All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
March 6, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
A Rush Limbaugh program on the EIB network at 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
I'm just looking over some other things I have in the stack here.
You know, I'm, and I want to get on to some of these other things.
But if you want to, if you want to continue to discuss the Libby verdict and your reaction to it, by all means, ladies and gentlemen, feel free.
Telephone number again, 800-282-2882.
You know, I'm reminded of something.
Snerdley actually reminded me of this in the break.
When the Republicans won the House in 1994, they had their orientation at Camden Yards, the ballpark in Baltimore.
And I was invited to address the freshman class of the 1994 Republican Congressional Caucus because those freshman members, in large part, thought that I was responsible for their victory given the program at the time and discussing their candidacies all over the country and so forth.
And they made me an honorary member of the freshman class of 1994, actually 95 when they were inaugurated.
But they asked me to come down and make a speech to them.
And I went down there to Camden Yards, and this was on C-SPAN.
And I got up, and one of the things I said to them was, do not fall for the temptation that the media here in this town is happy that you won and happy that you're here.
They are not.
This is a Democrat-run town.
It's a liberal-run town, and you have gotten in the way of the natural order of things.
And as such, you are going to be treated accordingly.
You're going to continually be treated really as the minority.
I said the cameras and microphones are still going to seek out the Democrats for what they think is what's going on because the impression will be conveyed that they still run the town.
Do not think that any media member that calls you up and wants to take you to lunch is doing it because they like you.
And they're not doing it because they're interested in making you look good.
And they don't want to get to know you so that they can publicize what it is you're working on in a favorable light.
They want to sandbag you.
You're going to have some of these delicious little reporterts and info babes.
I said, Cokie Roberts is going to call you up.
He's going to bat those big eyelashes at you.
And a lot of other info babes are going to do the same thing.
Cokie Roberts actually sent me a note after that when she heard about it.
I said, let's go to lunch.
Bat the eyebrows at me.
Never did, although I met her later.
Anyway, I'm reminded of that when I see what happened here.
In large part, what got Libby in trouble?
Talking to reporters.
Now, the administration, the Republican administration, is caught between Iraq and a hard place here because they have to talk to reporters.
The administration cannot dissociate itself from the national media.
They've got to talk to NBC.
They've got to go on and meet the press.
They have to talk to the New York Times.
The problem is, I think, looking at this in hindsight, is that many in Republican administrations think they can spin these people.
They think they can turn them into friends, turn them into supporters.
It is one of the things that, and I guess this is one of the reasons I don't want to work in that town, and I don't want to spend too much time there because it's seductive and you get caught up in it.
That town has many things.
Of course, it's national capital.
It's the center of power.
It's also a place largely defined by the social pecking order, and conservatives and Republicans are never, ever going to be high up in the social pecking order, unless, of course, they're Supreme Court justices who turn lib and then they'll get great puff pieces written about them in the Washington Post style section, and that's how the process begins, turning them.
But given all of that, why anybody in the administration would think that they're going to be dealt with fairly by media people that are out to undermine them.
Something I will never understand.
You can say whatever you want to say about Bill Clinton, but the one thing that you have to say about him and his wife is they are ruthless.
And they will not put up with double crossers.
I'm not talking about the media now.
Within their own administration, they're not going to put up with people sandbagging them or undermining them.
If that happens, all hell is brought down on these people in a number of different ways, which is why there haven't been any Clinton tell books.
It's why a guy like Sandy Bergler would risk his reputation and jail time to go in and do whatever he did in the National Archives to make sure that the Clinton administration ended up looking good when the 9-11 Commission started looking at things that happened prior to 9-11.
This administration is not ruthless in any way.
It doesn't punish or penalize people that attempt to undermine it.
And it seems to accept that you can talk to reporters from the Post and the New York Times and these networks and get a fair shake.
As I say, you can't not talk to them.
And of course, when the Wilson story breaks and he writes this op-ed that's full of lies, the administration says, well, we've got to refute this.
And it was in the New York Times.
So you start trying to refute the fact Cheney didn't send the guy as he's saying was the case, which was a big thing.
And that did come out in the trial.
Wilson was trying to make it known to anybody.
The vice president's office sent him into jail.
And they didn't.
When he comes back, writes his op-ed, they're all saying in the White House, who's this guy?
They called the CIA.
How'd this guy end up over there?
We didn't do this.
And that's when it was learned that Valerie Plame worked there, and Valerie Plame recommended her husband to go.
