Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, folks, and welcome.
Great to have you with us once again.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, once again documented to be, I am, almost always right, 98.5% of the time.
Still waiting on the most recent opinion audit from the Sullivan Group in Sacramento, California, noted opinion auditing firm, been using them for years, reasonable fees.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, do you remember at what point in the 90s was this, Mr. Snerdley?
Was it pre- or post-Lewinsky that AP did this post-Lewinsky?
So it was in the second term of Bill Clinton.
You all remember AP ran a series of stories picked up by all of the other drive-by media telling us that lying was good.
Little lies were helpful.
They spared people's feelings.
Everybody does it.
And it was just, it actually has redeeming social quality and value.
If not done too much, but even, you know, within reason, lying is actually a well-calculated way to get through life, causing yourself less pain and obviously others less pain.
Well, you won't believe this.
What's it been?
About 10 days since the was it this past Sunday?
It's four days later.
So Clinton appears on the Fox News Sunday show this past Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.
So it's four days ago.
And I have here, ladies and gentlemen, in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a story from our buddies at the Associated Press by Jocelyn Novak.
Is it cool to lose your cool?
That's one of the questions of the week as we evaluate and re-evaluate Bill Clinton's finger-pointing, knee-poking interview with Chris Wallace on Fox.
The first debate, of course, was whether Clinton had actually lost it at all.
A fullboard tantrum, one conservative columnist called it, or knew exactly what he was doing.
But splitting the difference for a moment, the interesting issue becomes, I kid you not, can I can't say this with a straight face, can public anger in politics, business, and elsewhere be a good thing?
Yes, let's have more road rage.
Let's have more threatening of journalists.
Hear what Ailes said?
Ailes came out and said this was an assault or an attack on all journalists.
Clinton was totally over the top.
I'm not kidding you, folks.
We have a story from the AP on how this is really good.
Public anger, politics, business, and elsewhere could be a good thing is a little tantrum now and then.
Just what's called for.
Well, they went out and they found somebody who agrees with their question and answers it the way they wanted.
Under the right circumstances, yes, say some analysts of social behavior.
When's the last time, folks, anybody ever told you it was good to have a public display of temper?
When was the last time anybody praised you for doing a smart thing, the right thing, by losing your cool?
Well, just as BJs are now not sex, so is road rage a good thing.
Blowing your cool, losing your temper in public, even in business, is the right thing to do under the right circumstances.
According to senior associate dean at Yale's School of Management, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, it's more important than ever to cut through the clutter.
All of us are so overmanaged these days.
Public figures have platoons of protectors.
It's more important than ever to show authentic, real emotion.
Sonnenfeld believes that Clinton's anger was genuine and yet intentionally uncensored.
And he says Clinton has told him personally in the past that when your critics are wrong, you fire back on all cylinders, take it on with full force, and don't let up.
In the Fox News interview, Clinton pointed his finger, leaned sharply in toward Wallace, poked his leg, all in animated response to the question of whether his administration had done enough to pursue Osama bin Laden.
Oh, speaking of that, have you heard that the Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader is demanding the release of the people we're holding in jail for the 93 World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Youssef and the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman?
He says that if we don't release these prisoners, that he is urging his followers, al-Qaeda everywhere, to start capturing innocent Americans and putting them in prison.
Now, who's responsible for this, ladies and gentlemen?
On whose watch did we put these people in jail?
Sad to say, it was Bill Clinton's Justice Department that secured convictions against Ramzi Youssef and the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman.
Now, if you listen to the Democrats today, they vote 160 of them in the House.
160 Democrats voted against the military tribunal detainee bill.
Voted against it.
We've got a montage here of a bunch of Democrats whose objective is cut and run, get out of Iraq.
They absolutely believe that we are responsible for infuriating these people.
You've heard them say it.
Bush is responsible.
We're responsible.
Why do they hate us?
If we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone.
Well, if that's the case, may I hear a chorus from Democrats today demanding the release of Ramzi Youssef and the blind sheikh?
Because it's only making these guys over in Iraq mad at us.
I mean, the new al-Qaeda in Iraq leader has said so.
And if we don't let these guys out of jail, let them out of prison, why, they're going to start capturing us all over the world.
So we've made them mad.
We have made the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader mad.
He wants these guys released.
Clinton did it.
