All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 12, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:37
February 12, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, no, no.
I'm sitting here reading this Obama interview and I am in stunned disbelief.
Nobody can be this ignorant.
Scary ignorant.
From high atop the EIB building in midtown Manhattan, one of the most frequently visited tourist attractions in all of Manhattan, I am Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
Great to have you with us.
Here's the phone number, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is lrushbow at eibnet.com.
Let's just give you, it's a Q ⁇ A with Barack Obama December 20th in the Boston Globe.
Charlie Savage wrote the story.
Try this one.
This is number five.
Does the Constitution permit a president to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
Obama's answer, no.
I reject the Bush administration's claim that the president has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
Memo to Obama.
It is not the Bush administration's position.
The Supreme Court held in 2004, this is the famous case, U.S. versus Hamdi, or Hamdi.
The president has the power to detain American citizens without charges as enemy combatants.
Now, I just have to think here, I don't know what to think.
He's either ignorant or he's saying something far, far more dangerous.
If he is saying that he's not bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, liberals would have a stroke if Bush claimed the kind of authority that Obama is claiming in this and ignorance.
I mean, these liberals are out there going bonkers every day over how stupid Bush is.
This Obama interview is just, it's scary.
Let's see.
Let's find another one here.
Oh, there's one in here.
I can't find it right.
It's about treaties.
He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them.
And he says the president doesn't have the authority to abolish treaties.
And the president does.
Bush abolished the ABM treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it's irrelevant.
The Soviets are gone.
I'm getting rid of this.
The liberals went nuts.
But they couldn't stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties.
And Obama says here, no, the president does not have the authority to undermine the sense of Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties.
Senate doesn't ratify.
They consent to them.
President proposes, makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them.
When's the last time you saw Gorbachev meeting with some senator at Reykjavik or anywhere else?
Gorbachev met with Reagan for crying out.
This is just, you know, this interview sets McCain up.
In fact, my buddy, Andy McCarthy.
Where is this?
Where is this?
There's a sitting duck out there.
Here it is.
There's a sitting duck for McCain if he wants to exploit this.
Andy McCarthy posted an article, National Review Online today, Discussing the announcement that military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five others who are complicit in the 9-11 attacks.
This is 9-11.6.
And the article raises the key issue of what kind of enforcement paradigm we're going to have.
Do we go back to the September 10th approach of treating foreign jihadists as if they were ordinary criminal defendants entitled to all the rights and privileges of the civilian justice system?
Or should we treat the enemy as a war criminal in a conflict in which it's vital that we protect the intelligence we depend on to save American lives?
In other words, are we going to go back to the Jamie Gorellik Clinton days where we're going to treat these enemy combatants as just civilians in court and we're going to hear testimony and we're going to divulge intelligence secrets of what it took to nail them?
Or are we going to treat them as enemy combatants, military tribunals, and this kind of thing?
As McCarthy wrote today, it's a real opportunity for Senator McCain to separate himself from Obama and Clinton.
We still have the military commission option because Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006, and McCain voted for that.
Obama and Clinton voted against it.
Now, the next commander-in-chief will surely have an opportunity to end military commissions and order that the terrorists held at Gitmo, including the 9-11.6, be transferred to the civilian justice system.
What do our three plausible candidates think should be done with Khalid Sheikh Mohamed?
This is a gift, and McCain should grab it, but he probably won't because he wants to shut down Gitmo.
He believes Gitmo is bad.
He believes that torture happens in Gitmo.
But this, McCarthy's right.
This is a golden opportunity for McCain to put into play and demonstrate his vast experience in national security and protecting the country because Obama and Clinton both want the 9-11.6 and future terrorists like this to be brought home here, put in the civilian justice system, and tried the same as we would try a bank robber in time of war.
Now, McCain gave an interview to Der Spiegel, a German magazine.
And here's the, this is more from Andy McCarthy, who filled me in on this.
Here is what McCain had to say about the Club Gitmo enemy combatants.
Here's the question from Der Spiegel.
America has lost a lot of friends because President Bush angered, indeed, outraged them.
He allowed human rights to be violated at Guantanamo Bay.
He dismissed the joint effort to combat global warming under President McCain.
Could we expect a change of course?
McCain's answer, yes.
