All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
March 6, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Full three hours of broadcast excellence, straight ahead.
The Scooter Libby verdicts were just announced.
He's uh guilty on four of the five counts.
So he's uh he's looking at you know twenty to thirty years in prison for this if he gets the maximum sentence on uh on uh these counts.
Four-five Scooter Libby.
Guilty.
Very, very strange, too, because the uh the the jury just this morning uh sent the judge a note uh basically uh telling them what we're not sure what he's accused of doing here.
Uh you would think that would happen ten days ago or two days, eight days ago when they when they started deliberations, and I've been doing uh uh instant message flashes back and forth with friends uh who were alternately trying to read the tea leaves on what these juror questions meant.
And it's just impossible to do.
I mean, most people would conclude if the jury on day ten here is still trying to figure out what Libby did, uh, that there wouldn't be anywhere near unanimity in the jury for guilt.
Uh but it apparently is just the opposite, and uh that's why it's difficult to read these things.
This whole case to me has been uh has been a travesty.
Obstruction of justice is a catch-all charge that the uh prosecution it's it's it's like a giant umbrella that uh can capture somebody for doing virtually anything.
This has nothing to do with Valerie Plain.
It has nothing to do with leaking her name.
It has nothing to do with whether she was covert.
Uh it it has everything to do with Patrick Fitzgerald having to justify his office and his appointment as a special prosecutor, Richard Armitage leaked her name.
Uh that was that was never part of the prosecution.
The judge would not even allow the juror, the jury to know whether or not uh Valerie Plane was covert, which I think is is is uh is erroneous, a huge error.
If if if the judge had allowed the jury to know whether she was covert or not, who knows how this would have uh played out.
But if you ask me, I'm this is just that this is just a wild guess here, and we won't know till we hear the jurors.
And remember, this is a D.C. jury, and there's probably a lot of Bush hatred on the jury.
It is never no.
But remember the Martha Stewart case, ladies and gentlemen, she was charged with something and convicted by the jury of something totally different.
Uh uh she was the the the jury just engaged in a little class envy and got Martha Stewart.
Basically, they they when you listen to the jurors come out of the um out of the courtroom and explain how what she did hurt the little guy's insider trading, that's not what she was charged with.
She too was charged with a process crime.
Uh and it'll be interesting to me to hear how many of these jurors think that Libby outed Valerie Plain or that Libby engaged in an effort to uncover her covert status uh since uh that's that's how this case was constantly presented, even after the trial had begun, when that had nothing to do uh with with the substance of the case.
It's still how the drive-by media continued to portray it.
So Scooter Libby uh guilty on four of five counts in the uh in the CIA leak trial.
And I remember you know this is it it's it goes without saying, but I'm gonna say it anyway.
You can never ever predict how these things are going to turn turn out when you watch the trial and read analysis of the trial day by day.
I can remember reading so many blogs, so many bloggers daily during the course of this trial, uh, and had I believed it all or had a well, it's not the look it.
Had I I did believe it all.
I but the problem with these bloggers is that they're much smarter than the average juror is.
Uh and their take on what happened in court, especially if you get a lawyer or two on these blogs, their take about what's happening in here, such as the numerous days that it it was it was written on blogs that Fitzgerald had a lousy day.
The prosecution was really stumped today.
Their witnesses can't remember anything.
This is a trial about lying, and the prosecution's witnesses can't remember diddly squat.
Well, people blogging this uh intentionally, unintentionally, don't know, left the impression the prosecution's case wasn't doing all that well.
Uh But uh, as it turns out, uh uh it was just the uh just the opposite.
So here we have poor old Scooter Libby.
Uh try to put yourself in his shoes.
Uh the verdicts here would uh would would seem to me to be able to cement the notion, and it's been happening in American politics for a long time that you can criminalize policy.
Uh this was basically the administration trying to fight back against a bunch of lies being told by Joseph Wilson, who was never brought under oath.
Uh the prosecution never questioned or doubted what Joseph Wilson or his wife uh were saying about this.
So if you uh if you're in the habit of watching the drive-by's the afternoon or evening on cable, be prepared.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, there's going to be an orgy of delight on virtually all of these programs.