Now, how does this sound to you?
How does this sound?
To me, it sounds plausibly reasonable if you listen to it from a liberal or Democrat frame of mind.
Not the blaming Clinton part, of course.
They wouldn't go that far.
But yeah, yeah, why put these guys in jail?
Come on, you know, it's only making them matter.
It's only irritating them for, let them out, let them go, send them home, and maybe they'll leave us alone.
That's the way the Democrats are approaching all this.
I just threw in the bit about it being Bill Clinton's fault because, you know, it is.
Clinton's Justice Department, I mean, he didn't care about the World Trade Center bombing, but his Department of Justice did.
They found the guys, they nailed them, they convicted him 240 years in prison.
That's life for most of us.
I realize some of you who don't eat trans fats will live longer than that.
But nevertheless, Clinton did it.
Happened on his watch.
He's infuriated.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Keep a sharp eye on that.
What if they do start kidnapping Americans?
The one thing they haven't really haven't, other than over in Iraq, people, you know, in some journalists' military personnel.
But what if they do start running around capturing people?
What about this opera?
The German.
Folks, this is patently absurd.
The Dutch Oprah, I think it is pronounced, has canceled an opera because of fear it would enrage Muslims.
Roger Kimball writes in the Wall Street Journal today, the spectacle of this suggests that the West's dealings with Islam have entered a new phase.
Yesterday, we waited until after the Muslims took to the streets before capitulating.
Today, it appears we've moved on to preemptive capitulation.
We capitulate before they get mad.
We capitulate before they start protesting.
We capitulate before they start burning things down and waving flags and threatening to whack the Pope and all that.
Where's this going to end, folks?
This is not good.
As Mr. Kimball writes, I suppose that depends on how much we really care about the liberty and freedom we champion with words.
Freedom, as some wit observed, isn't free.
Will we have the gumption to pay the cost?
Jury's still out on that question.
I hope and pray that the answer will be yes.
There is, G.K. Chesterton noted nearly 100 years ago, a thought that stops thought.
And that is the only thought that ought to be stopped.
I'll translate that for you and Riolinda on another program.
When I don't have, well, when I have more time to get on to other things, four canceled performances of a Mozart opera have reignited an anxious and heated debate in Europe over free speech, self-censorship, and Islam.
Preventive, preemptive capitulation.
What a great term.
So, see, it all fits.
I mean, the Germans understand what the liberals in this country don't make them mad.
Why don't they, oh, they'll just go nuts, and who knows where they'll be head?
Who knows what action they'll, we don't even want to run the risk of it.
So, let these guys, Ramsey Youssef and the blind shake out of jail.
Let them out now, or we're going to have, there's going to be hell to pay.
In addition, folks, I have, I've come up with an idea here.
You know, I like to learn from events.
I live in Palm Beach, Florida.
A very international population lives here during the season.
We are so upscale here, we will not allow a Starbucks on the island.
Have you heard about this?
Starbucks wanted to open an 18-seat operation at 150 Worth Avenue.
And it looked like it was going to sail through until some people in Palm Beach, wait a minute.
We're not going to have this.
This will deface the town.
It'll cause more people across the bridge from West Palm Beach to come over.
No, it won't, because it's all kind of Starbucks over there.
We don't want people with body piercings and t-shirts and long maggot-infested hair over here.
And so they've shut it down.
There will not be a Starbucks.
That's how, that's how cosmopolitan and European we are, ladies and gentlemen.
But despite there not being a Starbucks, there are still plenty of places in this town where you can go to meet international women, women from Europe, women from France.
So here's what I'm going to do, learning from the Germans here.
Next time I'm in some place that I see an attractive European woman that I might like to go to dinner with, I'm going to walk up to her and I'm going to ask her out.
I'm going to say, if you say no, if you refuse to go to dinner with me, the Muslims are going to get really mad.
Can you run the risk of enraging the Muslims by not going out with me?
Quick timeout.
Back after this.
Stay with us, though.
Yeah, I went back to my website.
I wanted to find out exactly when all these stories about how good it is to lie were.
We got it.
We have a whole segment on it in the Essential Stack of stuff.
And it ran this October 28, 2005, almost a year ago.
Will we see stories on how healthy lying is?
And we chronicle here on the website all of the stories that came out in the sea from February through September of 1998 on how healthy it is to lie.