I would announce that we're not ever going to torture anybody held in American custody.
I would announce that we're closing Guantanamo Bay and moving those prisoners to Fort Elevenworth, Kansas.
I would announce a commitment to addressing climate change and my dedication to a global agreement, but it has to include India and China.
Now, folks, if you're wondering why so many of us on this side of the aisle are disappointed, it's because this answer is depressing.
It is, I don't know, it's just disappointing.
We haven't violated human rights at Club Gitmo.
We have not violated human rights.
Senator McCain accepts the premise.
Not only, by the way, accepts the premise.
He takes the opportunity to grandstand on torture.
He intimates that President Bush has presided over a torture regime.
This answer is somewhat akin to Jack Kemp's answer in a debate with Al Gore back in 1996.
Kemp was Bob Dole's vice presidential running mate.
And Al Gore says, by the way, Jack, I just want to point out you're good on civil rights.
You know, you're not a racist, or I'm paraphrasing, like the rest of your party.
And Jack said, thank you.
We're sitting there watching the television going, what the hell was that?
McCain's basically done the same thing here.
Der Spiegel says, the world hates your country and the world hates your president, President Bush.
And torture and human rights violations and global warming.
Cain says, absolutely right.
And I'm not going to do any of that that Bush has done that people hate us for.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
A lot of people out there, ladies and gentlemen, playing in their minds, ding dong, the wicked witch, wicked, witch is dead.
Speaking of Hillary, too soon, ladies and gentlemen, because until we see those legs protruding from underneath the house, you cannot say that Hillary is dead.
But I'll tell you, there are a couple of stories on Mrs. Clinton today.
I mean, I just bashed Obama.
So it's only fair here that we engage into some criticism of Mrs. Clinton.
By the way, speaking of Obama, there's another fascinating story today, American spectator about Obama, when his teleprompter breaks down or when he doesn't have a teleprompter, all this flowery, vapid speech filled with hope, it vanishes.
And he reverts into the typical liberal, angry, full of rage, ripping Bush, ripping Rove, ripping ExxonMobil.
Every standard Democrat talking point, he just starts railing with this soft spot when he doesn't have the prompter.
He's a different guy.
Dean Barnett has the story.
These two stories about Hillary.
Not ready to release tax returns.
No possibility of future bill scandals.
Now, she said nobody, well, we've got the bite.
We're going to play the bite.
She says, nobody can predict the future.
She was asked about future scandals involving your husband.
Well, nobody can predict the future, but I don't think there's any possibility of futures.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Let's see.
What did I tell you?
12 and 13 or, yeah.
Covered up number 12.
Here we go.
Question.
WJLA, Washington, last night.
Anchor Leon Harris interviewing Hillary.
He says, this one comes from political reader Robert Cantor of Santa Monica, California, who writes, how could we be sure that some new business or personal scandal involving Bill Clinton won't erupt, which the Republicans will use to blow your agenda and your administration right out of the water?
Well, you know, I just can assure this reader that that is not going to happen.
You know, none of us can predict the future, no matter who we are and what we're running for.
But I'm very confident that that will not happen.
And how, ladies and gentlemen, is she confident when their whole lives is a scandal?
It's one scandal after another.
Doesn't matter.
Norman Hsu, dishwashers in Chinatown, the Lippo group.
But she's sure it isn't going to happen.
Now, what would make her say that?
What in the world, I ask you, and you know, better yet, it might be better to ask those of you women out there who are wives.
Imagine not that you're running for president, but that there's in your marriage, there's a history of your husband doing things in public that are not good, not wise, scandalous.
It gets out.
You're up for a promotion at your office, and your boss says to you, I don't think we can handle another one of these scandals involving your husband.
Don't worry.
I've got that handled.
I want to know, you wives, how you would have it handled.
I am at a loss to explain this.
This goes beyond a testicle lockbox.
You know, I'm not going to presume that I understand how this could be enforced.
I really, if you can, snurdly, if you can find some women who want to answer this, and I'm serious.
I'm not making a joke about this.
We're not trying to have fun.
This is one of these situations, circumstances I actually need to learn.
All of us men could learn from this answer and how this answer gets enforced.
Next, Leon Harris.
Wait a minute.