The media is going to proud itself or pat itself on the back, be very proud of themselves for making this happen, for causing this to be the case, for being able to influence the outcome of uh of this.
And of course, it's a big slap at the uh at the Bush administration, which they'll enjoy and uh and dig.
So it's uh but I just put myself in Scooter Libby's position, and here we are in a in a throes of a process crime.
There's nothing to do with the original charge and the original reason for the investigation.
Uh and uh, you know, when you count like count five as perjury, uh lying to the grand jury and lying to the FBI, those are serious charges.
Uh but uh you know Scooter said it was just his faulty memory, wasn't sure which all these things going on during the day.
He uh conducts his job every day.
And uh it is what it is.
It's uh it's unfortunate and sad.
He's not a bad guy at uh at all.
And it's uh looks like we've got the successful criminalization of politics.
I don't know status of appeals and that sort of thing.
Um what'll what'll happen here, probably some basis for it.
Uh we'll have to wait and see what the uh what the lawyers say.
Anyway, here's a telephone number if you want to be on the program today.
800-282-2882, the email address rush at eIB net.com.
John Edwards is a little tidbit here what's headed up on the program today.
John Edwards.
I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering, and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs.
I think he'd be appalled, actually.
Yeah, this is not playing well.
John Edwards, Jesus would be appalled at our ignoring the plight of those around us at Rush Limbaugh.com, ladies and gentlemen, we have two pictures.
Posted them prior to the program.
We have John Edwards' massive brand new mansion in North Carolina, and it has just been uncovered by the Carolina Journal.
Photos by Don Carrington, he's got a beach house.
He's got a beach house, a 2800 square foot beach house on uh exclusive and gated, figure eight island near Wilmington.
The latest tax valuation on this uh beach house is 2.6 million dollars.
The whole island is gated.
Uh and uh he's uh got John's lounge, a room in his 28,000 square foot home in Orange County near Chapel Hill.
Though John Edwards thinks Jesus would be appalled at the selfishness of Americans these days and their lack of concern for the poor and less fortunate.
He he said this, by the way, to the uh Christian website, belief net.com.
Uh and and of course, it is gonna be hard for uh former Senator Edwards to avoid the hypocrisy of this massive conspicuous consumption.
The obvious indications of his wealth.
Uh uh while he's out talking about how we don't do enough for the poor and don't have enough concern for the uh for the less fortunate.
Uh also have you heard about this from the lifestyle stack?
In the state of Washington, some hoscruel sporting officials want to ban booing at high school games.
Because it's just not sportsmanlike.
We'll have details on this.
Lots of other things uh coming up today on the EIB network, El Rush Bow, telephone number 800-282-2882.
We've got great audio sound bites.
Ann Coulter Kerfuffle uh uh continues, drive by media trying to make as much of it as they can naturally.
We're gonna go back to the archives, ladies and gentlemen.
Remember John Carey making comments about uh Vice President Cheney's daughter being a lesbian during a presidential debate with George W. Bush, and you may have forgotten Elizabeth Edwards chiming in on this about how Mrs. Cheney acted as shamed and so forth.
Left trying to make it look like the uh uh we we on the right are just a bunch of gay bashers, racist, sexist bigots, homophobes, and so forth, and yet it was shameless what uh Carrie and Edwards did during the 2004 presidential campaign regarding the privacy of the Cheney family.
Then again, we have um you know the Andrew Quomo or Andrew Giuliani story yesterday of the New York Times.
Yeah, my dad's a dud, but I think he'd be a great president.
Remember the zone of privacy that the drive-by's all respected for um for Chelsea Clinton.
Uh the leave her out of this, the Clinton said, and the drive-by is dutifully uh uh conform to that demand or that request.
Anyway, lots of stuff to do today, plus your phone calls will take a brief time out here, come back and continue right after this.
Now, this is unbelievable.
I knew the drive-by's are gonna have orgasms out there over the Libby verdicts today, guilty on four of the five counts.
I'm watching television area.
I saw a little uh crawl go by, I got the close captioning on, and I'm uh Chris Matthews of Hardball actually said that the verdict has to do with Cheney taking the country into war.
It has nothing to do with what this case was.
But see, that's that's what I meant about this being uh somewhat similar to a Martha Stewart verdict.