And then you've got the political connections that those two have and their, you know, whatever their political and ideological orientations are.
And Bamo, you've got a giant interagency game of sabotage going on here.
This kind of thing was just not permitted in the Clinton White House.
They just wouldn't put up with it.
Nobody had the guts to even try it.
But when you have a desire to work with these people and try to spin them and convert them into a liking you, and I'm going to tell you, I don't care whether that's in politics or just in any avenue of personal life.
If your prime objective is to make somebody like you, you've lost.
That's not, especially if they don't.
And the idea to try to turn them and explain your way of things, I don't understand the naivete.
These reporters show up for interviews, conversations with Republican officials, administration, congressmen, senators, with their stories already written.
Their minds are already made up because they have a prejudice about what Republicans and conservatives are.
And so the whole point of talking to members of the administration, Republicans otherwise, is trip them up.
And what happened here?
Russert, Matt Cooper, Judith Miller, it's a bunch of journalists at the center of this and what Libby told them.
And in the FBI and the grand jury and so forth.
But I mean, this juror that came out and talked said they had a lot of sympathy for Judith Miller.
The New York Times info, babe, and ended up in jail for not revealing her sources to Fitzgerald.
Jurors said, we really felt sorry for her.
The defense was just pounding.
It was just, they were just too hard on her.
You don't hit the girl, is one characteristic or aspect of that.
But until people learn that you're not going to be able to bring a bunch of reporters in from Washington or New York and explain conservatism or your policy and have a sympathetic ear or even an ear that wants to understand what you're trying to do, it's beyond me.
And why they keep thinking they can do this is also beyond me.
Now, I know what you're saying.
Well, what would you do?
Well, you have to talk to them.
I understand a presidential administration has to talk to them.
You have to do press conferences and you have to do all this.
I myself have had experience dealing with these people, as you know.
And give you an example.
And I can give you many.
Yesterday after the program, we got a phone call from a cable news network.
And they wanted to take five seconds of what I said about the Ann Coulter kerfuffle and use it all afternoon and all night last night.
Now, I spoke for 14 minutes on the Ann Coulter kerfuffle.
And the five seconds they wanted to take was totally out of context and was irrelevant.
But it fit their preconceived notion and prejudice about what the whole Ann Coulter thing was about.
Five seconds out of 14.
The same thing happened with the Michael J. Fox.
People say, well, how come you don't go on these places and get your side of it out?
Why don't you go on and explain yourself?
Well, I've learned that that's not what happens.
We denied permission for them to use the five seconds that they wanted to use yesterday.
I don't know if they ended up trying to use it anyway.
I didn't watch.
I didn't get any email raise.
Normally, when I appear on a cable news network somewhere, somebody sends me an email.
Rush, rush, rush.
I saw you at CNN and say, MSNBC or Fox this afternoon.
I didn't get any of that.
But I don't talk to them much because here's an example.
I'll give you another example.
A New Yorker, Jane Mayer, with Jill Abramson, who's the bureau chief of the New York Times, Washington, I think, wrote a book about Clarence Thomas and just smeared the guy.
And she was going to do a story in the New Yorker about 24 and so forth.
And it was going to be basically a profile of Joel Cernow.
And I was told that she wanted to talk to me about this because she knew that I was a friend of Cernow's.
So I called some people who'd already talked to her and found out that basically it was a story on how the program, 24, is promoting torture and it is going to be a treatise on torture.
So I called her to those circuits, knowing what this was about.
And I talked to her for about 20 minutes.
And the first 15 were purely social.
I'd been on a TV show with her once, but way, way, way, way back, Bob Beckle hosted a local TV show in Washington, a panel show, i.e. the McLaughlin group, like that night.
I'd appeared on the show with her, and she remembered that.
And I have a good memory.
I remember that she had to hustle out of there and go play tennis.
And I reminded her of that.
And she was, oh, wow, yeah, yeah, you're right.
You're right about it.
She congratulated me on all my success, how wonderful it all was, blah, blah, talking about, understand your friends with Joel, understand he had a party at your house for him.
She was in the mall with her daughter shopping on her cell phone, wasn't taking any notes, and then starts asking me about torture.
You know, the last five minutes, the last five minutes of what she really wanted my thoughts on.
And all this other stuff was, you know, just set up.
Knowing full well that it was about torture, I did my best, and I was honest, but I did my best to tell her.
You know, you're barking up a tree here that's got no branches on it.
But that's just that the story was written before it was published, is the point.
