All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
March 6, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
The Rush Limbaugh program on the EIB Network at 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
I'm just looking over some other things I have in the stack here.
You know, I am I'm um and I want to get on to some of these other things.
But if you want to uh if you want to continue to discuss uh the Libby verdict and your reaction to it, by all means, ladies and gentlemen, feel free.
Uh telephone number again, 800-282-288-2.
You know, I'm reminded of something, uh, Snerdley actually reminded me of this in the break.
When the Republicans won the House in 1994, they had their orientation at uh uh Camden Yards, the ballpark in Baltimore.
And uh I was invited to address the freshman class of the 1994 Republican Congressional Caucus.
Uh because those uh those freshman members uh in large part thought that I was responsible for their victory given the program at the time and and uh discussing their candidacies all over the country and so forth.
And they made me an honorary member of the freshman class of uh 1994.
This uh uh actually 95 when they when they were inaugurated, but they asked me to come down and make 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 they're 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 gonna be continually be treated really as the minority.
I said the the cameras and microphones are still gonna 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 making uh interested in making you look good.
And they're not, 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.
Uh you're gonna have some of these uh delicious little reporterettes and info babes.
I said, Koki Roberts gonna call you up, he's gonna bat those big eyelashes at you.
Uh and a lot of other infobabes gonna do the same thing.
Koki Roberts actually sent me a note after that when she heard about it, said let's go to lunch.
Bat the eyebrows at me.
Uh never did, although I met her later.
Uh anyway, uh I'm reminded of that when when I when I when I see what happened here.
Uh in large part, what got Libby in trouble?
Talking to reporters.
Now the administration, the Republican administration is caught between um uh rock and a hard place here because uh they have to talk to report.
The administration cannot dissociate itself from the from the national media.
They've got to talk to NBC.
They gotta go on and meet the press.
They have to talk to the New York Times.
Uh the problem is, I think, uh 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 it is one of the things that 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.
Uh that town has many things.
Of course, it's National Capitol, it's the uh center power.
It's also uh 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, their 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 at turning them.
Uh but uh 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 uh 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 all books.
It's why a guy like Sandy Burglar 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 the things that happened prior to 9-11.
This administration is not ruthless in any way.
It doesn't punish or penalize people that uh attempt to undermine it.
Uh and it 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.
Uh and of course, when the Wilson story breaks and he writes his op-ed that's full of lies, uh the administration says, Well, we gotta we gotta 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 saying was the case, uh, which was a big thing, and that did come out in the trial.
Uh Wilson was trying to make it known to anybody, the vice president's office sent him into jail.
And they didn't.
When they 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 Valerie Plane worked there, and Valerie Plame recommended her husband to go, and then you've got the political connections that those two have, and they're, you know, whatever their political and ideological orientations are, and bamboo, you've you've got a you've got a uh a giant, you know, interagency game of sabotage going on here.
Uh 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.
Uh but be you you you when you 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 gonna tell you, I don't care whether that's in politics or just in 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 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 the whole the whole point of uh of talking to members of the administration or 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 then 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 uh the uh New York Times infobe and ended up in jail for not revealing her sources to Fitzgerald.
Uh jurors said, we really felt sorry for her.
The defense was just pounding.
It was on it was it was just they were just too hard on her.
Uh you don't hit the girl, is one characteristic or aspect of that.
But uh until until people learn that uh, you know, you you you you're not gonna 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 uh is also beyond me.
Now I know what you say.
Well, then what would you do?
Well, you have to talk to them.
I understand and a presidential administration has to talk to them.
You have to do press conferences and you have to do all this.
Uh I myself have had experience dealing with these people, as you know.
Uh and uh give you an example.
And I could give you many.
Uh 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 Colterker fuffle and use it all afternoon and all night last night.
Now I spoke for 14 minutes on the Ann Colterker fuffle.
And the five seconds they wanted to take was totally out of context and was uh uh irrelevant, but it fit their preconceived notion and prejudice about what the whole Ann Coulter thing was about.