She was actually convicted as things by the jury that uh that she was not charged with.
Uh and uh you can chart that chalk that jury up to class envy.
Little guys taking an opportunity to get even with a big rich person who is a constant celebrity and knock her down to size.
Uh DC jury anti-bush.
The odds of that are pretty good, no matter how you parse the jury, and no matter how you set them up.
It's just it's just a shame, but this is you better get ready, folks.
Is this uh you're now gonna have you're gonna have uh people speculating, well, this could invigorate the independent counsel, Patrick uh Fitzgerald.
He could now decide to go even further since this jury found uh uh Libby guilty, why let's go up the chain.
Let's see what else we can find.
It's possible, folks.
It's possible a verdict like this could empower and encourage the prosecutor to try to get some even bigger ducks uh in a row.
We got some people who want to talk about this.
Uh Jim and Raleigh, let's start with you uh here on the EIB network, sir.
Nice to have you with us and welcome to the program.
Thank you so much.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Uh I thank you for your service to uh to our American society.
I wanted to uh start out by uh arguing with you about your fears about this jury, but while we were on uh while I was on hold, the verdict came in, and so I bowed to your superior intellect.
Uh I was going to argue that because of the three questions that the jurors had asked the judge, that perhaps they were focusing on the charge and not the uh the periphery of the case, and that the judge in steering the focus towards the case and maybe not allowing the issue of whether she was covert or not.
Maybe they were actually focusing on the charge.
But I once again, you've uh proved that you have more insight than 99.9% of it.
Well, that's why I'm host and uh and others aren't.
Uh but you know, I think look at it as I want to take you back to the instant mail uh instant uh messages uh that was flashing with people back and forth today.
A lot of people assume that these questions that the jury had just three hours ago.
Uh we can't judge, we can't figure out what he's charged with.
We we can't figure out what he did wrong here.
Now people were looking at that and thinking, what a mockery this is an absolute joke.
A jury asking that kind of question on day ten, and it was just a couple days ago that they asked uh, you know, for a definition of reasonable doubt.
Uh, and all of this led uh court watchers to do something that's very risky, and that start trying to interpretate or interpret what what uh what all this means because you never know.
You just it just it's it's it's not predictable.
And I'm I myself uh uh found myself chuckling.
I mean, this is an absolute joke.
And I said, Fitzfong cannot possibly be happy to hear this question from the jury on day ten.
Judge, we can't figure out what Libby is accused of doing wrong, and then three hours later, he's guilty on four of the five counts.
I defy anybody to make any sense of this.
And we won't know till these jurors speak if they do.
Uh, you know, with Americans as a s as as uh desirous of fame these days, they probably will.
But I um I speculated.
Well, don't get your hopes up on this.
It could mean that they're just one or two in there that are holding out, uh, and that's the question.
Somebody said to me, No, no, no, no, no.
The judge will not entertain questions from a jury, just one or two people have a question.
The whole jury has to basically be undecided about something for the these questions to have any merit and dealt with by the uh by the judge.
So you get it, you get a question three hours ago.
Judge, we we we can't figure out what what Libby even did wrong.
Uh and then you go guilty on four of the five counts.
It just it defies defies all explanation, which to me much of this case does.
Uh saluda, Virginia.
This is Ken, and welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
I wanted to ask you what you thought about the possibility of a presidential pardon for Scooter Libby.
Well, that's another thing.
I I can't I really I have no way of even giving you an I have no I have no gut sense on that uh on that sense myself.
If there is to be a pardon of Scooter Libby, it won't happen until Bush's last week in office.
If there is, but he's not gonna do it now.
Uh there's too much good.
He needs Congress on a rock, he needs he needs as much help as he can get uh with a war on terror.
Uh and he's not uh he's not gonna I would I wouldn't look for that any time anytime soon.
As to whether Bush would do this upon leaving office, uh 50-50, best I could give you.
Entirely possible.
Thank you.
You bet.
Jack in Boston, you're next, the EIB network and L. Rushbo.
Hello, sir.
Yeah, Rush.
I have one comment.
And that's and Sandy Berger goes free.
Yep, and the prosecute well, the the Justice Department didn't even pursue Sandy Burglar.
He got community service, and I think a fine.