John Harris, I'm sorry, from Politico says, Senator Clinton, you were offended by comments that were made on DNC-TV.
And in the wake of that, I heard from some of the people on your staff who say, to their surprise, they actually think that Fox News is giving you a better break than DNC-TV.
What's your perception?
Well, there was some independent study that my staff sent me.
We didn't do it, but it was some independent study which seemed to suggest that, that in terms of, you know, the fairness of the coverage, you know, look, I'm a mom first.
I'm a candidate second.
And, you know, I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear.
This is like the third time they've had to apologize, and there are a lot of things that they haven't had to apologize for that might have merited one.
So I wish they would take a look at, you know, some of the pattern of demeaning comments that are made on their network.
I will say what I said yesterday.
Has Mr. Clinton, has your husband, apologized to Monica Lewinsky for real abuse of a woman?
Has he apologized to Kathleen Willie?
Has he apologized to, come on, Mrs. Clinton, this is a big stretch.
This is a big, you're a mom first and a candidate second.
By the way, Chelsea, you know, she's old enough to run for Congress out there.
She's 28 years old, and she's speaking now.
She's calling up these superdelegates.
Let's just stay in order here on the audio sound bites.
This is in Milwaukee at a Hillary campaign rally with Chelsea.
Unidentified guy says, what makes Senator Clinton's health care plan the best plan?
I'm proud that she stood up for health care before it was fashionable.
And I'm proud that what she's proposing now reflects the lessons that she's learned.
But if you have health care and you're not happy with it, like me, who has employer-provided health care, but I'm not happy with it.
And if you are one of the 100 million who are uninsured at some point throughout the year, because we talk a lot about the 47 million who are chronically uninsured.
Chronically uninsured.
There are more than twice that number who at some point don't have health insurance throughout a year.
You'll be able to buy into the Congressional Health Plan.
She's got health cover.
She's not happy with it.
She works at a hedge fund or something.
It's a hedge fund, right?
She's some Wall Street entity.
And she admits here that she's got health care, but she's not happy with it.
So now we're up to 100 million who are uninsured at some point throughout the year, and now 47 million chronically uninsured.
That's like a disease.
We got the acute uninsured.
We got the chronic uninsured.
Chelsea now speaks.
This is also quite telling.
Have you noticed Clinton's nowhere around?
I mean, he might have surfaced yesterday, but Clinton hasn't.
You haven't been able to find him.
All of a sudden, Chelsea's now speaking, and Hillary's out there saying she's a mom first.
Here's another portion of Chelsea's remarks saying that her mother is more fiscally conservative than her father and Bush.
Well, I don't think that you should vote for my mom because of my father.
I don't think you should vote against her because of my father.
But how would she be different on so many fronts?
I mean, we're talking about fiscal responsibility.
I mean, my mother is more fiscally conservative than my father and certainly this president.
And on health care, I think that she learned a lot through trying to achieve health care at the first time that really has enabled her to articulate a plan that will be politically viable while covering everyone.
By the way, you know, I slipped up here, folks.
Mrs. Clinton, I want to apologize.
I commented on what your daughter said, and I know she is off limits.
I'm sorry.
Well, I mean, everybody apologizes when they say something about Chelsea.
And we played Chelsea's comment there, and I sort of lampooned her characterization of the chronically uninsured and the fact that she's not happy with her.
I mean, some people could construe that to be critical of Chelsea Clinton, which is not permitted.
And it just, I wasn't even thinking about it.
Just should have played the sound bites and not commented.
And I officially apologize on behalf of the broadcast engineer, on behalf of Cookie, who gave me the sound bites.
I want to apologize to Fast Eddie, who had nothing to do with it, but he came in and laughed.
We are terribly, terribly sorry, Mrs. Clinton, that I apologize to myself.
It's, well, I wouldn't call it a pattern of abuse here, but I wouldn't call it.
I know she's 28 years old, but you know the rules, and we violated the rules here.
And I'm, you know, I want to be thought of at least as fair and balanced as Fox in Mrs. Clinton's eyes.
All right, back to the phones we go.
And this is Crystal in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Crystal.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Great to have you here.
Hi, Rush.
I've been listening to you for years, even though I'm a Democrat.
I watched you on TV way back.
I like to believe that I watch Fox.
I try to get all sides.