Cleveland Plain Dealer, they want Clinton to be a saint.
Boston Herald, to tell the truth, Clinton's troubles get couples talking.
Rocky Mountain News, when, if ever, is lying okay.
And CNN in Time magazine, the truth about lying.
All of these stories were oriented around how healthy it can be.
Spares people's feelings.
And we wonder if the same sentiment will be extended towards Scooter Libby.
Because Clinton lied under oath in a grand jury deposition.
Of course, well, he's lying about facts.
He had to.
The smart thing to do.
Wise thing.
Protect the family, protect the daughter, protect everything else.
It's a two-way street.
And now we've got this story from the AP, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, an associate dean at Yale School of Management, saying, hey, under the right circumstances, blow your top.
Cut through the clutter.
It's too controlled out there.
It can be a really great thing to do out there.
Public anger, politics, business, elsewhere.
And there's, let's see, who else?
Kathleen Hall Jameson, an analyst of political communication, said that none of Clinton's gestures is necessarily indicative of a loss of control.
What we usually see from politicians are scripted moments or interviews that are puff pieces.
We rarely see a tough one-on-one.
Kathleen, do you ever watch Meet the Press when Dick Cheney's on or when Donald Rumsfeld's on somewhere?
I continue to be mystified.
But at any rate, ladies and gentlemen, feel free.
Blow your top.
Have a little road rage out there.
It's cool, therapeutic, and very helpful.
Let's go to the phones quickly.
George in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Mr. Limbaugh, what an honor.
You're trying to get your inspiration.
Just get to the point, will you?
Just get to the point.
I don't need all this praise.
Ah, but I got to give it to you.
About the story about the AP reporter.
Why is anger okay for Bill Clinton?
Yet when it's John Bolton, we can't confirm him to his seat because he's been anger.
He's had anger with his constituents.
That's an excellent point.
We can't have Bolton up there because he blows his stack.
He's too angry.
He'll make them mad and so forth.
Excellent point out there, George.
How long did it take you to think that up?
About 10 seconds.
Good for you.
I can tell by the way it flowed out there naturally.
Thanks much for the call.
Appreciate it.
All right.
Audio soundbite time, ladies and gentlemen.
We have a montage of drive-by media, CNNs.
Well, not just CNN.
There's some other people on here.
Mostly CNNs, some from ABC, one from Fox, NBC.
Yesterday at the White House, President Bush had a meeting with Presidents Karzai and Musharraf.
And they came out and they met the media.
And apparently there was not a handshake at the end of the deal between Musharraf and Karzai.
That became the subject.
That was yesterday's media gravitas.
President Bush hosted Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan at dinner, but could not get them to shake hands.
I thought at a minimum we would see a handshake.
These two leaders apparently did not even shake hands.
So maybe a handshake, but they'll hugs.
At the White House, they refused to shake hands.
These guys have no business for shaking each other's hands.
Some sort of public handshake.
There wasn't some sort of public handshake.
The two rivals pointedly avoided shaking hands.
I was fully expecting President Bush to do what President Clinton did when he had Rabin and Arafat, sort of force them to come together and shake hands, clasp hands, do a three-way, if you will.
A three-way?
Wolf.
What's happening to CNN?
So there you have it.
Clinton.
Clinton was able to get a handshake between Arafat and Rabin.
A lot it meant.
A lot of good it did.
The problem's still not solved.
Total symbolism over substance.
They think handshakes matter.
The substance of what might have gone on in the meeting between these two leaders, irrelevant.
Total symbolism over substance on the part of the media, the drive-by media.
Congress is on track to approve a White House plan for detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects, legislation Republicans likely will use on the campaign trail to assert that Democrats want to coddle to.
Who the hell wrote this?
Ann Plummer Flaherty of the AP.
Barring any last-minute hiccups, a Senate vote on Thursday would send the legislation to the president's desk by week's end.
Oh, no.
The House approved a nearly identical measure on Wednesday, 253 to 168 vote.
Democrats have said the legislation would give the president too much latitude when deciding whether the aggressive interrogations cross the line and violate international standards of prisoner treatment.
Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights crowd speaks up once again.
Dennis Kucinich, to show you how bad it was for the Democrats during the 04 presidential primaries, he was said to be the sexiest looking of the bunch.