He also lost his security clearance, but guess what?
Sandy Burglar gets his security clearance back just in time to rejoin a Hillary Clinton administration in 2009.
I mean, what Sandy Burglar did was a thousand times, a million times more serious than the Scooter Libby thing.
Well, yes, but uh on the surface it is, but if you um what you what the one thing that that you should take away from this, does and I make this comment regardless the scooter libby verdicts here and and and what he did or didn't do.
If the feds ever come calling on you, if the FBI or anybody ever comes calling on you to ask you questions about something, do one of two things.
Call a lawyer and don't talk to them until you've uh gotten advice from a lawyer, or number two, do not lie to them.
They prosecutors like anybody else, they'll take the route of the least resistance in order to get a conviction.
It's what these people are all about.
Prosecutors don't go to court for any other reason, and they don't pursue people to find them innocent.
They pursue people to find them guilty.
Don't lie to them because the same thing can happen.
You can end up uh that's what Martha Stewart did.
Uh she she didn't get a lawyer, she didn't, she she didn't she thought she was scoring points by cooperating.
It turned out that uh they got her on lying, and that's what she but that's not what she was convicted of if you listen to the jurors in uh in her trial.
Uh so I mean it's it's uh there's Libby walking out of the uh out of the courtroom now.
Now my reason for saying this is because when you start lying when the FBI and the feds come calling and they're conducting an investigation into anything, you start lying, and here comes that giant umbrella called obstruction of justice.
And that basically means if you send them on a wild goose chase, if you lie to them about things and it causes them to go investigating, you they will they will bring the hammer down on you like you can't believe it.
They uh You got true believers here.
And some of these uh some of these prosecutors, uh uh some of these federal prosecutors, some of these U.S. attorneys are some of the best lawyers in the country, and they come out of law school, they they're they're gung-ho, and they all believe uh in the sanctity of federal investigations, and you lie to them, and they come get you.
Now I know you're saying, well, what about Clinton?
Clinton lied under oath, uh, grand jury testimony, yes, and he um he was found in contempt by a federal judge, and he lost his law license uh for a while.
Uh but uh he didn't get any jail time uh over it, which probably because he's president of the United States, and don't forget that Ken Starr, the independent counsel there didn't really bring any charges of of any uh uh substance.
So um just a little piece of advice, and that's what they got Libby on, and that's what they were pursuing him on because they had nothing else in this case.
Uh back in just a sec.
Guiding light, uh trying times of confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, injustice, torture, humiliation, global warming, panics and hysteria, and even the good times.
We're here at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
One of the questions, one of the questions the jury came out and asked this morning was, Judge, is it a crime if Libby lied to Matt Cooper, who's a jar journalist, a reporter at the time for Time Magazine, and the judge said, well, uh for better or worse, it's not a crime to lie to a journalist.
Uh and yet that's one of the guilty counts uh that he lied to the FBI about his conversations with uh Matt Cooper, and he also lied to the FBI about his conversations with uh with Tim Russert.
Uh now Libby's defense attorney Ted Wells took to the microphone mere moments ago and said they're gonna do two things.
They're gonna make a motion for a new trial on the basis that these verdicts make no sense with what questions the jurors were asking and the testimony, and and then uh when that fails, and it will, I mean, they got to ask this judge uh to basically do a new trial, and the judge is not gonna say, yeah, you know, I agree with you, this thing was a travesty, because then the judge is saying I should have stopped it earlier.
Uh so that motion will fail, then they'll go to the appeal.
And both of these, you know, the idea they have a new trial throw it out won't happen.
Of course, in this case, who knows?
Uh an appeal, obviously you get an appeal on this, but they and the the grounds uh you have to have the opportunity for an appeal, and the grounds here will be uh jurors that had no clue what they were deciding.
Uh they were just based on the questions that they were asking.
This these jurors were just they were spinning in there, didn't even know what this case was about.
It has to be retried.
They'll probably say something about the judge's jury instructions weren't good, and they'll probably point out that uh, you know, Libby wanted a lot of documents that the government has entered into evidence, and a government wouldn't let them, and the judge sided with the government.
Uh there are some grounds here for an appeal, and the uh Libby lawyer uh said that uh, of course, as all lawyers do who lose, uh said that he's totally confident that Libby in time will be vindicated.