So what I can't figure out is why other people are not as, I'm not trying to give myself credit.
This has been learned by experience.
This is no great insight of mine.
I got sandbagged.
I can't tell you how many times the first five years of this show thinking you could be nice, fair, and just be honest, and they will report what you say.
It's not that way with us.
It doesn't happen then.
So why other people don't figure this out?
This is why I get so fed up when I see some of my conservative brethren in the DC media trying to curry favor with the drive-by media.
It's why I get so bent out of shape when I see potential Republican candidates and elected officials trying to make the media their best friends because it's all temporary.
Even if it works for a while, it's all you can say, they come back and the media is going to end up stabbing you.
Ask Senator McCain.
You know, they're dumping on him after him being their favorite Republican for four years.
And it's why it irritates me when elected Republicans go on Sunday shows and trash their own party and their own president just to curry favor with these people.
But in this case, you had the administration talking to them and they have to talk to them.
But to think that there was a chance that the administration is, especially on this subject, the war at Iraq, there's just a different way to approach them.
Approach them.
They walk in the office or you meet them for lunch or whatever.
And just, I know why you're here, Mr. Reporter.
You're here to sandbag the administration.
You're here to do us wrong.
You're here to lie about us, blah, blah, blah.
Put them on the defensive.
And the last thing they want is for you to peg them.
The last thing they want is for you to be able to know it and say what they're going to do and then have them do it.
It has worked for me in the past, but I don't even find it interesting enough to have time to do it anymore.
But why this administration thinks that they can sit down and talk to these people and they're going to get a fair shake, beyond me.
Anyway, I got to take a quick break, folks.
Stay with us and we'll be right back.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I know.
Just looking to hear what I got.
I got a whole show I haven't done here.
I got global warming stack.
Great, great global warming stack.
Most of this stuff is going to have to be deferred until tomorrow.
We still have people on the phones that want to talk about the Libby trial or the verdict.
We'll get to it.
Mere moments.
Just a couple things here before we go to the break.
I want to tell you about a story that just fascinates me.
Mob birds.
How many of you people have heard about the brown cowbird?
Or the plain old cowbird.
There's a couple different varieties.
People have long wondered something about the cowbird.
Let me tell you what the cowbird does.
The cowbird does not make a nest, at least for the purpose of laying its eggs.
The cowbird finds the nests of other birds and lays its eggs in those nests, and not of other cowbirds, sparrows and other.
It's a little bird, but it lays its eggs in other birds' nests, other species of birds, and those other birds raise the cowbirds.
Cowbirds hatch, and the surrogate mother surrogate birds raise birds that they did not birth.
And people have been trying to figure out, scientists have been trying to figure out how in the hell they get away with this.
How in the hell do cowbirds get away with leaving their eggs in the nests of other species who then raise the baby cowbirds?
Why don't the host birds just toss these strange eggs out?
They've been researching this for years and they've got the answer now.
If the host birds reject the strange eggs, the cowbirds come back and trash the place.
What happens is the cowbird deposits its eggs, lays its eggs in the nests of another bird, and then sits around and watches what happens.
And if the host bird destroys the cowbird eggs, the cowbird mother and father come back and totally destroy the nest and the eggs that are in it of the host bird.
And this is being called mafia behavior.
So-called mafia behavior by brown-headed cowbirds is reported in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It's the female cowbirds who are running the mafia racket at the study site of the Florida Museum of Natural History and the Illinois Natural History Survey.
They're the two research organizations that are doing this.
Our study shows that many of them returned and ransacked the nest when we removed the parasitic egg.
Basically, they're parasites here.
They have other people do the dirty work of raising their own babies.
And what they found is that there's not a shortage of cowbirds.
These other species are raising the birds because these species know that when they see a cowbird egg, that they better raise it because if they don't, the mother cowbird's going to come back and just totally ramshackle the home of the species.
Who knew?
Who knew that there were mafia birds out there?
The little brown-headed cowbird.
And there's gazillions of them.
They're not endangered.
They're not threatened.
They're not affected by global warming.
By the way, I'm going to be interested to see if anybody dares say the Libby trial also was about global warming.
Speaking of global warming, an overnight low in New York last night of 13 degrees at JFK.
It is a record.
It is an all-time record low at JFK for March the 5th.
The previous record was 20 degrees, and that was set four years ago in 2003.
Meanwhile, all of this in the midst of global warming.
And officials in the state of Washington are trying to decide whether or not to ban booing at high school games.
