All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
March 27, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hiya, folks, greetings to you.
Nice to have you.
We're back here on the EIB Network, L. Rushbow.
Bringing truth.
Truth starved millions.
All across the bountiful fruited plane.
We're here at 800-282-288-2, and the email address rush at EIB net.com.
Nice to see everybody seated at the beginning of the show for two days in a row.
I'll tell you more uh more sad news this morning.
Tony Snow's cancer is back.
Um it's uh been a rough uh four or five days here for the uh uh people in politics who have come down with cancer, John Elizabeth Edwards now Tony Snow, his uh cancer had colon cancer, had his colon removed, uh found another spot that they thought was clean and benign, went to the hospital yesterday, did some tests, and uh it's back.
It's uh tasted and it's uh moved to the liver now.
No word on the prognosis, but aggressive treatments are going to begin soon.
Uh I guess most likely chemotherapy.
So uh we uh sort of melancholy here over all this today.
The uh I'm sure the prayers and thoughts everybody who has heard the news uh go out to Tony and his family with this uh with this recurrence.
He's beaten it once, vows to beat it again the second time.
It's uh it's now moved to the uh to the liver, and there's no time frame here on uh on what his return to work uh will be.
Let's move on, uh ladies and gentlemen, that right off the top here.
Uh the headline here from Susan Page in USA Today, Edwards gains support as he remains in the race.
He indeed got a bump out of the uh announcement, the press conference he had last week with his wife.
Uh Americans by two to one support the decision of Senator Edwards stay in the race, even though his wife has been diagnosed with a recurrence of breast cancer, by the way, it's now moved to her hip uh as well as her ribs, or one of her ribs.
Uh USA Today Gallup poll finds that more than a third of the people surveyed believe that Edwards eventually will be forced to withdraw from the campaign because of her illness.
It was a phone poll, a thousand seven adults taken Friday through Sunday.
The uh questions about the Edwards were asked of half the sample, and there's a plus or minus uh five percent margin of error on this on the full poll.
It's a plus or minus full sample, it's a plus or minus margin of error of three percent.
Edwards got a boost uh in the race, Democratic contenders in the new poll.
He was the preferred candidate of 14 of the respondents who identified themselves as Democrats or Independents who lean to the Democrat Party.
It's up from nine percent in uh U.SA.
Today poll three weeks ago, so he got a bump of five percent.
He ranks fourth, though, still behind Mrs. Bill Clinton, who's at 35%, Barack Obama at 22%, and uh the former Vice President Al Gore is at 17%, even though he's not in the race.
And on the Republican side, it's also interesting.
Fred Thompson comes in third, even though he hasn't announced.
Uh McCain's plunge seems to have leveled off.
Looks like Thompson's numbers in the poll are uh coming from Giuliani, if it's to be if is to be believed.
Uh Democrat polster Mark Melman, who is not affiliated with any presidential candidates, said the bump that Edwards got is understandable.
In the crucible of crisis, people make judgments about a candidate's character.
There's a lot here in which people can make important judgments about Edwards.
Uh he said that by the same token, the poll reaffirms the fundamental fact that it is unlikely to decide the outcome of the nomination battle, meaning the uh press conference that uh Edwards and his wife had last week.
Now, I um you know I get people sending me these polls every every time they come out.
I get everybody and their uncle and their grandmother sending me these polls with their take on it, and I still I don't know what's I don't know what's with me, but I think polling numbers right now just I didn't I said this even last year in November after the election.
That polls taken this far out really can't mean anything, and the election's not for who knows how many months the primaries are still nine months away, the first primary is now the one thing that argues against my instinct on this is that uh both parties have moved their primary schedules way up.
Uh and so all these large states that used to go in May and June, like California, perhaps Florida, are going to go in January and February.
And there is this thing called Super Duper Tuesday, and it it is possible that both parties' nominees will have been chosen by a year from now.
Uh in March.
Now, New Hampshire and Iowa still important in that uh people that don't do well there have a uh bigger mountain to climb, and the people who do do well, I mean, remember Iowa's what killed Dean, given the expectations that he had.
He went in there and got zip uh after all this uh hullabaloo about his internet fundraising and and all this.
I mean, it that stuff still matters, and and the polling data now does matter in the sense that it can affect fundraising and a number of other things, which was interesting.