Peter in Rochester, New York.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, hi, Rush.
Thank God you got your hearing.
Listen, um I believe that Scooter Libby got what he deserved, and I don't think that he's a good guy.
Uh he, if you remember, he was on the defense team uh he who defended Mark Rich going way back.
And uh Mark Rich was really kind of a disgusting uh person.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
That's not how the justice system works.
And I don't I'm not sure he defended Rich or if he he represented Rich in his appeal to Clinton for a pardon, but that's not of the justice system.
See, this is you would have made a good juror in this case.
Because you're saying, okay, Libby is a scoundrel, he works for Cheney, he works for Bush, and he and he helped Mark Rich guilty.
Uh the other thing is No, no, no, no.
You need to be embarrassed about Peter, you really can't mean what you just said to me.
Why?
Well, because that's not how the justice system works.
Sadly, I guess it does.
But you you want to convict you want to convict Libby.
No, you want to convict Libby based on zero evidence in the case.
You think Libby got what he what he deserved, and you cited things have nothing to do with his case.
Well, in a sense, you're right.
I'm I'm talking in a general sense about karma.
You know, that he defended that if in in the general's term of karma, uh Scooter Libby defended a skunk, and now he himself got himself in jail.
And wouldn't it be ironic if just as Rich was pardoned by Clinton, Bush pardoned Libby, who defended Rich.
I guess if it'd be karmatic, uh it could be ironic.
But but you're you're you're you're you're getting into things metaphysical here, and this course is about facts and so forth, and and the and the your call is fascinating to me because we could have had ten or twelve people or ten or eleven people just like you on this jury.
You sound like a Martha Stewart juror.
He deserves to get because karma needs to come in and this this is the their roots in this.
Don't seek vengeance, let higher powers take care of that for you.
Um and there are all kinds of uh rationalizations, but this is why the criminal justice system uh there's Fitz Fong speaking.
Uh we're not gonna jip it.
Uh we'll uh we'll find out what he said if it's in the import uh cookies rolling on all this, and we'll have sound bites for you as the uh afternoon progresses.
Reno Nevada hell or Hal, you're next.
It's great to have you with us.
Yes, Rush.
Uh during her nineteen, I think ninety-eight grand jury testimony, Hillary Clinton answered under oath, I don't remember at least two hundred and fifty times.
Where's the prosecution?
Look at the difference here.
Yeah, I know.
I absolutely know, but this is there's some there's some things about the criminal justice system you have to know.
And it's uh It's against the law to be a Republican.
Uh it in Washington it is.
It with a DC jury and a Bush administration and a drive-by media that's been trying to drum him out of office for four or five years, you're damn right.
It's against the law to be a Republican in the eyes of many people.
Uh you know, Hillary uh, you know, she she had all kinds of protection.
Uh Libby uh didn't testify.
I wonder if they're rethinking that.
Libby Libby did not uh testify in this case.
Uh but it uh it it it boils down here to the jury was was made to believe that there was some giant cover up here uh to protect people higher up in the Bush administration, and this is close as they could get.
Uh and as I mentioned earlier, if uh if if Fitzpatrick wants to, uh he could take this verdict and look at it as red meat and say, Man, I mean, I I've got all kinds of possibilities and potential here if he thinks that there are other things to um to pursue.
Vero Beach.
Now you this Florida?
Vero B, yeah.
Hi, Jim, welcome to the program.
Hello?
Yes, sir, Jim, you're on the EIB network.
You're big showbiz break.
Hey, I I've got a problem with all this.
Uh this whole case is costing us millions of dollars.
You know, I and I love the president, I truly do.
Why why doesn't anyone stand up and say, hey, and and just come out and say like you do, and say say the truth.
Say, well, you know, this is all about nothing.
You're we it's costing you the taxpayers a fortune for absolutely nothing.
I'll tell you why.
I'll tell you exactly that's a great question.
You're asking why the administration didn't pipe him to say something?
Yes.
They're scared of the prosecutor.
Why?
Because he could come after them.
This guy could do anything.
These guys have limitless power.
Federal prosecutors have more money than the people in this administration combined.
