All Episodes
Previous Next
July 5, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:22
July 5, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So what does it mean when they come back with a verdict soon?
What's that mean?
The uh the knife slit.
Guilty?
Means the jury wants to go home.
Okay, so she's okay.
So and she did not testify in her own defense, right?
So she didn't explain any of this stuff.
And you have to figure people wanted to hear her version if she didn't give one, right?
So you'd have to assume, and also because Heroldo's there, you'd have to assume guilty.
Oh, yeah, so we already know the verdict, so there's no need to jip it.
Uh greetings.
Don't tell me you want to, Snerdly.
All right, we're back.
Rush Linball, the excellence in Broadcast.
If we do this, I can't believe that I'm even thinking about this.
I mean, with all the debt ceiling stuff going on and all, I can't believe I'm thinking of even doing this.
Anyway, we are back, and as always.
I do know it is the most watched case since O.J. Simpson, but it hasn't hurt.
It hasn't, it has had an impact on our ratings at all, like the OJ case did because of the time zone difference.
They had a huge that OJ case couldn't end fast enough as far as I was concerned.
This, I haven't even been aware of it.
Well, I have, but I haven't.
I I this is this is like surreal to me.
This this whole thing.
And I marvel, I I listen to people talk about this who know it inside out, and I marvel that anybody can care that much.
But then I think, okay, I know what I know inside out, and there are probably people think, gosh, I can't imagine caring as much about this stuff.
So it works.
Works both ways.
Uh, folks, wonderful to have you.
It always is our telephone number, 800-282-2882.
We'll get to your phone calls here in just a second.
Brett Stevens has a piece here in the Wall Street Journal.
He works there.
He's not a guest columnist.
And his story here is the DSK lesson.
Oh, guilty of what is the issue?
Aha!
Well, now that makes little sense to me.
Guilty of what is the issue?
It's not cut and dried simple, certainly.
It's guilty of what?
That's the question.
All right.
Well, I've got six minutes to decide this.
Almost from the beginning, writes Brett Stevens, there was something amiss in the case of people versus Dominique Strauss Kahn.
This was the very specific way in which the managing director of the International Monetary Fund was alleged to have forced himself upon a maid in his pricey Times Square suite.
More than a few people must have pondered the one-word question.
Really?
That might have cut short the prosecution's case before it got rolling.
So this guy's point is that somebody was just said, really?
Maid comes out and says this guy from the IMF did this.
And nobody said, Really?
He said, uh, who would have dared to ask this in printer on air?
And who really wanted to anyway?
He says, let me confess I was pretty much delighted the way this whole thing seemed to be playing out.
When the news broke last Thursday, the case against Mr. Strauss Kahn was falling apart, that his accuser was a serial liar, a prostitute, according to the New York Post, with a $100,000 bank account and ambitions caught on tape to turn her supposed tragedy into a get rich quick scheme.
My immediate reaction was, ah, gee, how disappointing.
It's the guy writing the story.
Not that I ever took any joy in the thought that a presumably vulnerable woman had apparently been raped by a guy with a reputation for promiscuous and predatory appetites, but I did enjoy the thought of this mandarin of the tax exemptocracy being pulled from the comfort of his first class Air France seat and dispatched to Rikers Island without regard to status or dignity.
Now I have to step in here.
This is the old class interview thing.
A lot of people took great satisfaction in that.
And a lot of people started heralding, Wow, what a great country.
And of course, while this was going on, the French were over there scratching their heads, saying, What in the world?
How does it happen?
How did some maid accuse somebody of something and the authorities without any other evidence head to the airport and yank the guy off the airplane in chains?
The French wanted to know how that happened.
Here in America, there were a lot of people going, yeah, baby, right on, right on, right on.
What puzzled me about it is that this is a ruling class guy.
This is the kind of guy that gets away with this.
This is a Ted Kennedy kind of guy.
And I know that they would never have pulled Ted Kennedy off the airplane this way had somebody made an accusation.
So then I started thinking, what is it they hate about this guy?