I think it may have been because he was the only one that was single.
Is that right?
Well, I got strange standards, but nevertheless, that's what they said.
Dennis Kucinich said, this bill is everything we Democrats don't believe in.
You got that right.
They are not interested in protecting the American people.
They are interested in protecting the terrorists.
Here is Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday at montage of her outrage.
This bill that is here today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, will produce convictions that may well be overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the Supreme Court.
Redefining the Geneva Convention in ways that lower the treatment standards the conventions create poses a real risk to American forces.
This is a time when the golden rule really should be.
Golden rule!
Keep the tape going.
Be in effect.
Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto your troops.
What?
Your CIA agents, your people in the field.
Let me translate that.
The golden rule from Nancy Pelosi, do unto Al-Qaeda as you would like Al-Qaeda to do unto you.
She could be third in line for the presidency if the Democrats win the House.
Yikes!
And as usual, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Firmly ensconced here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies behind the Golden EIB microphone.
You know, this handshake business, drive-by media going nuts over it.
Well, we need a way to put this in perspective.
I think I've found a way to put this in perspective.
What is a handshake?
Especially in terms of diplomacy.
I mean, look at Monica Lewinsky.
Monica Lewinsky went well beyond shaking Bill Clinton's hand.
And he still screwed her over.
Where is she today?
I mean, diplomacy is much less about pressing the flesh, any flesh, than it is about fixing underlying problems.
Focused here on this, whether or not there was a handshake from Musharraf and Karzai is simply ridiculous.
Other news here, this is from the Boston Globe.
A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Club Gitmo could have sweeping implications inside the United States.
It would strip green card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being enemy combatants.
An earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Gitmo detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court.
The changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for non-citizens inside the U.S. to be detained indefinitely without access to the court system until the war on terror is over.
Now, I think this makes total sense.
How many stories are we seeing about the possibility and the likelihood that terrorists are able to get into the country over the border through Mexico, what have you, or any other port of entry?
We are fighting a war on terror.
That's the thing that distinguishes us between the Democrats and the liberals.
They don't think there is one.
They don't think there should be one.
And they think if there is one, that Bush caused it by responding to the 9-11 attacks.
So, and just keep in mind that the terror detainee bill, 160 Democrats voted against it.
That is a sizable, sizable number.
And it spells out perfectly.
And they think they did the right thing and a good thing as far as a campaign issue.
Here's what the president said this morning on Capitol Hill after meeting with Republican leaders on this.
I want to congratulate the House for passing a very vital piece of legislation that will give us the tools necessary to protect the American people.
That's the legislation that will give us the capacity to be able to interrogate high-valued detainees and at the same time give us the capacity to try people who are in our military tribunals.
This legislation passed in the House yesterday is a part of making sure that we do have the capacity to protect you.
Our most solemn job is the security of this country.
People shouldn't forget there's still an enemy out there that wants to do harm to the United States.
And therefore, a lot of my discussion with the members of the Senate was to remind them of this solemn responsibility.
Remember now, Nancy Pelosi called this something that was violence to the Constitution.
This bill does violence to the Constitution.
This is a time, she said, when the golden rule should really be in effect.
Do unto others what you would not have them do under what?
Do not do unto others what you would not have them do under your troops, your agents, your people in the field.
Ms. Pelosi, you ignorant.
They're already doing it.
It's who they are.
Whatever we do, they're going to keep doing it.
Have you heard the latest from the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq?
He wants to start capturing Americans all over the world, putting them in prison until we release the blind Shaken Ramza Youssef from our prisons for their roles in the 1993 World Trade Center.
Should you maybe call for their release, Ms. Pelosi, to be consistent.
Should you and Jack Murthy, the Democrat leadership, call for the release, even though Bill Clinton's Justice Department put him in jail, call for the release right now of these people so as to send a signal to Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Ooh, because like the Germans cancel the opera before doing something that might offend the Muslims and have them go nuts in the streets, follow the great lead of our great ally, Germany.
Even though this wasn't the German government, it was German opera.
Still, the arts and croissant crowd, the smartest people among us, a bunch of literary, artistic, avant-garde elites.
And I'm sure you count them among some of your best friends in a stylistic sense.
So why don't you get out there, lead the charts to let these two guys out of jail and any of their contemporaries that are in jail, let them out of jail so that the guys in Iraq and Al-Qaeda will not get mad at us and will not capture Americans.