Yesterday, McCain announced that they're gonna come up short of their goals by the uh reporting date of March 31st.
Everybody has to report first quarter fundraising totals by March 31st to Federal Election Commission.
And uh, you know, you you you have to look at fundraising as one of the early primaries, not a poll, but you look at it as an early primary.
If McCain is uh not going to meet his goals, uh one part can say, well, he's running behind.
Now the goals may have been too high, too.
So these things are uh are all relative.
But the bottom line is I the only thing the polls tell me is that that something's unsettled.
I'm talking about on the Republican side.
And maybe even the Democrats said.
Dick Morris.
You know, now I I like Dick Morris, and I I um, you know, sometimes uh his stuff makes a whole lot of sense, and other times I can't figure it out.
And he's got a piece out today.
The political A-team falters.
It's it's uh I mean, if you believe this, and if you're the Hillary camp, this is scary.
Uh because he says that her camp and Hilly, they're blowing it left over.
She just set a fundraiser, she just fundraising record on Beverly Hills, she just dwarfed the amount of money that Obama raised when he went out there.
I think he got 1.3 and she got 2.6 million uh in a fundraiser at Beverly Hills at Ron Burkle's place.
Uh so here and after that successful fundraising trip, here comes this piece.
Well, I'll give you the details of it as the program unfolds today about the uh how her A-team is just the Clinton Inc.
essentially is uh is is screwing up.
Uh I don't know that I see that.
Uh but but Morris does, and I'll tell you why.
As I share the details of the program unfolds today, right before your uh very eyes and ears.
I I just I here's here's let me finish the thought about uh you know what argues against my my uh uh instincts that this polling stuff right now is irrelevant.
It's not totally irrelevant, because it does mean something.
When you can have a guy like Fred Thompson who hasn't even announced, move into third place, and when you can have Gore who hasn't even announced move into third place on the Democrat side, it has to tell you something.
And on the Republican side, what it tells me is that there's just not a whole lot of oomph out there for anybody.
If somebody can come along unannounced, just maybe float the possibility, and everybody going, yeah, yeah, yeah, rah-ruh, Fred Dalton Thompson, yeah, yeah.
It it tells me that um not a whole lot of a lot of people are like me.
They're not really fired up about anybody particularly yet.
Uh all three of these candidates have their big time supporters, and they're all out there fundraising, and they do have supporters, but in terms of, you know, movement-wide or party-wide, uh, there doesn't seem to be anybody around whom the whole Republican caucus, meaning the conservative voters in this country are are rallying around right now, which is you know, something in in and of it.
So, like I said yesterday, sort of like the buffet at Denny's.
They have a buffet at Denny's.
They don't have a buffet at Denny.
Well, imagine they did.
Imagine I had a buffet at Denny's, and everything on a menu was uh was in the buffet.
I mean, you like some of it, but you don't want all of it.
Um there's something for everybody there, but the uh total package isn't.
And so that's what the uh what the polling tells me.
I also got some email today from people who are uh just fit to be tied over what they've heard about the Republicans in the Senate who are gonna go ahead and try to pass the House, get out of a rock bill as soon as they can.
And a lot of people What do you mean the Republicans selling out?
You mean they're gonna go along with this pork?
That's why they lost in November.
And I tell you what, I'm never voting Republican.
You people got to calm down out there.
This is a brilliant tactical move here to move the House bill through the Senate quickly as possible, get to conference and get to the White House so it can get vetoed.
The problem here is that the money for the Iraq war, the supplemental money that's needed will be needed by um I think April the 15th is when it starts.
May 15th is really the crucial date, starts on April 15th.
They don't have time to start debating this bill in the Senate and try to take out all the pork any earmarks and all the uh You know that bill, by the way, I did I've I uh been looking at it a little bit.
It's the largest tax increase in uh in in in American history in in parts of this bill.
There's this stuff in this bill that goes beyond just subsidizing a spinach farmer uh and uh and other things.
It's it's they've just they've thrown all kinds of garbage in this thing.
But there isn't time to try to strip all that out uh before you get a Senate vote on their version and go to conference.
So the whole idea here is to pass this thing as quickly as possible as it just get it out of the Senate, get it to conference, get everybody agreeing on it as quickly as possible, send it up to the White House for the promised veto.