I'm talking about the ruling class.
What do his own class members hate about this guy?
Because ruling class does not treat each other this way.
They do not treat themselves this way.
In the ruling class, if some lower class maid, particularly of color, comes along and makes an allegation like this.
Guess what?
The maid becomes the target.
Now I know we got a rich white guy, and we know we got a rich French white guy, but this guy ran the IMF, and that is a privileged ruling class establishment.
Or it's like it's like the same as the World Bank or some other highly preserved Fannie Mae, whatever.
This this is a very prestigious organization.
So I'm thinking they pull this guy off.
The ruling class must have a problem with this guy.
Somebody must have it in for him.
Somebody must want to embarrass him.
Or somebody wants his job.
Somebody wants him out of there, and this is convenient.
That was honest to God, folks, it was my first thought on this.
Because this is not how the ruling class treats themselves, and this guy is a member of the ruling class.
Now, Mr. Stevens here says he enjoyed the thought of this ruling class, this this member of the tax exemptocracy being pulled from the comfort of his first class Air France seat and sent to Rikers Island without regard to status or dignity.
And he says I admired the humble immigrant who would risk so much for the sake of justice.
And I smiled at the spectacle of France's socialists, finding their would-be savior exposed by American prosecutors when they had been hypocritically observing a code of silence about this guy's habits.
And I liked seeing the IMF red-faced for whitewashing DSK's previous escapades.
He says, I doubt that I was alone in feeling this.
People generally, and columnists especially, want news that has the qualities of a parable.
The surprise that turns out to be no surprise at all.
With a story like DSK's the temptation of a tidy moral tends to overwhelm whatever doubts might be cast upon it by a countervailing point of data.
Blame it on old-fashioned discomfort.
So out of step in our culture of sexual hyper frankness, when it comes to discussing the nature and details of an alleged rape, or blame it on political correctness that rarely accords alleged rapists, the usual presumption of innocence, and had in a working single mother African immigrant a near perfect caricature of the perfect victim.
You see where this is headed.
He's got a point.
But still, what stunned me, they pulled the guy off the airplane.
The ruling class did it to one of their own.
Don't you disagreeing with me on this?
No, I don't think the Roman Polanski thing had a here here comes.
Okay, let's gip the verdict.
Go ahead.
All right, let's jet it.
Our microphones have been.
Let the record reflect that the defendant is present along with counsel for the defendant.
Well, I don't believe I'm doing this.
I don't really don't.
Both sides ready to proceed.
It's been brought to my attention that the jury has reached the verdict.
Defense.
Defense is ready.
To those in the gallery, please do not express any signs of approval or disapproval upon the reading of the verdict.
All right.
That's for China, Jerry.
Nice standing up out there now.
Thank you.
Verdict, dear Casey Anthony.
That's what we're waiting on here, folks.
I can't.
I know, I know, but we're doing it.
Silence in the courtroom.
I've got it now.
I've got a I've got to cover this in addition.
Would somebody in the courtroom say something?
We're chipping this.
Everybody just staring around here, folks.
There's not a whole lot going on.
Doris.
Oh, of course, everybody looks very somber.
Uh no sign of Geraldo yet.
State recognized president of the jury.
We do, Your Honor.
And does the defense?
Yes, sir, we do.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Have you reached a verdict?
Would you hand the verdict form to the court, deputy, please?
I still can't believe I'm doing this.
The Casey Anthony verdict here on the EIB network, one of our high points.
Judge, I guess, is looking at the verdict here.
Wondering if it's written in English.
Is he trying to translate this?
What's uh he's flipping pages here, Judge uh maybe is trying to find the verdict.
Uh I do need some tea.
I do need some down to quarter of a less than a yeah, I'm almost out.
Bring me a bottle of two of my tea.
Casey Anthony looking sad.
It does look like she knows what's about to happen here.
Man, and I was right in the middle of the year.
Would a defendant rise along with counsel?
All right, it's about time.
Madam Clerk, you may publish the verdicts.