Five seconds out of fourteen.
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 and explain yourself?
Well, I've learned that 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 I didn't didn't watch.
Uh I didn't get any email reactions.
Normally when I appear on a cable news network somewhere, somebody sends me an email, rush, rush, rush, I saw you and see M SBC 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, uh Jane Mayer, who uh with Jill Abramson, who's the Bureau Chief of the New York Times, Washington, I think, uh, wrote a book about Clarence Thomas and just smeared the guy.
And she was uh gonna do a story in the New Yorker about 24 and uh so forth.
And uh it was going to be uh basically uh a profile of Joel Cerno.
And I I was uh told that she wanted to talk to me about this because she knew that I was friend of Cernos.
So uh I I called some people who already talked to her and found out that basically it was a story on how the program uh 24 is promoting torture and it is gonna be a treatise on torture.
So I called her into those circuits, knowing what this was about.
And I talked to her for about 20 minutes, and the first 15 uh were purely social.
Uh 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 McGlacklin group, like that night I'd appeared on the show with her, and she remembered that.
And uh and I have a good memory.
I remembered 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, yeah, you're right, you're right about it.
She just congratulated me on all my success, how wonderful it all was, uh, blah, blah, talking about understanding your friends with Joel, understand he had a party at your house for him, and yeah, yeah.
Um she was uh 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, well, last five minutes of what she really wanted my thoughts on, and all this other stuff was, you know, just uh just set up.
Knowing full well that it was about torture, I I you know did my best, and I was honest, but I did my best to tell her, I think, you know, you're barking up a tree here that that's got no branches on it.
But that's just that the the story was written before it was published, is uh is the point.
So uh I 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 look at I got 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 they will report what you say.
It's it's not that way with us.
This it doesn't happen that 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 uh because it's it it's it's all temporary, even if it works for a while, it's all I get to either come back and the media is gonna end up stabbing you.
Ask Senator McCain.
Uh, you know, they're dumping on him after him being their favorite Republican for four years.
And is 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 have the administration talking to them and they have to talk to them.
But to think that there was a chance that the administrations, especially on this subject, the war in Iraq.
Uh there's just a different way to approach them.
You know, approach them, you know, they walk in the office or you meet them for lunch or whatever, and 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.
Uh and uh uh 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 gonna do and then have them do it.
It 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 gonna get a fair shake.
Uh, beyond me.
Anyway, I gotta take a quick break, uh, folks.
Stay with us, and we'll be right back.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I know.
I'm just looking to hear what I got.
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 gonna have to be deferred uh 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.
Uh just a couple things here before we go to the uh 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 uh the brown cowbird?
Or the plain old cowbird.
There's a there's a couple different varieties.
Uh people have one uh 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 those other birds and and and not of other cowbirds, uh uh sparrows and other it's a it's a little bird, but it lays its eggs in other birds' nests, other other species of birds, and and those other birds raise the cowbirds.
The cowbirds hatch and and the the uh the surrogate mothers together 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.
Uh they're the two research organizations that are doing this.
Our study shows that many of them returned and ransacked the nest when we remove 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 gonna come back and just totally ramshackle uh the uh the home of the 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.
There's uh they're not in danger, they're not threatened, they're not affected by global warming.
By the way, I'm I'm I'm gonna 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.
Uh 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.
We will be right back.
And here we are.
Trying to have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
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 scrubbed sporting officials in Washington State are considering 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.
Colbreci 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's sports columnist and ABC News consultant.
Everything she says ratcheted up these days.
At the Washington State Haskell 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.
All right, folks, what do you think of this?
Is this the softening of America?
Is this about self-esteem?
Is it about presenting uh preventing criticism of our precious young uh high school athletes?
Uh is it about bad behavior on the parts of uh parents, unsportsmen like me?
Is it 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 uh job.
Uh it it it what what it boils down to is hey, we're not gonna 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, your next sir on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, uh blood boiling ditto to you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, uh, I got a question about this Libby business.