Uh and then that just relegate this thing to the ash heap.
All right, that sort of sets a table, but there's lots more out there.
Audio soundbites galore.
Trent Lott destroyed Diane Feinstein on this attorney general thing someday on Fox News Sunday.
We'll have the audio sound bites of that coming up.
Uh and there are more fallout on this attorney general thing.
Uh one of the Justice Department aides has taken the Fifth Amendment or says she will take the Fifth Amendment, not going to testify uh because of the partisan atmosphere in the Senate.
All that much more straight ahead here on the EIB network.
The views expressed by the host on this show make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying, because the views expressed by the hosts on this program are rooted in a daily and relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the uh of the truth.
You remember way, way back, I don't know how this had to be in the early 90s, late 80s, maybe, early 90s, on April Fool's Day, on April 1st, I did an entire monologue on the necessity of uh increasing taxes on the poor.
That the poor were not paying their fair share.
And that it was unfair.
And I went through this whole mess.
And of course, I uh it did.
That was one of the things, early things that that marked me as one of America's truly great thinkers, uh and bold thinkers, because not only did I think it, I had the courage to actually suggest it.
Well, it has taken a while.
Here is an example of what I always say about this program being on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
CBS and the Associated Press are reporting that New Jersey is among 19 states that now tax families living in poverty.
According to a new report released today, the center unbudget and policy priorities found that two parent families of four who earn less than the federal poverty line, which is twenty thousand six hundred and fifteen dollars a year, must pay income taxes in nineteen of the forty-two states that levy that tax.
Families with very limited means are still taxed too much by the states.
New Jersey does not require residents who earn less than twenty grand a year to pay income taxes, but the center found that poor families in New Jersey who make between twenty thousand and twenty thousand six hundred and fifteen dollars owed two hundred nineteen dollars.
So if you earn less than twenty grand in New Jersey, you get off without paying any income tax.
However, between twenty thousand and twenty thousand six fifteen, which is the poverty level, then uh you will owe two hundred and nineteen dollars in federal income tax.
By eliminating state income taxes on working families with incomes at or below the poverty line, states can offset some of the child care and transportation costs that families incur as they strive to become economically self-sufficient.
Uh this, according to somebody named Levits, where does this I highlighted this paragraph and I didn't highlight the name in a previous paragraph.
Well, anyway, uh in other words, by eliminating income taxes on poor working families, states can help make work pay.
Uh So uh well, that that may well be, but uh and I don't have a list of the other states here.
Um let's see.
I don't.
This story only because it's you know, it's it's CBS and AP, which uh the only thing counts to them is the East Coast.
Uh but you know, any state, uh, folks, uh, as in North Carolina, uh Florida, we have California, they all have these things.
Legalized gambling, lotteries.
Uh all of that taxes the poor.
Who would who are these people kidding?
All those things are direct taxes on the poor.
Um but the there is a there's a premise out there, and of course, this is this is right out of the left that uh just because you're poor, you are exempted from contributing your fair share.
And of course, if you're wealthy, you are obligated to pay more than your fair share.
That's what the whole percentage uh racket is is all about.
So uh New Jersey, uh with the guts to go out there and tax its own poor people, as I suggested on April 1st, way way back in the early 90s.
Now, here's this Dick Morris piece.
Uh and it's it's it's at Fox News, and it was it was published way back on the 22nd, and I just now uh have been made aware of it.
So it's it is clear this piece was published prior to Hillary, I'm sorry, Mrs. Bill Clinton's big fundraising uh uh uh sweep out in Beverly Hills over the Cal over the weekend in California.
They were supposed to be the A-team in American politics, the Clinton machine that inspired fear and admiration throughout the political world.
It had guided Mrs. Bill Clinton through two successful Senate races in a state where she had never lived, helped her recover from scandals that nearly crippled her, the pardons, the White House gifts, the Peter Paul fundraiser, they seemed invincible.
But ever since the presidential campaign started, the Clinton operation has looked amateurish, flat-footed, defensive, and tactically clumsy.
They don't seem to be at all ready for the big time.
Obama has repeatedly outmaneuvered Hillary's campaign.
Well, the stories today are just the opposite.