Judge.
In the circuit court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida.
State of Florida versus Casey Marie Anthony.
As to case number 2008, CF 15606-0.
This is great T, I'll be right back.
As to the charge of first degree murder, verdict as to count one.
We the jury find the defendant not guilty.
So say we all dated at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this fifth day of July 2011, signed four person.
Not guilty first to breathe.
As to the charge of aggravated child abuse, verdict is to count two.
Via the jury, find the defendant not guilty.
So say we all.
Did it at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this fifth day of July, 2011.
Signed, four person.
Casey Anthony fighting back to the city.
Verdict is to count three.
We the jury find the defendant not guilty.
So say we all dated at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this fifth day of July 2011, signed four person.
Uh as to the charge of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, verdict as to count four.
We the jury find the defendant guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer as charged in the indictment.
So say we all dated Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this fifth day of July 2011, signed for the city.
Well they got her on something.
As to the charge of providing false information to law enforcement officer, verdict us to count five.
We the jury find the defendant guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer as charged in the indictment.
So say we all dated Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this fifth day of July 2011, signed four person.
As to the charge of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, verdict has to count six.
We the jury find the defendant not give sorry.
We the jury find the defendant guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer is charged in the indictment.
So say we all dated Orlando.
Orange County, Florida, this fifth day of July 2011, signed four person.
Three counts guilty lying the authority.
Providing false information to a law enforcement officer.
Verdict is to count seven.
We the jury find the defendant guilty of providing false information.
So say we all dated Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this fifth day of July, 2011.
They're getting out of process crime here, gang.
The scooter Libby all over again.
You may poll the jury.
Yes.
That's it.
Okay, we can dump out of it.
So this is she she got nailed on a procedural crime here.
She's not guilty of the act.
What they say on four counts of lying to the investigators, she's guilty.
Yeah, it's still, yeah, it's still in your permanent record.
But uh that's all they could get her on after all of this was lying to the authorities.
That uh Well, no, I don't know that, Snergley.
I don't that's what I don't know anything about this.
This is the worst case.
I this is the what are people saying the worst collection of law?
Well, who was saying that?
Okay, the media analysts were talking about how incompetent her lawyers were.
Okay, the bottom line here is there were no witnesses, right?
And there was no DNA, and there was no ability, they couldn't even determine the causing of cause of death in this thing, right?
Okay.
So how do you find her guilty if you don't know any of that?
And these experts thought she was going to be found guilty because the lawyers were so bad or incompetent, or because she was so unlikable.
You know, I'm I'm reminded a little bit here of the Michael Jackson verdict number.
Everybody thought that was a slam dunk, and he was out of there, and that jury found him not guilty.
I said, Well, they all thought that was just uh, you know, celebrity worship or what have you.
Uh as to the false information in the case, the defense had already conceded that she had provided false information.
They don't they they her lawyers admitted that.
So there's not much the jury could have done there.
So um uh they I did hear one thing.
I heard I heard uh out of the corner of my ear, I guess on Sunday night.
Greta was doing a show on this, and one of her guests said, I don't see how they convict because there aren't any witnesses, and and uh there was no DNA, and there's no real way to know what the cause of death was.
And and everybody on the panel thought the guy was nuts.
That's what that's what I remember.
There might have been one other person that thought she would walk.
Anyway, well, that's it.
Casey Anthony not guilty on four counts of murder or manslaughter, guilty on five or six, whatever it was counts of lying to the authorities.
All right, my question: when does the looting start now in Orlando?
What is the public outrage and a verdict result in mass looting?
Overturning cars, setting them on fire, beating people upside ahead.
When does that start?
Her own parents walked out after the not guilty.
Her own parents walked and said, Yeah, they want to get a head start on the looting.
Greetings and uh welcome back, Russia.
I just found out our station, North Carolina gypped our gypped coverage to go to clean coverage.
We got gypped and we were covering the verdict.
What a fun day.
What a fun day this has been at the EIB network.