What I don't understand is why are the white men hating Hillary?
If anything, I think that they should side with her.
I mean, she stayed faithful and loyal by her man.
And why all the negative to Hillary from your program and not Obama?
It seems to me that everybody is afraid to say anything about Obama.
I mean, what stance does he really have?
I just in all fairness out there, Crystal, I just pretty much savaged Senator Obama as an idiot.
Yeah.
Did you hear that?
Ignorant, dangerously ignorant on the Constitution and the role of the executive, based on an interview he did with the Boston Globe last month.
But I offer that just to show we're equal opportunity here.
But to answer your question, one of the real reasons that people aren't going to attack Obama is because he's black and nobody wants to be accused of being racist.
And that's he's going to have a free ride.
And it's why Mrs. Clinton is playing kid gloves here.
She's starting to get a little bit more strident.
She's starting to say that he says nothing when he speaks.
He says it pretty well.
But in terms of being really critical, nobody's going to go there.
Well, who do you think will win between them?
Because I live in Pennsylvania.
Do you think it will come down to Pennsylvania and Texas?
You know, you're going to think I'm being sarcastic or cynical here.
I'm not.
Regardless who wins, Hillary is going to be the nominee.
Oh, God.
I hope you're right.
Because I do respect your opinion, and I think that you're fair.
I mean, most of what you say, I agree with.
And I'm telling you right now, I will vote McCain if it's Obama.
I know you're not a big McCain supporter, and I understand why, because you're like me.
You stand by your beliefs.
I just truly, truly, and I agree with you with the race card.
We're all walking around with these gloves that we're afraid to say it, but we can attack Hillary and Chelsea.
And you're right.
Chelsea went out there.
She's 27 years old.
Then Hillary shouldn't expect people to go after her.
I totally agree.
But I would have thought being a Democrat that Bill would have helped, you know, and how the black voters are turning on them.
Well, Bill's responsible for that.
I agree.
They've purposely played the race card, thinking it would revive white voters in later primaries after South Carolina did just the opposite.
They really miscalculated on that.
But I believe that most Democrats are the real, if you want to start throwing the racist label around, I think most racism today is actually on the Democrat side.
It is, let's say liberals.
Liberals will look at people and not see an individual.
They'll see a gender.
They'll see a color of skin.
And then they'll automatically assign that person into a group and then have a view of that person, usually as a victim, based on that.
And when you assign somebody victim status, you're basically saying they're incompetent.
You're saying they're incapable of overcoming the obstacles in life, and you come up with excuses for them to be victims, and that way you get their vote.
But you have no respect for them.
And I think that's the real secret here of where real racism lies.
Now, let me get back to your first question about Mrs. Clinton.
You wanted to know why do white men hate her?
Yes.
And you think that men should be a little bit more understanding because, after all, she stuck with a philandering husband and so forth, and many men would appreciate that in their own wives?
Well, I don't know if that's true, but yeah, I guess I do believe that's true.
I don't think that there's some people that hate Hillary.
It's more a combination of fear and loathing.
Yeah.
But I'm not even going to speak for anybody else.
Mrs. Clinton, to me, would be an absolute disaster policy-wise.
I think Mr. and Mrs. Clinton both would just as soon be rulers, people who reign, rather than in charge of Democratic institutions.
But it is her policies.
When I hear Mrs. Clinton say she's going to take ExxonMobil's profits, I think she means it.
I think she is a full-fledged, 100% socialist.
She and her husband have stopped at nothing to destroy their opponents, not defeat them, but destroy them all along their path.
People look at Mrs. Clinton, look at a lot of people.
She's got 49% negatives or disapproval numbers.
She's not likable.
People look at her and they see a nurse ratchet.
They see somebody who is unfriendly, who seeks control, manipulative control over circumstances and situations.
It's not a, you know, the joke is that Hillary reminds you of not only your first ex-wife, but your second.
That's perhaps, that's said just to try to express the contempt that people have, but most of it's based on policy.
Most of it's not based on personality.
Okay.
Well, so you think it's going to come down to these superdelegates?
Well, see, okay, I'm glad you asked me that because this, I said something that might have slipped by you earlier.
I said, you asked me who I thought was going to win.
I said, no matter who wins, Hillary's going to be the nominee.