Stories today are that Obama's making rookie mistakes, and one, he did make a rookie mistake, and then they're not really holding him to this, but he went out there and started really ripping to shit.
It was some some campaign appearance somewhere, went out and started ripping to shreds a Senate bill he'd voted for.
Either forgot he voted for it, or he didn't think anybody would look that he had voted for it, or whatever.
I don't even remember what the bill was, but it's it's these kind of mistakes.
And now they're starting to ask questions in the stat well, here it is.
Is Obama all style and little substance?
This is our old pal Nedra Pickler in the AP.
The voices are growing louder asking the question is Barack Obama all style and little substance.
You know, the question could be asked of Mrs. Bill Clinton.
I have been asking this.
By the way, I have a revision, ladies and gentlemen.
Uh not a subs not a substitution, but a revision, and in addition to my own announced theory as to why Hillary is the presumptive Democrat nominee.
You know, I've to to to give you the short version, I have suggested that she's just entitled.
She's owed this because of the life she sacrificed, her own life, which could have been far greater than it is now, if she had just stuck to her feminist ideals and gone out there and pursued her own interest, rather get hooked up with this hayseed from Arkansas and try to take over wherever he got up.
Uh but I think there's a there's a there's a new way to look at at Hillary's uh candidacy as well.
And Bob Tyrell makes this point.
He's got his book out called a Clinton Crack Up.
And uh Tyrrell's perspective is that he's the editor, the owner, the publisher, the grand poo-baugh of uh of the American Spectator.
And his theory is that Hillary Clinton represents the last gasp of the 60s radicals to have their vision of the future back in the 60s in the White House.
And that's why this election is crucial.
And and then in the 60s, of course, and I'm one of these people, where I grew up in the 60s, but not all people in the 60s, not all the baby boomers' 60s people were uh anti-war leftists and communists and people that hated America.
There are plenty of them that were Reaganites, like me.
And uh and and Tyrell's theory is that this election in 2008, the presidential race is the last election of this generation of people where the left's candidate.
Well, his point is if you take Hillary out of the race, who else in that crowd uh represents the 60s idealism that fostered all the anti-war rallies and all of the anti-America stuff.
Uh if if she loses, that that's it for that crowd in terms of the presidential race.
Not that they're going to be out of power in Washington, because these people are entrenched in the uh in the bureaucracies.
Uh and and for that reason, uh Tyrell says, in addition to my own well-developed and uh unassailable theory, uh, in addition to mine, uh Tyrell's theory is that uh the the Hillary represents the sixties radicals, and she's it.
And so this is a a uh a seminal election where this generation's finally grown up and reached his last gasp effort to uh to shape the country in its own image from the sixties.
Anyway, interesting theory.
Back here in just a moment.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Learn it, love it, live it.
That, by the way, would be living legend.
A limboy Institute opened, the largest free education institution known to exist in the free or oppressed worlds.
No graduates, no degrees, the learning never stops.
Here are the other 18 states in which people below poverty level face more than 200 in state income taxes.
In addition to New Jersey, Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, and West Virginia, and four of them, Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, and West Virginia, they owe more than 400 in state income tax, people below the poverty line.
Uh the story here about Obama, this is a uh Mike Allen story at the politico.com.
Rookie mistakes plague Obama.
Speaking early this month at a church in Selma, Alabama, Senator Obama said, I'm in Washington, I see what's going on, I see those powers and principalities of snuck back in there, and they're writing the energy bills and the drug laws.
It was a fine riff, calculated to appeal to Democrat audiences as Obama seeks a nomination.
But not only did Obama vote for the Senate's big energy bill in 2005, he also put out a press release bragging about its provisions.
And his Senate website carries a news article about the vote headlined Senate Energy Bill contains goodies for Illinois.
The press release said he voted for the bill reluctantly because he wanted something bolder, and his staff says there was nothing inconsistent about the comment in uh in Selma.
So that's that's where he uh generated the headline rookie mistakes plague Obama.
Now, this Ned Rapickler story is is is much the same thing.
Is Obama all-style and little substance?
And I'll tell you that the Dick Morris writing that Clinton Inc.
is, you know, wandered off the reservation.
I think both these stories are Clinton Inc.
Clinton Inc.
inspired.