Uh let me I'm gonna I'm gonna suspend here this media story on Dominic Strauss County.
I'm uh I grab a couple phone calls here in our remaining moments this segment.
I'll pick it up because it's important, folks.
We'll come back after the break.
Who's next?
Janine on the road.
Uh welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you here, Janine.
Hi, Rush.
It's nice to talk to you.
Thank you.
We uh my husband Jim and I drove all the way from Dayton, Ohio to Joplin to hear you and to visit the great people of Joplin and be there and and celebrate with them.
And we just wanted to give you a call and tell you how much we enjoyed it and enjoyed you and the tea and how wonderful it was to hear the great story from the people of Joplin.
I am they're wonderful.
You know, I'm sitting here in in uh uh in I don't know what I'm what I'm feeling.
I I can't you drove all the way to Joplin from Dayton, Ohio.
Six hundred and forty-seven miles.
Where did on our way home right now?
Where did you stay over there?
Did you stay overnight in Springfield or something?
Uh no, we stayed in Monette.
Oh, okay, yeah.
And drove in, and we were there for uh the whole celebration.
We met some wonderful people, met a woman named Beverly, who just was telling us such great stories of how positive people were there and how the community had banded together and just were getting things done.
How even after a couple of days after the tornado had gone through, um a local businessman who owns a construction company had taken his equipment out and his crews and had the streets cleared, and he didn't take any money for it.
He didn't expect to be paid for it, and she even pointed to him because he was he was over unloading trucks, uh uh cases of tea out of the back of your semi-truck and and helping serve it to people.
So he had taken a break from cleanup to come and help uh help help distribute some of your tea, and we met him, we talked to him.
What a great guy.
And Beverly just gave us a great point of what was going on.
I don't know what to say here.
I I am um uh you you've you've made my day.
I I just this is this is unbelievable.
It really is.
Uh I uh I I love you so much I can't describe it for ten minutes.
See, this is why flying out of there I felt like I might have shortchanged people only going ten minutes.
She drove all the way from Dayton, Ohio.
Well, no, not yet.
She doesn't get out of jail yet.
Those well, how many years she'd been in jail?
No, three?
Okay.
Well, she's still got years on each of these guilty verdicts, and who knows how they're going to be sentenced.
I'll tell you what.
I've been listening to some of the um analysts uh during the break here, and they are ticked off, folks.
There are some red-faced angry media people out there over this verdict.
They wanted this woman burned at the stake, apparently.
And uh there they're they're uh a lot of a lot of red faced media people who thought they knew what was going to happen here.
All right, now, if I may, and I think it might even relate a little bit now.
Guilty, simply on the basis of the horrible nature of the crime, and that she was the mother and uh left in a bag and sort of somebody had to do it, uh, but they never produced any evidence.
The Duke La Crosse case, although not really comparable to this one at all, was still the Duke LaCrosse case, you had all the elements for the ruling class to believe without evidence that these white lacrosse players were totally guilty.
Here in the Dominique Strauss case, Strauss Kahn.
It's it's the Duke Lacrosse case, but it's a member of the ruling class.
A highly ranked member of the ruling class, a socialist, a w uh you know, beloved socialist at the head of the IMF, and they yanked this guy off the airplane simply on the basis of an allegation made by Maid.
It turns out the maid was totally lying, and this story in the Wall Street Journal asks why did nobody question the maid.
Why did nobody say when she made her allegations?
Really?
Why was there in unison full belief the obligations made by the maid?
And this is the piece in the Wall Street Journal by Brett Stevens.
He says people generally, and columnists especially want news that has the qualities of a parable.
The surprise that turns out to be no surprise at all.
With a story like DSK's the temptation of a tidy morrow tends to overwhelm whatever doubts might be cast upon it by a countervailing point of data.
Blame it on old fashioned discomfort, so out of step in our culture of sexual hyper frankness, when it comes to discussing the nature and details of an alleged rape, or blame it on political correctness that rarely accords the alleged rapist the usual presumption of innocence, and had in a working single mother African immigrant a near perfect caricature of the perfect victim.