Meaning Obama could win it, but the Clintons are going to find a way to get this.
And it goes back to what I said yesterday.
They want this.
They need this more than anything in their lives.
They have been planning on it, getting back to the White House.
This is a baby boomer's last chance, the left-wing anti-war baby boomer, last chance to get their arms around this country and bend it, shape it as they want it.
This is what she has lived for.
This is what she put up with all those shenanigans from Bill all of these years for.
This is why she did it.
And she's not going to sit there and let some upstart take it away from her.
So if she has to do something about the Michigan delegates and the Florida, if she has to cause a civil riot, a civil war at the Democrat convention to get the nomination, she will do it.
Well, I pray to God.
I don't want that.
But do you think that Michigan and Florida's votes should count?
No.
No.
Because they broke the rules.
Right?
Right.
But not only that, Hillary was the only one on the ballot in Michigan.
How can you do this without having a revote?
How can you, you know, all the other candidates abided by the rules.
She didn't.
She put her name on the ballot.
Ditto, Florida.
How do you, but see, this is my point.
They're going to make a play for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated based on outcomes of the election, even though they were not sanctioned and the delegates were not going to be seated as by DNC rules.
But who controls the DNC?
The Clinton machine runs that party.
She's the machine candidate.
Superdelegates, I don't know if it'll come down to that, but if it does, she got Hillary out there, or Chelsea out there lobbying them.
You know damn well that they're going to do whatever it takes.
If there are riots at the Democrat convention, so be it.
If that's what it takes for these two to get this nomination, to get back in the Oval Office, then they'll do it.
I mean, scorched earth doesn't matter what it takes.
They will destroy anybody and any institution to get this.
It's how badly they try to imagine yourself, Crystal.
You've had a situation in your life that's embarrassing and humiliating.
Could be a husband.
It could be a job.
But you've sat there when you left Yale and you went to Arkansas way back in the early 80s, almost 30 years ago, 35 years ago.
And you have been eating it.
You have been swallowing it.
You have been looking the other way.
You have been humiliated in public.
I don't know how many times.
This is the payoff for it.
This is why you did all that.
And you are not going to be denied.
Well, I appreciate you listening to me.
And again, I'm a big fan of yours, believe it or not.
I'm a diehard Democrat.
But, well, I just want you to know I appreciate your time and your opinion.
Thank you, Crystal.
I'm glad you called.
It's nice to know that you're out there.
A quick timeout here.
We'll be back after this.
Continue to stay with us.
Even my trusted and loyal staff attempt to trick me up during the break here.
Trusted aide, chief of staff, HR, said, question for you about McCain.
I said, fire away.
Do you think this stand of his on global warming, that he's all for Kyoto and things like it, but only if China and India sign on, you think that's, he's got to know they're never going to sign on, is that is out.
And I said, we can hope, but don't forget McCain Lieberman, which has nothing to do with Kyoto or any of that.
It's one of these carbon offset buying and selling pollution credit programs that's going to make energy more expensive.
And he's doing that independent of China.
And India's signing up.
And I said to HR, you're just looking for any reason at all to like the no, I'm just examining the better angels of my nature.
Glad you asked.
You know, where would you be if you hadn't asked?
Always ask.
Yuba City, California.
John, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Thank you for holding on.
Yeah, hey, Rush.
It's a pleasure.
Been listening to you since 85.
So, anyway.
You know what?
You know what?
I remember.
No, I remember Yuba City because shortly after I moved to Sacramento in 84, in early 1985, somebody, I forget what publication, Yuba City, California was in the top five worst places in the country to live.
Yeah.
And there were refugees streaming out of there trying to get to us.
Went up and did a remote show from the Yuba City City Council.
Yeah, that was Random.
Drove up there in the program director's Mercedes.
We got tomatoed.
We got egged.
Oh, come on.
No, we didn't get tomatoed today.
We thought we might, though.
What's a question?
Okay, well, actually, what it is, is I've been, you know, we've been talking about McCain since Black Tuesday.
And I had some.
Anyway, my initial response was, I guess, liberal because I was emotional and I was wondering, how can I vote for this man?
You had a call from a lady last week who kind of said the same thing and she worked for him and all that.
And then I got over the liberalism and started thinking, and as conservatives are supposed to.