Uh Nedra Pickler today is Obama all style and little substance.
Uh former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the only other candidate to serve less time in elective office in Obama, described in detail his health care plan to provide insurance for all Americans.
Mrs. Bill Clinton doesn't have a written plan yet, but no one questions her expertise since she was the chief proponent of the issue during her husband's presidency.
We'll see, no one questions her expertise.
Why the hell not?
Why does Obama have his expertise?
I'm talking about a Democrat side now with the drive-by media.
Why is it that Obama gets his expertise questioned and Hillary doesn't, even though Hillary has no plan.
Again, no plan, but nobody questions her expertise.
Her expertise ought to be questioned because the plan she proposed was totally exposed, and it went down to a screaming defeat and was a seminal factor in the Democrats losing the House of Representatives in 1994.
She had no experience in working with bureaucracies and committees and so forth in order to get something like this done.
She went up there as, you know, the Lady Gediva was just going to get it all done and the power of her personality and the fact that uh that uh that she was co-president.
And what by the way, she has said essentially what she's gonna do is revive her own plan.
Maybe update it for a few things.
Uh, but if she's elected, she's gonna implement, which already failed miserably.
But this is these two stories are classic illustrations of how Hillary gets a pass on the same things that other candidates are being criticized for.
Ned Rapickler writes, if Obama were running in a different time, he might get more of a break for lacking specifics.
What's that got to do with it?
He doesn't offer specifics.
A lot of people think that he is, by the way, but he doesn't offer specifics.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't offer.
If you you, if there's somebody not offering specifics about anything on anything, it's Mrs. Bill Clinton.
But she has the presumed expertise, of course, you see.
I think it's it's one of the reasons that the his theory holds.
I mean, the drive-by is largely comprised of the same generational types, these 60s types that the Clintons uh come from, and they are they're one and the same.
Clinton is these people.
Mrs. Clinton is these people.
Uh people often ask, why does Hollywood like the Clinton so much?
Particularly Bill.
He's one of them, folks.
He's one of those guys.
I mean, Bill Clinton and Monica and Kathleen William, all that why, that's a license for all the guys in Hollywood to keep doing what they're doing.
If the guy top is doing it, why God, that couldn't be better for them.
He's exactly like one of those guys.
It's not so much ideology, although that's a factor that you can't you can't ignore it, but it's it's more cultural and behavior thing.
That's why he's such a hero.
People ask me all the time, well, how come Hollywood people like a guy that says it sounds like a hayseed hick and some southern guy that he's got this accent like that?
Because Hollywood hates old people.
I think they're all Christians.
And all right-wing Christians and want everybody to burn to hell.
But how come Bill Clinton looked because no way you could identify Clinton with one of these fundamentalist Christians?
In terms of uh how is it caricature, uh behavior and so forth.
That's a it's Clinton gives these guys a license to steal.
I mean, just the fact that he's dating while he's married will be enough to seal a deal for him.
In fact, they're probably they're jealous of him.
Actually, jealousy, he's one of those guys.
That's it's no, it's really no more complicated uh than that.
Michael in St. James, Missouri, not far from St. Louis will start with you today on the EIB network.
Hello.
Mega diddles, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, this campaign or this bill, this uh uh funding bill for the war, this oh, this pork barrel.
It sounds just exactly like what's gonna happen with the campaign finance reform bill of a few years back, where Bush was counted on to veto it, and he did not.
I don't like that at all.
Well, I understand your sentiments on this fool me once.
Yeah, fool me twice, that old saying.
But the president went out there last Friday, uh, Michael, and he laid it on the line.
He said this bill has no chance of becoming law.
He pointed out that the vic they got that victory margin in the House was by one vote.
218 is the minimum you can get for victory.
And he went out and he said there's no chance this bill is gonna become law.
He pointed out they don't have a veto-proof majority in any of the two houses, the House or the Senate, and he he was pretty much inviting a veto.
He was not nearly that forceful on campaign finance reform.
In the campaign, he led everybody to believe that he was against it.
But as president, he never invited the bill so he could uh he could veto it.
Now we've had Schnerdley tells you had a lot of calls echoing the same sentiments, Michael, that you have uh that you've raised here.
But I I don't I in this case, I would be stunned if we had a repeat of campaign finance room.