I don't understand why it's not a crime for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson to do what they did.
Because I understand it, they're both CIA employees.
She was in a position to send her husband on a fact-finding trip to Niger 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. forest U.S. foreign policy.
They tried to undermine that.
Well, I don't understand why that's not a crime, Rush.
Well, uh I don't know that it's uh crime, but the the crime for a federal employee to undermine U.S. foreign policy.
I don't get that.
Well, I don't know.
I look at I don't know that that is a crime, and I I, you know, the 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 hire ups, higher-ups that uh signed off on it.
Um, is is lying in the New York Times a crime?
Uh it's not.
You you can lie the New York the press.
There's freedom of the press.
They can say 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.
I I some people think that gosh, the U.S. attorney, a special prosecutor.
I mean, the guy has to know that.
Maybe not.
There's no indication of 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 you would think in the uh in the special counsel's office would have uh exposed themselves to alternative theories uh and the Senate uh uh intelligence committee's report on Wilson's trip and would have found out that there's uh conflict here.
That Wilson may not have told the truth in that op-ed, which he didn't tell the truth.
But I mean if if 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 the people in Washington, liberals look at conservative media as it's from Mars.
It's not to be taken seriously.
It's it's it's and conservatives too.
They're the 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 gotta get serious with them.
Um but they it just it's and I don't know, I don't know what Fitzgerald's political orientation is.
Uh party ID, I have no clue.
Uh 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 uh if if anybody in that office knew of the second opinion of Joe Wilson, how it had no effect on them.
It's almost like they didn't know.
As I say, there's two alternative versions of truth here that just boggle the mind.
You're sitting out there, John, you're you you know what you know, and you're like, how can this guy ignore?
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 Plame are innocent angelic victims here.
And by the way, get ready.
Wilson's all over TV tonight.
He's gonna be on PMSNBC, he's gonna be on CNN, is gonna be on uh where's it gonna be?
It's gonna be a CNN twice.
It's gonna be a Larry King Alive, he's gonna be on uh 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 I just don't see the alternative media working.
Um we're not driving any agenda.
You know, I hear how, well, nobody can win on negative uh campaigning.
They sweep in, you know, here's here's Libby, he gets he gets convicted on bull, and uh, you know, William Jeffers or whoever that guy is with $90,000 cash.
You can't even get an investigation on the guy.
And 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 gotta tell you, it just I mean, I would love to hear some pep talk, but at the same time, I I'm just tired of being kicked, you know, and that's what it is.
I know, but this uh this one.
It's what I said earlier.
This the the 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.
Uh but don't don't be too down.
I've been trying to be honest with you.
This is we're talking Washington here.
Of course the new media didn't have any power in Washington.
Uh it and it never will.
Washington is a lib-run town.
The media and the social aspects and uh the bureaucracies there are run by liberal Democrats.
It it's it's just the case.
Republicans are interlopers and intruders.
Uh again, I hate to keep bringing up Reagan's names, what made him so special.
Uh is able to get all around it and and and contravene it, and in fact, uh nullify it and dominate it for two terms.
Well, the Iran-Contra thing came up, that was a bit of a problem, but uh 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, uh Bush's two wins uh in 2000 and 2004.
And I don't 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.
Uh but Rush, but Rush, there's all kinds of conservative media in one.
Yeah, I know.
And how often do you get frustrated when you read these people that they are they're they're they're caving or they're moderating their behavior to get along with the left?
They're saying things and liberals will like them and don't criticize them.
Uh conservatism's strength is with the people.
Uh as I said earlier, that look at this is just the way it is.
Conservatives, how many people do you know, conservatives in college who 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 the they want to dominate that.
Uh there's a I have 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 the funding for this, but the how it came about, but the I think the number's a hundred million dollars, I'm not sure.
They're gonna 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 AmericanTinker.com.
The purpose of the law school is to train liberal activist lawyers.
Lawyers that'll 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 uh 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.