Or blame it on the idea that since Mr. Strauss Khan's a well known as a philandering rogue, he must perforce also be a brute.
Or blame it on the political calculations of a Manhattan district attorney with a less than sure touch, who might well have been reluctant when it came to the question of whether to rush the guy's case to a grand jury to be seen siding with the powerful against the power less.
Still, the fact that I and so many others wanted this story to be true was only half the problem.
There are also the habits of mind that seem to have prevented prosecutors and journalists alike from quickly following the threads of what ought to have been a common sense suspicion.
Blame it on all of the above.
In the case of people versus Dominique Strauss Kahn, each of us, inveterate francophobes, knee jerk victimologists and so on, had a reason to idle our brains.
So this is a good opportunity to ask where else we might be committing similar blunders.
The climate change obsession with its concept of polluting corporations versus noble eco warriors.
The Wall Street obsession, with its belief the boardroom boys were criminally guilty of the financial crisis.
We know, folks, who we know now that it wasn't the boardroom boys, other than the boardroom boys at Fannie Mae.
The boardroom boys in the Clinton administration and the Obama administration.
We know it was the subprime court, in that case, we know it now, but even to this day.
Even to this day, Wall Street board members are blamed for this.
And this is what Mr. Stevens' column is about, despite the facts.
Despite what is now known, there are still people who believe what is not true about the housing crisis, the subprime mortgage crisis and what it led to.
Despite all of the evidence that man-made global warming is a hoax, there are still a majority of journalists and academics who believe that it is true.
There is the ChICOM obsession.
That view is that the Chicoms are destined to overtake the United States in global economic and political clout.
is destined to have and probably has, they believe.
There is the Israel obsession with its notion that if only Jewish settlements were removed from the West Bank, peace would break out throughout the Middle East.
and Mr. Stevens here is saying that these things become templates, they become narratives, which we've pointed out.
I guess I'm really fascinated with the story because it validates that which I have been saying for years on this program about how the media operates.
I think that we also do include the Obama obsession.
There is an obsession about Obama, first black president, historic in nature, messianic, smartest guy we've ever had, has all the solutions, has all the answers, they just aren't working yet.
In each of these cases, the media has too often been guilty of looking only for the evidence that fits a pre-existing storyline.
It doesn't help that in journalism You can usually find the story you're looking for.
Whether it's record breaking heat in some corner of the world or malicious Israeli settlers making life miserable for their Palestinian neighbors or evidence of financial chicanery in Manhattan or of economic prowess in Shanghai.
It doesn't help that you can usually find the story you're looking for.
But anecdotes are not data, which happens to be the world's most easily neglected truism.
Also true is that sloppy moral categories like the powerful and the powerless or the selfish and the altruistic are often misleading and susceptible to manipulation.
And the journalists who most deserve to earn their keep are those who understand that the line of any story is likely to be crooked, which brings me back to Dominique Strauss Kahn.
Whatever his future brings, let's hope it's not the presidency of France.
It's hard to escape the conclusion of these slees.
But not every sleazy character is a criminal.
A fine distinction of the sort that might keep us from going astray on stories that, unlike this one, really do matter.
Now, this is I'm sure you say, Why are you making such a big deal out of this?
Because this is what we all believe.
I've been had this as a theory for years.
It's reflected, folks.
Now in the Wall Street Journal, it's being actually discussed in the media.
Progress.
That's why.
I think that there are number of reasons why this is what the Victor Davis Hansen has a piece here that I would call a almost companion peace.
And it's fascinating.
This is pull quote before we go to the break.
We live in an age in which advocates don't believe in their own advocacy.
A planet is doomed, Al Gore refuses to cut back on his use of greenhouse gases.
A planet is doomed.
Al Gore, who believes the planet is doomed, refuses to fly economy, refuses to move to a smaller house, refuses to reduce his carbon footprint.
A statist, John Kerry will not pay taxes on his yacht unless he's caught.