I don't think that's that's in the cards.
This this is Bush's issue.
This this is his defining issue.
This is what he's built legacy and his protection of the country on.
And he's not, he's he's not gonna allow this thing that sets a date to get the troops home in March of 2008.
Uh simply not gonna do it.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't be afraid of it this time.
That the reason, the reason for this, folks, is that the money is needed to keep the surge going and a number of other things going.
And that's I I think not only should the Senate get this thing passed as quickly as they can to get it up there for a veto.
I think when the president vetoes this, he ought to do it on a nationwide nighttime appearance.
From the Oval Office.
See, this is the point.
He needs to do it with the whole country watching, and he needs to go out there and explain it and teach it and tell everybody exactly what was in this bill, not just the withdrawal date of March 8th, not just the 24 billion dollars of pork in there for spinach and other people, but the tax increases.
I mean, there there are there are things in this bill, folks, that that nobody knew until they started looking at it.
Uh well, there's a hundred million dollars in this bill to spend on the two party conventions.
In the Iraq withdrawal.
What are you laughing at in there?
What in the hell is funny about this?
Hundred a hundred million dollars to to fund the two party conventions this summer.
Uh in addition to everything else, has got a great opportunity here when the veto arrives to do a great uh educational seminar, prime time.
Probably won't do it prime time.
I wish he would, but uh whenever it's going to be a great opportunity to uh tell the American people what is in this.
And then, you know, I I would go even further.
If I were the White House, I'd stage my own little production, and I'd get all these pictures of smiling Nancy Pelosi after they passed this bill.
She was happy just because they got the bill passed.
I mean, she's she just finally got something done in a disarray and out of out of array, Congress, uh Democrat caucus in the House of Representatives.
But um, as he's going through the list of all the things this bill would do, secure defeat in March of 2008, raise taxes, paid 100 million dollars to two party conventions, 25 million dollars to a spinach farmer in California, just have Pelosi's smiling face up at the same time.
If I had my TV show, that's what I would do.
The White House can go that far.
By the way, speaking of uh all of this, one of the most unusual proposals to emerge in the Senate debate on Iraq withdrawal, Senator Mark Pryor, wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret.
The Arkansas Democrat is a key holdout on his party's proposal to approve 122 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while setting a goal of March 31st of 2008 to get out of there.
Unlike the plan's Republican opponents, Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind.
He just doesn't want anyone outside the White House, Congress, and the Iraqi government to know what it is.
My strong preference would be to have a classified plan, a classified timetable, it should be shared with Congress.
Public deadline would dip off the enemy, might just bide their time and wait for us to leave.
Then you'd have chaos and mayhem and instability.
Mark, Senator Pryor.
How long do you think it would take for this date to leak?
What this is absurd.
A senator has actually suggested a piece of legislation that has a secret withdrawal date that only the White House and the House and the Senate know about, uh, which would bring about his his genuine fear.
Because the date would leak out.
I mean, uh you couldn't you couldn't keep members of Congress know it, and it's going to stay a secret.
Fat chance.
Be right back.
All right, let's go to the audio sunbites and setting up the latest here on the attorney general scandal controversy over the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys.
By the way, I told you people last week, keep a sharp eye on the name Paul McNulty, one of the ranking aides in the Department of Justice.
And I got a I can't tell you, I got a lot of email from people who go to his church uh his neighbor.
I can't believe that you would defame the name of Paul McNully.
He's a genuine conservative and Republican.
I can't believe what I'm hearing on your program.
I know you better be careful.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well, I, you know, it is what it is, uh, gave you people a heads up, and the news here today is uh uh it's it's it's pretty indicative.
At uh at any rate, let's go to the audio sound bites from Sunday, Fox News Sunday.
Trent Lott uh sharing the stage with California Senator Diane Feinstein.
Chris Wallace said, Senator Lott, since the president is willing to allow his age to talk to Congress, how do you defend or do you defend his insistence they testify in private, not under oath, no transcript being made.
Are the Democrats in the Senate interested in information or confrontation?
In my mind, I think if the President would agree for his uh uh close advisors in the White House to testify before Congress under oath, he'd be making a huge mistake.
Uh there is a thing called executive privilege.
The President should pay attention to the precedents they set for their successors.