Um it's it's they uh they they aspire to this thing, these things.
Well, why don't conservatives mount their own they have.
Uh but it it takes a while.
Liberals have been doing this for s for for for decades.
Uh but but these are things that liberals aspire to.
Uh conservatives aspire to different things.
Um a lot of conservatives do not aspire to be oriented in groups.
Uh they're individuals and so forth, and they have uh they have other aspirations.
What now, how how do we go out and and and change all that?
I don't know.
I I'm that 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 uh 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 sandbags 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 the hell with it uh because you're just you're just ceding things.
There's been a lot of progress taking place.
And mark my words.
All the the libs here are have have their they're poking the hibernating bear, and they're gonna wake the bear.
The bears get you're mad.
Oh, everybody to call me today is fit to be tight over this.
Uh this can do more to revive a hibernating conservative movement than than anything else could.
Plus the way the Deberals uh liberals and the Democrats own defeat uh with the U.S. military and so forth, so I mean don't cash in the chips.
Um it's way too soon to do that.
I mean, it's it's not it's not even I mean it's that's not even an option.
But I don't want to hear about that.
Yay, I had a gay community update today, and we're gonna we're gonna get Klaus Nomay out of the archives, but I just gotta defer all of this uh to tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen.
And plus whatever uh show prep results and uh 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.
Uh 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 uh you were local here.
The first day.
Uh that'll be July 4th, 1988.
That it is, yes, sir.
I uh called to say that one of the jurors had contact with someone from the outside during the trial.
Uh while they were, I think, while they were already uh uh whatever the word is.
That's the word deliberating.
And we're it's uh 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 j the juror shared the information with the other jurors.
I heard a juror exposed herself or himself.
It was a it was a her, right?
And it was a decorator of some kind of thing, or an art art person uh had seen some media, and uh the judge said you're gone, and the prosecution wanted the alternate on there, and the defense said no, we'll go with eleven.
And the judge said you're right, we'll go with eleven.
I didn't hear that the juror shared whatever she saw in the media with the other jurors.
Well, the report was that they that she had shared the information, and uh they had found out that she shared the information, but decided only to uh make that other juror, the juror that uh shared the information drop out, and uh they weren't gonna replace her.
And I think that is an automatic mistrial.
Well, but it it wasn't.
No, it wasn't.
Trials over, it's not an automation.
And I I don't know, the the defense is going to appeal this.
I don't know on what grounds.
It is they're gonna answer two things.
And if it's a retrial, they will not get a retrial.
That is practically make book on that.
An appeal is even well, it's likely it's it's not likely at all.
Uh uh the odds of getting an appeal here are very, very, very, very slim.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm just speaking statistically, not not uh uh related to the specifics of this case, but statistically, you know, getting an appellate court to look at the trial and say, yeah, and a judge screwed up here, and this was that doesn't happen much.
It does.
But not enough uh uh statistically to make book on it.
Uh one more one more here before we have to go, George and Columbia, South Carolina.
You're next on the EIB network.
Rush major dittoes from Columbia, South Carolina.
Thanks, sir.
Listen, I just want to talk about this uh boo banning out in Washington State that illustrates the point why it's scary that liberals are teaching our our children, the lead leaders of next year.
You know, I think e 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 you can't ban free speech.
Well, of course you can.
You can ban fire in a crowded theater.
You couldn't any number of uh but you see the government can't ban free.
Your 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 and they can tell students uh uh in the in the audience that they uh that they can't boo.
I mean, you watch them.
Uh they will uh they will do it.
The first amendment says government shall make no law.
Uh banning speech, religion, uh practice of religion, that sort of thing.
Uh we'll have more on this tomorrow, folks, but sadly uh the constraints of time and the uh programming format dictate a break.
Sadly, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence has come to an end.
Rush Linbo demonstrating my superior news anchor skills today, as I do daily.
We will continue them tomorrow.
Already Wednesday tomorrow, won't it be?
▲
Export Selection