Let's practice your golden rule.
You ignorant.
What have you?
Here's Senator Pat Leakey Leahy yesterday, late on the Senate floor.
Now is not the time to ban an American values.
Stop and say.
Shiver and quake.
Recue that.
Recue.
I want to make sure I heard what I just heard.
Is it ready from the top?
All right.
Let me hear this again.
Now is not the time to ban an American values and to shiver and quake like we're a weak country.
Stop.
Stop.
Senator Leahy, with all due respect, might it not be more proper for someone like me to urge you to adopt some American values now and then?
How would you feel about adopting some now and then instead of accusing everybody of abandoning them?
I read something interesting today.
I forget where it was.
Op-Ed Peace somebody might have been to Wall Street Journal.
I'm not sure where.
Try to find it.
It doesn't matter.
Talks about how nations in the old days used to calculate their greatness by how much they conquered, how much land that they amassed.
That used to be like the Roman Empire and the British Empire.
Sun never set on the British Empire.
That's not the case anymore.
Nations calculate their greatness on the basis of economic strength.
Now, I'm not condemning that, but accompanying this new way of calculating a nation's greatness becomes, well, accompanies a corresponding loss of an appreciation for the actual land mass that exists.
And you can see it in our lack of concern over border security.
And you can see it plain as day in our lack of concern over border security.
We are far more interested in whatever economic benefit we think we're getting with weak borders than we are concerned with maintaining our borders.
David Brooks, New York Times.
I knew it was somebody.
David Brooks in the New York Times.
And it's an interesting piece because I haven't thought about it that way.
But when you listen to these Democrats, when you listen to Leakey Leahy talk about abandoning American values to shiver and quake like we're a weak country, we have to rely on secrecy and torture.
What do you not get, Senator?
We have a president who's trying to maintain our strength, who doesn't want to show weakness in the face of an enemy that responds to it by being emboldened and made more confident.
We're too great a nation for that.
Those are the ways of weakness.
Those are the ways of repression and oppression.
We are talking about the enemy.
You ignorant.
Fill in the blank.
We're talking about the enemy.
These Democrats are talking about how we oppress the enemy.
They have no concept of American greatness, despite their words.
They have no concept of American exceptionalism.
My gosh, look at the things they wring their hands over.
Here is Lou in St. Augustine, Florida.
Hey, Bub, welcome to the program.
Rosh, thank you so much for everything.
I've been a fan for 20 years.
Thank you, sir, very much.
But I nearly swallowed my Monte Cristo when I heard a Democrat invoke the golden rule.
Yeah, let's listen to that again.
Grab the Pelosi bite.
This is unbelievable.
You ready on the Pelosi bite?
Yeah.
All right, here's.
Now, I wasn't asking you, Lou, because you're not going to play it.
Don't talk, Lou, unless I'm talking to you.
I'm just losing my cool in public because they say it's good to do now, Clinton did.
All right, play it.
This bill that is here today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, will produce convictions that may well be overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the Supreme Court.
Redefining the Geneva Convention in ways that lower the treatment standards the conventions create poses a real risk to American forces.
This is a time when the golden rule really should be in effect: do not unto others what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.
All right, you said you almost swallowed your Monte Cristo.
What kind of Monte Cristo are you smoking?
Judo, I don't know.
It's a light brown one.
I just picked it up at JP up in North Carolina.
Okay, well, so, all right.
Well, so it's large enough if you swallowed it, we might have to take you to hospital like T.O. Right.
Okay.
And because she invoked the golden rule, explain why you got that upset.
First of all, she made it a double negative.
And the golden rule is not stated as a negative.
It's a positive.
But even beyond that, well, hey, come on now, Lou.
The golden rule has its roots where?
As it's in Jewish law.
Right, religious roots, right?
Sure.
And Nancy Pelosi is what?
Well, she's a Democrat.
No, no, no.
She's a Democrat.
Now, can you put together on a chalkboard an equation that in anywhere as accurate as Democrats equal religion?
No, okay.
How would she know that the golden rule has expressed as a positive?
It has religious roots.
It'd be easy for her to misunderstand it.
The reality is that's exactly what Bush is doing with this law.
He's clarifying the way we handle prisoners, which is according to the golden rule.