Going back to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton.
I mean, uh you you have a right uh to have executive privilege there.
Frankly, uh, if you just don't think the uh you know your attorney is particularly to your liking, you ought to be able to remove them.
Well, that didn't sit too well.
Wallace said, Senator Feinstein, doesn't it say something that uh here you are?
You've been looking at this for weeks, you've got three thousand documents, and there's still no there in this story.
The they're there is why were they dismissed?
And uh, you know, every day something new comes out.
The attorney general in Michigan, Margaret Chiara, U.S. attorney.
Excuse me.
The U.S. attorney in Michigan has held a press conference and said she was dismissed, clearly for political reasons.
But that's all right.
That's fine.
How were they selected in the first place?
And I have found that U.S. attorneys forget quite often how they got where they are.
They you know, they all of a sudden they think, hey, I must be a federal judge.
I'm here in perpetuity.
I'll do what I please, and dare anybody to tell them, hey, you gotta prosecute more and more aggressively, running around trying to indict some uh lady that got a grant improperly instead of a billion-dollar contractor.
Uh, you you know, you have questions.
You know, this is a good point.
Uh Lott says, my goodness, horror of horrors, fired for political reasons.
How were they selected in the first place?
These are not judges that get lifetime appointments.
They are employees.
They serve at the pleasure of the president.
They are hired on the basis of politics.
Come on, folks, what do you think Clinton was up to when he and Hillary canned 93 U.S. attorneys in the first three months of their administration?
Politics wasn't behind, and you think they pick some of their own political people?
Which is the prerogative when you win elections.
It's okay.
You pay the price when you lose elections.
You get people that are not to your liking in offices and positions of power.
But then the Democrats, this is just a continuing effort here to politicise Republican policy, or to criminalize it, I should say, and to make it look like it's scandal.
The Democrats make a history out of doing this.
This the Democrats' existence is 100% political.
Bush hadn't replaced enough of these people as far as I'm concerned.
Bush didn't act soon enough in getting rid of some of the institutionalized Clinton's that are left over, and not only injustice, but at the Department of Defense over there at the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA.
It gives us all part of the new tone Bush was trying to say.
You know, I'll I'll put politics second.
I'll put getting along for look when it got him.
Zip zero diddly squat.
Chris Wallace says, Senator Feinstein, what what's your response here to what uh Senator Law just said?
Six out of the eight of them are involved in public corruption cases.
Most of those cases against Republicans.
They were removed while the investigation or the prosecution was ongoing.
Or they were removed.
You wrote a letter about uh her.
Yeah.
I mean, uh I don't see where they there's a law, a large number of them involved in uh, you know, uh corruption cases.
I think they were involved whether they were uh taking action on death penalty cases, immigration cases.
And in this case, they weren't taking action on those things.
Uh and those things are uh uh important initiatives in uh the administration, and they were lagging far behind.
And this is all such smoke and mirrors anyway, because you know, Clinton, one of his 90s two of his 93 U.S. attorneys, a guy in Little Rock that was replaced by Paula Casey and J. Stevens Chicago, they were involved in uh in in corruption cases and aimed at Clinton.
And nobody said a word, and now Mrs. Bill Clinton's out there running, well, our firings were entirely justified, and we had a right to do it, and here's how our firings differ from these eight.
And of course, the slaveys drive by us with their tongues hanging out.
Oh, we love you, Hillary Myth of Clinton.
Give us them cover so we can continue to ask Bush.
It's just it's all smoke and mirrors, and it's it's all made up.
By the way, as I keep reminding people, uh U.S. attorney in San Diego pulled off a corruption case, tell it's Duke Cunningham.
Do Duke Cunningham's jail.
He's serving uh guns on numbers of years, lost his assets and so forth.
Nothing happened here.
They're just trying to criminalize all these policy Differences, uh, which is not unusual.
This is what Democrats they can't win, uh, folks, uh, on a long-term basis to the ballot box, and they're trying to set themselves up uh to be institutionally unaffected by elections by having their own people, as many people as possible, in career positions that are that survive regardless who wins elections.
We'll be right back.
Good news out there, boys.
A judge in the UK just ruled that women who are drunk can consent to sex.
Details are coming up.
▲
Export Selection