If they if if this guy gets his nose out of joint by something that Cheney or Bush might say, uh, or anybody else in the administration, uh I'll guarantee you, people inside the administration have been itching to go public with a whole bunch of things, but they don't dare because there is a natural fear of prosecutors, particularly federal prosecutors.
Who hired him?
Uh well, that's Bush did, the Justice Department did, but that's what you know.
Bush can't come out and fire the guy.
I mean, he could, but but that's there are too many political ramifications, and Bush has other agenda items that uh that he he wants to get done.
Well, I I I understand the agenda items.
Rush, I guess you don't get it sometimes.
Why do and I I have great respect for the president, but there's so many times he's like he doesn't stand up and say, Well, this is how it is.
Just tell us.
I think people would believe him.
And the Democrats think some of the dumbest things...
As I've said before, the president is not leading a movement.
He He's uh he's a Republican, he's not a conservative, he's conservative on certain things, but he doesn't view himself as leading a movement, and uh you consider yourself conservative, correct?
Yes.
You consider yourself a movement conservative, and you're it's what I said yesterday.
One of the reasons so many people are supporting Ann Coulter is because she fights, but she stands up and she responds to some of this stuff that the left throws out.
She got a lot more defenders than she does detractors.
Uh as do I. Uh but but uh th there the the people of the of the conservatives in this country are hungering for just the kind of fight you're talking about.
But when you're talking about a legal case and a federal prosecutor, uh uh Jim, it ain't gonna happen.
You the the there's just there's there's morbid fear of these people.
How does he lose his power eventually as a prosecutor?
How does he actually uh what point is he taken off and no longer is the prosecutor?
Well, in this No, no, no, in this it's all different.
Uh but the this is uh you know a great argument, the independent council law.
The Democrats wanted to get rid of it after the Clinton administration and Bush gets in office.
Now they love the independent council law.
In this case, James Comey, who was the acting attorney general when John Ashcroft retired or resigned, uh granted unlimited authority, gave Patrick Fitzgerald the uh the uh unlimited authority of the Justice Department to pursue anything he thought relevant to this case.
When a prosecutor has that much power over and above what he normally has in the federal system, uh uh people who want to speak up and say things uh cower, especially after the indictments have come down or come up, depending on your legal preference, uh, and you're not part of it, you shut up.
It's it's a circle of wagons and protect everybody.
Protect yourselves.
What can we do about it?
Nothing.
We as people.
Uh judicial system's not up to a vote.
I know just just just like science isn't.
There's not a whole lot you can do.
You could you could write Justice Department letters, it's not gonna matter, a hill of beans.
Uh uh in in this case, I know that you want to do something about it because you think there's gross injustices going on.
The best thing to do is understand the judicial system and uh and understand that it's all you know, the people say it's about justice, in many cases it's not about justice at all.
It's about uh politics.
This is purely a political case.
This is uh uh scooter libys as high as Fitzgerald could get.
He wanted Cheney, wanted Rovis as high as he could get.
This is an indictment against the Bush administration, and this is gonna be portrayed as a guilty verdict against the Bush administration for politicizing or criminalizing policy.
Uh Fitzgerald is still talking.
I have no clue what he's saying.
I gotta take a break.
I'm gonna listen into a little bit of it.
Uh Jim, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it a quick timeout.
We'll be back in just a second.
Oh, you can sit there and you can say, Yeah, Sandy Burglar's walking free, there's an injustice going on here, but don't forget Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, ninety thousand dollars in cold cash, all of these uh rumors of an indictment to come down the pike,
and he's sitting there on the Homeland Security Committee, the same Justice Department that did not pursue Sandy Burglar doesn't appear to be excited about Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
Uh yet they um they burnt a path to Scooter Libby because Scooter Libby takes him the Bush administration.
Fitzgerald has said, this is the only reason I was interested in what he was saying.
The investigation is uh what is this dormant?
It's inactive.
He has no plans to file uh any other charges.
John in St. Louis.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Hey, good good afternoon, Rush.
This is John.
Yes, John.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Um I know one of the things you like to go back to is that uh, you know, Libby, or I'm sorry, the plane uh leak she wasn't covert, that there's no underlying crime there, and it's it's a process crime, and I know that's uh uh something you like like to get into, but I think I could demonstrate beyond uh a reasonable doubt that that she was covert.