I'll have the details on that.
And whatever else we can squeeze in here in our remaining moments, today's excursion into broadcast excellence.
Sit tight, and we will be right back.
Yes, here we are, trying to have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Some high school sporting officials in Washington state want to throw unsportsmanlike behavior off the field.
This is from ABC News a couple days ago.
From brawls on professional basketball courts to out-of-control parents at Little League games, unsportsmanlike behavior can be a problem, story begins.
Now, some has-screw sporting officials in Washington State are considering a tough new rule, including a ban on booing.
Those who support the ban say that too often spectators are cruel.
It's the organized effort to try to intimidate or try to make fun of somebody that becomes personal in nature that can escalate then into other concerns that we might have, said Mike Colbrisi, executive director of the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association.
Colbrisi and his colleagues said that they have trouble hiring coaches and referees because of the abuse they take.
By banning booing from the stands, they believe they can create a more welcoming environment on the court and on the field.
Experts agree that behavior at school sports events is not what it used to be.
Parents are more intense, family members more intense, siblings are more intense, said Christine Brennan, a USA Today sports columnist and ABC News consultant.
Everything she said is ratcheted up these days.
At the Washington State Hasker Basketball Championships on Saturday night, the fans were on their best behavior, but some weren't pleased that their right to boo might be taken away.
Crowd ought to be able to say what they want to say, said one woman.
They pay their money.
They should be able to boo if they want to.
All right, folks, what do you think of this?
Is this the softening of America?
Is this about self-esteem?
Is it about preventing criticism of our precious young high school athletes?
Is it about bad behavior on the parts of parents?
Unsportsmanlike?
Is it about the fact that most booing is aimed at the refs and the refs are upset about it and they don't want to be booed over the job?
What it boils down to is: hey, we're not going to allow you people to come in and watch these games and be critical.
So what is it?
Is it a good move or does it represent a further softening and weakening of the fiber of strength of this country?
Here's John in Cleveland, New York.
You're next, sir, on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, blood-boiling dittos to you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I got a question about this Libby business.
And I don't understand why it's not a crime for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson to do what they did.
Because the way I understand it, they're both CIA employees.
She was in a position to send her husband on a fact-finding Kryptoniger to investigate whether Hussein was trying to buy Yellow Cake Uranium, right?
That makes him an employee, too, because he got paid.
So they're both CIA employees.
He came back and he lied about his findings in his New York Times editorial.
So what they did was a coup attempt to try to discredit Bush's foreign policy, U.S. foreign policy.
They tried to undermine that.
Well, I don't understand why that's not a crime rush.
Well, I don't know that it's a crime, but the I mean, it's not a crime for a federal employee to undermine U.S. foreign policy.
I don't get that.
Well, I don't know.
Look, I don't know that that is a crime.
And I, you know, one thing to be technical, Plame recommended her husband go, but she didn't have the power to send him.
She had to recommend him to higher-ups that signed off on it.
You know, is lying in the New York Times a crime?
It's not.
You can lie in the New York Times in the press.
There's freedom of the press because they do whatever they want to do.
That's not the question.
The question is, you know what you just said to be true.
I know it to be true.
Patrick Fitzgerald was clueless.
I really don't know that he knew.
Some people think that, gosh, Russia, a U.S. attorney, a special prosecutor.
A guy has to know that.
Maybe not.
There's no indication in anything that Patrick Fitzgerald has said that he has any doubts about what Joe Wilson said in his op-ed is true.
I mean, to me, it's almost as though the source authority for Patrick Fitzgerald was left-wing blogs.
The source authority for Patrick Fitzgerald was Joe Wilson.
Joe Wilson was never put under oath.
Joe Wilson was never brought in to testify about any of this.
It just seems from right off the top that his version of events was accepted without question.
Now, somebody you would think In the special counsel's office, they would have exposed themselves to alternative theories and the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Wilson's trip and would have found out that there's conflict here, that Wilson may not have told the truth in that op-ed.
Well, he didn't tell the truth.
But, I mean, if somebody in the office of the Independent Council knew this, they had to totally ignore it.
I'm not sure they did.
This is Washington.
You have to understand that the people in Washington, liberals, look at conservative media as it's from Mars.
It's not to be taken seriously.
It's and conservatives, too, circus acts, like animals in the zoo.
You watch them, you have fun yucking them up and so forth, and occasionally get out and attack somebody, and you got to get serious with them.