Oh, that our enemies treated our soldiers as well as we treat our enemy compelling.
Well, I know what you're trying to say, but the practical result is we're going to end up treating these people far better than they treat us.
Now, anybody who has a hope, like Pelosi does, that the way we treat these people will affect the way our future prisoners are treated is just an ignorant back in just a sec.
Yeah, I mentioned to you last week that I like the ABC series Boston Legal.
And episode number two of this season was on Tuesday night, and I just got around to watching it last night.
I TiVo'd the thing.
And funniest open, smoking my cigar here reminded me of it.
William Shatner, who's I guess his career has had a rebirth with this show, actually is funny as heck.
He plays this slowly losing it senior partner in a law firm.
His name is Denny Crane.
The episode opens with two new lawyers, and it's set in Boston, two new lawyers in the New York office arriving in the Boston office.
And Crane's out there and he's smoking a cigar in the lobby.
And one of the new lawyers is uptight chick who comes in and starts calling him chubby and icky and so forth.
And then finally discovers he's smoking a cigar.
He says, ooh, he's smoking a cigar.
And Shatner looks at her with the cigar right just inches from her face.
Bill Clinton gave me this cigar.
You never know where this has been.
She goes, ick, ick, ick.
You know, you just don't see this in prime time television shows.
Anyway, I have a note here, ladies and gentlemen.
Tony Snow earlier today in a press briefing, not televised, I don't think it was televised, briefing the press.
Tony Snow said last night, let me take on last night's meeting in several ways.
First, contrary to some of the early reports, there were handshakes in advance.
You had the two presidents in the Roosevelt room together before going into the Oval.
This is Musharraf and Karzai.
Warm handshakes extended all around, some preliminary chatting and joking before they went out to the Rose Garden and they went off to dinner.
So there were handshakes last night.
As I say, it's what a thing to make a big point of, especially as Wolf Blitzer did.
I thought Bill Clinton engineered a handshake between Rabin and Arafat.
Yeah, a lot of good it did, Wolfster.
I mean, I'll repeat it.
Monica, Monica Lewinsky went well beyond shaking Clinton's hand, and he still screwed her over.
So the symbolism stuff is particularly when it comes to diplomacy is hardly relevant.
Now, I have to comment on, before I forget this, the poor situation or the situation involving poor Janine Pirro, the former Westchester County District Attorney, she's running for Attorney General, state of New York.
Her opponent is Andrew Kumo.
She actually wanted to be governor.
She has a husband problem.
Husband has been convicted of tax fraud.
He spent time in the big house, even though it was a sort of a playground big house in Florida.
He fathered a love child some 20 years ago.
I just, I have a lot of respect for Janine Pirro, and she's smart as she can be, and she's very tough.
But this guy apparently has recently been sleeping around on her again, she thinks, and she wanted to get evidence of it.
It's guys like this.
Janine Piro's husband is why we have women like Gloria Ulred.
So she wanted to, they're calling the case a love bug case because she wanted to plant a listening device on their boat to gather evidence that he was philandering.
And she talked to Bernard Carrick about it when he was the New York Police Department, whatever he was doing.
And he said, I'm not doing this.
They got Giuliani's office involved.
She wanted somebody to go plant the bug.
And it never happened.
Now the Justice Department, well, the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York City is, she's the target of a federal investigation, even though the bugging never happened.
It's hard to understand.
Had the bugging happened, it would have still been legal.
Do you know that you can plant a bug in your house?
I mean, people do this all the time.
You know, people who have security cameras in their house is no different than planting a listening device.
If you have a camera with a microphone on it, you're already doing it, ostensibly doing it to make sure somebody doesn't steal from you, or you're monitoring the kids or what have you, but you can do it to monitor a spouse.
The problem would have been, had she succeeded in getting the bug planted on the boat, and then had her husband brought this sweet little honey on board the boat and recorded their conversation, that would have been a problem because you bring a third party into this, and that's where the third party has an action.
You can't do this with it never happened.
And yet, she's the target.
She admitted all this yesterday in a press conference.
And it's just, I just, with all of the leaks of sensitive government material out there, why in the world this is a federal case is mystifying to me.
There were two Democrats that voted for the detainee bill, both of them running for election, Harold Ford and Sherrod Brown in the Senate.