There was a television program on TBS frontline a couple weeks ago.
It's called like news wars.
In that show, they interviewed an FBI agent that is involved in the uh uh investigation of leaks.
There's a division in FBI that says that.
And they had this FBI guy come on and say, we submit a uh questionnaire to the victim agency.
And if they answer in the affirmative these eleven questions, then there was a crime worth investigating.
Well, the only person that can convey covert status on someone would be the victim agency.
It's not the media or you know uh I know, but you're heading down the wrong path on this, because this is one of the flashpoints of this whole trial is whether or not she was covert.
Nobody knows.
Well they do the case.
No, they don't nobody well, but nobody's covert status on her death.
It's a big no, but it's no nobody knows publicly.
It's a big it's uh no, she's she you don't know, I don't know.
That's the judge said he doesn't know.
When he was talking to the jury, the judge said he doesn't know whether she's covert or not.
But all of this is irrelevant.
The CIA I read a piece by Clarice Feldman at the American Thinker dot com, far more credible to me than PBS and frontline.
And uh she she said this whole thing has been a bait and switch by the CIA in order to get back at the Bush administration for George Tenet taking it on the chin for weapons and mass destruction.
This whole thing has been political.
This whole thing is the CIA trying to cover its rear end for its own mistakes about weapons and mass destruction, blaming Bush and trying to get back the in Internet Washington politics to the core here.
Uh the fact that they wouldn't say whether she's covert uh is is uh not indicative of anything.
They're trying to keep it quiet.
But Armitage was the original leaker.
What her status was and whether she was outed was not what the case was about.
Fitzgerald didn't bring one charge on that basis.
He didn't indict anybody on the basis that a covert agent was outed.
But the drive-by media continued to portray that that's what the case was about, totally took up the defense of poor old Valerie Plame and poor old Joe Wilson, who is a proven liar over and over again, who was never brought under oath.
These are the things that upset me about this case.
Wilson was never questioned.
He had a champion in the special prosecutor here.
Uh and and uh as did Valerie Plame Wilson uh herself, uh had had the status in fact been known and had the judge been able to tell the jury whether she was covert or not, and if she wasn't, and Victoria Tenzing, who wrote the law, by the way, that penalizes and punishes people for outing covert agents, has said this case doesn't even approach the intent or even the outer boundaries of the law.
Doesn't even get anywhere near it, that she's not the kind of agent the law was written to protect.
And she wrote the law.
So uh the the idea here that that that that some great CIA operation was compromised by Scooter Libby is absurd.
If anybody compromised and it was Armitage who wasn't pursued by the independent counsel or anybody else at all.
You gotta understand what this case about.
This this case is about about Washington politics getting even.
You don't know, folks, the strife.
You know, when this weapons of mass destruction thing didn't pan out the way everybody had thought based on what the testimony of other people were at the UN and the security counsel and so forth, uh George Tennett was out there taking all kinds of heat, and the guys of the CIA rallied around there said, We're not taking a heat for this.
We're not gonna let this be dumped on us.
And so uh here came this uh request uh pursued by the media, New York Times and others, and the CIA to find out what what happened here.
We've had somebody's status uh or somebody's uh an employee.
By the way, that's that's that's a key word, by the way, in the in the when the CIA asked the Justice Department to look into this, they said a CIA employee, not agent.
A CIA employee status has been compromised, blah, blah, blah.
And that got this whole ball rolling.
So there's there's so much more than what this is all about.
And you've you you come up with uh a jury here that it's until I hear from the jurors, I'm not I've it's gonna be difficult to uh speculate about you know what they thought the case was about.
But uh their their notes indicate they were confused.
They were totally confused.
Judge, is it a crime to lie to Matt Cooper?
No, it's not, jury.
Uh uh, well, what what is it actually scooter Libby's accused of doing?
That question's three and a half or four hours ago.
I gotta go take a break here.
We'll be uh back in just a second.
The juror is speaking, and he said we had a lot of sympathy for Libby, and a lot of jurors are saying, What are we doing with this guy?
Where's Rove?
Where's Cheney?
What are we doing with this guy?
The juror speaking right now, by the way, said he's a former reporter.
▲
Export Selection