But they just, it's, and I don't, I don't know what Fitzgerald's political orientation is, party ID.
I have no clue.
You would assume he's Republican because he's a U.S. attorney in Chicago and that the Bush administration puts Republican U.S. Attorney.
We can't assume that because it didn't happen.
I don't know.
I don't know that that matters.
But I don't know how if anybody in that office knew of the second opinion of Joe Wilson, how it had no effect on him.
It's almost like they didn't know.
As I said, there's two alternative versions of truth here that just boggle the mind.
You're sitting out there, John.
You know what you know.
How can this guy ignore it?
He may not have exposed himself.
He may not know it.
At all of his press conferences, Joe Wilson's an angel.
Joe Wilson and Valerie Playmore are innocent angelic victims here.
And by the way, get ready.
Wilson's all over TV tonight.
He's going to be on PMS NBC.
He's going to be on CNN.
He's going to be on the CNN twice.
He's going to be on Larry King Alive.
He's going to be on 180 with Anderson Cooper.
Kurt in my adopted hometown of Sacramento, California.
Hello.
Hey, good morning, Rush.
Hey, I'm tired.
I'm almost ready to throw that hat in.
I just don't see the alternative media working.
We're not driving any agenda.
You know, I hear how, well, nobody can win on negative campaigning.
They sweep in.
You know, here's Libby.
He gets convicted on bull.
And, you know, William Jeffers or whoever that guy is with $90,000 cash.
You can't even get an investigation on the guy.
No, no, there's an investigation.
It just doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Well, you know, it's just, it's frustrating.
And I got to tell you, it just, I mean, I'd love to hear some pep talk, but at the same time, I'm just tired of being kicked, you know, and that's what it means to be aware of.
I know, but it's what I said earlier.
There are gazillions like you out there today.
This is the kind of thing that may do more to spur Republicans and conservatives across the country into action than anything else Democrats could have done.
But don't be too down.
I've been trying to be honest with you.
We're talking Washington here.
Of course, the new media doesn't have any power in Washington.
And it never will.
Washington is a lib-run town.
The media and the social aspects and the bureaucracies there are run by liberal Democrats.
It's just the case.
Republicans are interlopers and intruders.
Again, I hate to keep bringing up Reagan's names.
What made him so special?
He's able to get all around it and contravene it and, in fact, nullify it and dominate it for two terms.
Well, the Iran-Contra thing came up.
That was a bit of a problem.
But the new media is having profound effect with the American people.
The new media is having a profound effect in moving agendas forward.
You can't deny that.
With the Republican victory of the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994, Bush's two wins in 2000 and 2004.
And I'm not trying to give you a phony pep talk here, but you're making the mistake of thinking that the new media has power in Washington.
It doesn't.
But rush, but rush.
There's all kinds of conservative media in Washington.
Yeah, I know.
And how often do you get frustrated when you read these people that they're caving or they're moderating their behavior to get along with the left?
They're saying things that the liberals will like them and don't criticize them.
Conservatism's strength is with the people.
As I said earlier, look at this is it's just the way it is.
Conservatives, how many people do you know conservatives in college who just thirst for becoming a bureaucrat in the State Department or a bureaucrat at the CIA or a bureaucrat in a Pentagon?
Liberals, they aspire to this.
They believe government is the beginning and end of life.
And they think government determines policy all over.
They want to dominate that.
I've had a story the past couple days.
I haven't had a chance to get to it.
University of California, Irvine, has gone out, and I forget the funding for this, how it came about, but I think the number is $100 million.
I'm not sure.
They're going to start a law school at the University of California at Irvine.
It is totally unnecessary.
There are more than enough lawyers for the problems that exist in California.
And yet, all this funding is being made available to start a law school there.
Well, I dug a little further.
I think I found this at AmericanThinker.com.
The purpose of the law school is to train liberal activist lawyers, lawyers that will work for organizations like the ACLU and the AARP and other liberal organizations like that.
Lawyers who will be trained to take on the administration and deny them the right to prosecute the war under the commander-in-chief provisions of the Constitution.
As in lawyers who have been trying to undermine military tribunals and the interrogation of prisoners.
It's a left-wing law school that's being constructed.
This is what the left does.
And they aspire to these things.
Why don't conservatives mount their own?
They have.
But it takes a while.
Liberals have been doing this for decades.
But these are things that liberals aspire to.
Conservatives aspire to different things.
A lot of conservatives do not aspire to be oriented in groups.
They're individuals and so forth, and they have other aspirations.