And I remembered some things, you remember this, Alan Cranston and Ed Schao.
And now we have Feinstein and Boxer.
And it can get worse, unlike what people said years ago.
It can't get any worse.
It can.
You know, John, you are a smart cookie.
And you know what?
You are also very, very diplomatic because you could be nailing me to the wall on this if you wanted to with my own words.
But you are going.
Let me explain.
John, thank you for letting me.
I'm going to answer your question.
I'm going to explain what he's talking about.
Back in 19, I guess, 84 or 86, I think it was 86.
There was a moderate Republican from San Francisco, a businessman named Ed Schao, S-C-H-Z-A-U, I think it was.
And he was running against Alan Cranston of Jurassic Park for the United States Senate.
Oh, wait a minute.
Yeah, it was 86.
It's right.
It was 86.
Might have been 84.
No, it couldn't have been 84.
It had to be 86.
The year is crucial because this involves the Bork fiasco.
And the Republicans in California, many of the evangelical fundamentalist Christian, would not vote for Shao because he was pro-choice.
Wouldn't go anywhere near Shao.
So Cranston won re-election.
And it was close.
It was a close race, and a lot of people thought if just a smidgen of the conservative Republicans who were opposed to Shao on abortion would have voted for him and held their nose, that we could have had a Republican.
And this is what John from Yuba City, because he remembers me talking about this.
I was excoriating some of these conservatives for being single-issue and short-sighted.
I said, because look what happened.
You kept Shao out of there, but you kept Cranston in there.
And then shortly after that, Bush or Reagan nominated Bork.
And you see what happened.
Now, one senator might not have made a difference, but we do know that Shao probably would have surprised a freshman senator would have probably supported Reagan in his nomination of Bork.
We don't know that, but that was my guess.
So what John's saying here, look, you said if you end up doing what the Republicans did out there, you elect Alan Cranston, the same thing's going to happen here.
If you don't get on board McCain, you're going to elect a Democrat.
And he wants to know, what's the difference here, Mr. Limbaugh?
And here's the difference.
The Shao situation was a single-issue situation.
And at the time, nobody knew that it might be a relevant factor that Reagan was going to nominate Bork and that Reagan could have used all the Republicans in the Senate he could get.
In this case, we're not talking about a single issue.
We're talking 10 to 12 issues.
And we're talking about the presidency, John, where our candidate seeks victory not by coalescing the Republican Party and all of its parts behind him.
He wants to go out and get Democrats and Independents, which are the same thing, if you ask me, and liberals to join the Republican Party and give him his margin of victory, not as Republicans voting for him, but as Democrats.
I don't think the situation here is analogous, if you will, but you raise a good point, and your memory is profound.
And he's been listening for 22 years.
And I appreciate it.
I really do, John.
Thanks much.
Shona, Endicott, New York.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello?
Yeah.
Wow, Mr. Limbaugh, how nice it is to talk to you.
I'm going to get nervous now, but I was going to comment about Hillary's comment about controlling Bill.
She said it a couple times, and it's often made me think the best thing we could come up with in our household was he's going to banish him or something or divorce him because there's no way you can control somebody.
Hmm.
Hmm.
The question, if you're just joining us, Mrs. Clinton promised people, she said, we can't predict the future, but I can assure you there will not be any more bill scandals when I'm in the White House.
And I had to ask, I had to, you know, I can't explain this.
I asked the women in this audience to call.
Shona happens to be the first one that got through on this.
What in the world could somebody like Hillary do to assure us there will be no more bill scandals when Bill's whole life is a scandal?
I know it doesn't mean he's not going to do anything.
What she's saying, he's not going to get caught.
The press isn't going to report it.
Is that what she said?
They'll keep it quiet.
They can't run that risk.
She's assured us it won't happen.
So what Shona's saying here, the only way that you can assure people it ain't going to be a problem is if you divorce him and he gets into a scandal and she's got nothing to do with it because they're divorced.
But I don't see that.
I don't see that.
But I'd be appreciative if any of you other babes want to take a stab at this and we get back tomorrow.
Look, my Ed Shao theory is all wet anyway because we don't know how he would have voted.
Six Republicans voted against Bork, including John Warner.
I have since grown and learned from that.
▲
Export Selection