a weapons program, and let's say Joseph Wilson was caught.
Do you think that he would live long enough for there to be a trial?
Well, he's a bad example.
Because he'd come back the Iranians know he'd come back and say there was no plan.
So forget using Joseph.
If a CIA agent were captured in Iran would even live long enough to uh to see a trial.
Uh at any rate, uh the the the whole the whole thing here is just so upside down that it gets frustrating to continue try to analyze this.
Uh you know, it wasn't until this summer, Vice President Graham, when the Supreme Court issued its hamdan decision, did anyone in our government believe that Common Article III applied to terrorists?
Nobody ever thought it.
Now all of a sudden you guys think it always has just because Supreme Court said so?
So what were we before the ruling?
No different than Al Qaeda?
Supreme Court voted five to three, Justice Roberts recused himself because he wrote the decision issued by the Fourth Circuit, which ruled that it did not apply.
So was the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and were those three judges rejecting 200 years of American history?
Were those judges like Al Qaeda too?
And yet you voted to confirm Roberts, even though he took a position totally opposite your present position on this very issue of Common Article III.
Back in just a second.
I warned you people all along this is the problem with dragging this war into the courtroom.
It's just uh making a mess out of all of it.
First hour's done.
Over.
▲
Export Selection