Now, how do we go out and change all that?
I don't know.
I don't have enough time to get into that.
I'm just giving you a definition right now of the status quo of things.
Conservatives, particularly the new media, connect with millions of Americans on the basis that informed Americans will show up and vote and will triumph in the electoral process and send people to elective office that will ostensibly X, Y, and Z based on their campaign promises and so forth.
We get sandbagged sometimes because they get there and after a while, they forget why they got there and they start trying to make the liberals like them and the cycle keeps repeating.
But you can't stop.
You can't throw your hat in the ring and say to hell with it because you're just seeding things.
There's been a lot of progress taking place.
And mark my words.
The libs here have their, they're poking the hibernating bear and they're going to wake the bear.
The bears get, you're mad.
Oh, everybody's called me today is fit to be tied over this.
This can do more to revive a hibernating conservative movement than anything else could.
Plus, the way the Deborah's Liberals and the Democrats owned defeat with the U.S. military and so forth.
So don't cash into chips.
It's way too soon to do that.
I mean, it's not even.
I mean, that's not even an option.
But I don't want to hear about that.
Hey, I had a gay community update today.
We're going to get Klaus Nomi out of the archives, but I just got to defer all of this to tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen.
Plus, whatever show prep results and program content tomorrow.
So we'll move on back to the phones.
A very, very limited amount of busy broadcast time here.
Victoria in New York City, thank you for waiting.
Your turn to launch.
Thank you, Dr. Rush.
I'm so, so honored to speak to you.
Thank you very much.
I've been listening to you since you were local here, the first day.
That'll be July 4th, 1988.
That it is.
Yes, sir.
I called to say that one of the jurors had contact with someone from the outside during the trial while they were, I think while they were already whatever the word is.
And they were receiving, that's the word, deliberating, and received the senior moment I have from time to time.
Waiting, holding on.
I got a little older.
Anyhow, and received information that this juror wasn't supposed to have.
And he allegedly shared that information with the other jurors.
There should have been an immediate mistrial, however.
Well, now, wait, I didn't hear that.
I heard that one, the juror shared the information with the other jurors.
I heard a juror exposed herself or himself.
It was a her, right?
And it was a decorator or some kind of thing or an art person had seen some media.
And the judge said, you're gone.
And the prosecution wanted the alternate on there.
And the defense said, no, we'll go with 11.
And the judge said, that's you're right.
We'll go with 11.
I didn't hear that the juror shared whatever she saw in the media with the other jurors.
Well, the report was that she had shared the information.
And they had found out that she shared the information, but decided only to make that other juror, the juror that shared the information drop out, and they weren't going to replace her.
And I think that is an automatic mistrial.
Well, but it wasn't.
No, it wasn't.
The trial's over.
It's not an automation.
And I don't know.
The defense is going to appeal this.
I don't know on what grounds.
It is.
They're going to answer two things.
If it's a retrial, they will not get a retrial.
That is, frankly, big book on that.
An appeal is even, well, it's not likely at all.
The odds of getting an appeal here are very, very, very, very slim, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm just speaking statistically, not related to the specifics of this case, but statistically, getting an appellate court to look at the trial and say, yeah, the judge screwed up here.
It doesn't happen much.
It does.
But not enough statistically to make a book on it.
One more here before we have to go.
George and Columbia, South Carolina, you're next on the EIB network.
Rush, Major Ditto, from Columbia, South Carolina.
Thanks, sir.
Liz, I just want to talk about this boo-banning out in Washington State that illustrates the point why it's scary that liberals are teaching our children, the leaders of next year.
You know, I think any high school student would realize that, man, this isn't about getting referees in or intimidating people.
It's a constitutional issue.
You can't ban free speech.
Well, you can.
You can ban fire in a crowded theater.
Any number of You see, the government can't ban free.
Your company can tell you what you can and can't say in your email that you're right.
Your company can tell you what you can't.
And the school can sit out there and they can tell students in the audience that they can't boo.
I mean, you watch them.
They will do it.
The First Amendment says government shall make no law.
Banning speech, religion, practice of religion, that sort of thing.
We'll have more on this tomorrow, folks, but sadly, the constraints of time and the programming format dictate a break.
Sadly, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence has come to an end.
Rushlinbaugh demonstrating my superior news anchor skills today, as I do daily.
We will continue them tomorrow.
Already Wednesday tomorrow, won't it be?
Well, we'll see you then, folks.
▲
Export Selection