An anti-war Barack Obama will not honor the War Powers Act he once deified.
And the liberal congressional and media establishment will not put their kids in Washington schools that are the reification of their own ideology.
And boy, is this a great point.
Everything they believe in, they refuse to live.
You don't see them cutting back on their carbon footprint.
You don't see them doing what they are requiring all the rest of us to do.
You don't see them leading.
You don't see all of these liberal activists showing us what must be done.
You don't see a bunch of elected officials running out, getting in line to buy a Chevy Vault, for example.
You don't see them using mass transit.
You don't see them on buses outside of New York, subways.
You don't see them.
You don't see all these global eco-warriors giving up their private jets and flying coaches, as Mr. Hanson pointed to you.
They do not live their own advocacy.
Victor Davis Hansen calls on liberal Frankenstein's from Greece to California.
The liberal dream is dead.
Everything this Fourth of July.
What remains is the founder's vision of a limited government, the idea of a population united by common values, themes, and ideas, a republican form of checks and balances government to prevent demagoguery, factions and tyranny of the majority, the sanctity and autonomy of the nation state, and individual freedom and liberty is protected through the Bill of Rights.
Everything after and against that has proved a failure.
Indeed, what makes this fourth different from recent celebrations is the ongoing repudiation Of almost everything antithetical to the founders' views, the redistributive all powerful welfare state, a failure, the therapeutic arrogance that believes human nature can be altered by an omnipotent, well-meaning government.
The postmodern notion that nationhood and borders are passe, and the utopian idea that war can be declared obsolete, and the need for defense transcended from Greece to California.
Such dreams are dead.
The European Union is unwinding for two very simple reasons.
First, it's not a constitutional state, but a loose conglomeration of nations run by elites who are not responsible to the people.
And second, Mediterranean countries were allowed to cook their books in such a way that Northwestern European money would continue to be loaned to the siesta cultures that had not produced goods and services to justify the influx of foreign capital.
In short, European Union elites have done what the half century long threat of Red Army tanks and missiles could never do.
Destabilize Europe to the point of anarchy.
Socialism has done what communist weapons and tanks never could.
I gotta take a break.
We'll be back.
Tom in Columbus, Ohio.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Raj, hello, and happy to be late, Fourth of July.
Thank you very much.
Hey, I was sitting here in my little home listening to your uh speech there in Joplin, Missouri yesterday.
And brief as it was, I'll tell you, brother, I was so moved.
I wanted to get up and take old glory and march down Main Street.
It was a beautiful speech.
And you are among the greatest orators of this age, Mr. Limbaugh.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I must confess, though, I did not.
Those were not prepared, I mean, nothing was written down, and I did not use a teleprompter.
As demonstrated by your most recent segment there, talking about Strauss Kahn.
That was beautifully eloquent.
You continue to just amaze me.
Well, thank you very much.
I I uh I'll tell you to evoke the great Ronaldus Magnus and his Shining City on a Hill.
You are a glowing example of citizenship on that hill, sir.
I don't say I thanks so much, sir.
I I uh Twite, could you do me a favor?
Take a piece of paper in those formerly nicotine-stained fingers and pop it up against the golden microphone.
You always used to do that, but I haven't heard you do it in a long time.
That's it.
There you have it.
Formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Well, God bless you, Rush and your family, and God bless America.
Tom, thank you.
Same to you very much, sir.
I uh I really appreciate it.
More than you know, I gotta take a break here, folks.
I really did back in a second.
I don't know, folks.
I'm taking uh a gander, a listen at various media analysts on a Casey Anthony, not guilty verdicts here during the commercial breaks, and I have to tell you, they are livid.
They are livid, and I, of course, L. Rushbo, find great pleasure in them in them being livid.
Now, I've had some people help me out here today, because I didn't know anything about this, but I but I I now know that there was no evidence.
There was no DNA, there were no witnesses, there was no reason to convict.
There were no facts, and and that I think you know what this the DSK story and other things we talked about earlier, media facts don't matter to the media.
We'll talk more tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection