All Episodes
Previous Next
June 20, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:56
June 20, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I got a I got a note, Stuart Lee, during the break here at top of the hour.
Somebody said, how do you always keep all of this stuff so straight?
And I said, because I'm me.
And greetings, man.
That'll help out.
It's great to have you here, folks.
A thrill and a delight, Rush Limbaugh at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, serving humanity simply by showing up.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address lrushboateibnet.com.
So we had Sheila Jackson Lee and Elijah Cummings, both members of Congress, both members, congressional black Caucasians.
And their only retort to all this is to get mad that ISA would call Eric Holder a liar.
How dare you, they say.
How dare you call him a liar?
How dare you call a U.S. Attorney and Attorney General a liar?
Well, Eric Holder said that Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mucasey, knew about Fast and Furious at a Senate hearing last week when he knew that Mucase didn't know.
So Holder tells the Senate Judiciary Committee, or not the Judiciary Committee, the Senate Committee that, hey, Fast and Furious predates us.
Bush was doing it.
Mucasey knew about it.
They said, well, really?
Okay, you got some documentation on that.
And Holder said sorry and retracted it.
Didn't have any documentation.
He lied.
He got called on it.
He retracted it.
Somebody called the Black Caucasians with the news.
Here's Darrell Issa this morning during his committee hearing.
And he's talking about this whole business of Michael Muccase, Bush's Attorney General, and whether or not he knew of a gunwalking program called Operation Wide Receiver.
Pursuant to the statement that you referred to about Attorney General Michael McCasey, it has now been retracted from the testimony of Attorney General Eric Holder, where he claimed that his predecessor, then Attorney General McCasey, had been briefed about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver.
Now the Department is retracting that statement and claiming Holder inadvertently made the claim to the committee.
Yeah.
The Attorney General of the United States inadvertently made the claim.
He lied.
He lied.
Or somebody lied to him.
So whatever they'll say, but he lied to a Senate committee about this.
So ISA says that they've retracted it now.
So Elijah Cummings and Sheila Jackson Lee are going to have to go back to the drawing board on some explanation for everybody attacking Holder here.
That's some slip of the tongue.
Now, I mentioned before the break at the top of the argument a couple of stories.
April 16, 2009, this is from CNN's website.
Reviving a ban on assault weapons and more strictly enforcing existing gun laws could help tamp down drug violence that has run rampant on the U.S.-Mexican border, President Obama said on Thursday, speaking alongside Mexican President Felipe Coleron, Obama said that he's not backed off at all on a campaign promise to try to restore the ban on assault weapons.
He was instituted under President Clinton and allowed to lapse by President Bush.
I continue to believe that we respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters to lawfully bear arms while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence.
Now, Colderon said that the link between Mexican drug violence and the U.S. ban on 19 types of military-style semi-automatic rifles is clear.
From the moment that the prohibition on the sale of assault weapons was lifted a few years ago, we have seen an increase in the power of organized crime in Mexico.
He said that more than 16,000 assault weapons have been seized in the crackdown on drug traffickers, almost nine in ten of them coming from the U.S.
This was Fast and Furious.
They were describing it to us.
You understand what this is?
This is April 16, 2009.
They're describing a program here that's in process or in progress, and they're acting like they know nothing about it.
Some observers have said that Obama may be slow to reintroduce the ban in Congress, where it would be sure to spark a fight at a time when his regime needs all the political clout it can muster to push its aggressive economic recovery efforts.
So, Obama and Calderon, assault gun ban could curb border violence.
Obama said he asked Attorney General Holder to study how current gun laws are enforced and whether loopholes in some of them can be tightened.
He said that laws already on the books should restrict the flow of weapons into Mexico.
Aha, and there's the rub.
Aries standing next to Calderon, and he said laws already on the books should restrict the flow of weapons.
Well, then here comes Fast and Furious, with our people walking the guns across the border to Mexican drug cartels as part of a federal program.
Obama had already said it, well, yeah, existing law ought to handle it.
But existing law didn't handle it, did it?
Because of Fast and Furious.
The whole point, don't forget, the whole point of Fast and Furious was to create mayhem in Mexico among drug cartels with American-made weapons easily procured so that you and I would stand up in outrage and demand tighter gun laws.
It was deceitful.
It was sneaky.
It was going against the will of the American people.
It was liberalism on parade.
It's who these people are.
They want tighter gun laws.
They don't want, so they basically, folks, I want to make this as simple as I can.
They created crimes.
There's no other way to characterize this.
They created, they manufactured crime.
They enabled crimes.
They saw to it that American guns ended up in Mexican drug cartel hands.
And of course, those people get the guns.
They use them.
When in fact, it probably was difficult for the drug cartels to get the guns.
It probably was not easy for the drug cartels to get the guns, certainly not walking into gun stores in Phoenix and elsewhere than crossing the border.
So they set that up.
They created crimes.
They created crimes for the, it'd be no different if they wanted to ban airplanes to engineer a bunch of crashes.
Trying to think of the smart analogy I can give you.
If this bunch wanted all airplanes grounded, sabotage a bunch so they crash, and the people of the country demand that all airplanes be grounded.
They wanted these guns that were used in these crimes to come from America.
They made it easy for the drug cartels to get American guns.
Here's the Washington Post story: the headline of this for Obama Colderon, a meeting of minds.
And it's from 2009.
And the subhead for this story could be the reasons for Fast and Furious.
On his first presidential visit to Mexico, Obama praised Felipe Colderon for taking on the drug cartels, whose potent arsenals and economic power threatening the integrity of the Mexican state.
Obama announced he'll push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms trafficking treaty.
But Obama indicated while he favors reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weapons, the move would face too much political opposition to happen soon.
So he couldn't do a ban.
This is the reason for Fast and Furious.
Politically, a ban on assault weapons wouldn't work.
But he still wanted a ban.
So how to do it?
Well, you put the weapons you want to ban in the hands of bad guys and turn them loose.
That's all this is.
And now the documents that document this or prove it, Darrell ISIS committee wants them, and Obama has asserted executive privilege to prevent the Congress from seeing them.
Really, no more complicated than that.
Obama wants an assault weapons ban.
He can't politically get it because it's not popular.
So he tries to affect it anyway.
It's kind of like if you're NBC and you want to illustrate that certain trucks are dangerous, you put an explosive in a gas tank and then you turn on the truck and you have somebody, well, you have it remotely driven down a road, and then you trigger the explosive remotely.
The truck blows up, and you claim the truck's dangerous.
Now you get the truck off the road.
But it's only dangerous because you at NBC blew it up.
NBC did that for a TV show.
They blew up a truck on purpose and made the viewer think it was spontaneous combustion.
NBC did it.
Got to take a break.
There's more ahead plus your phone calls.
I know you people want to worm your way into this.
Your time is coming.
Be patient.
We're back.
Al Rushmore and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Let's go to the phones before we resume the sound bites.
Crown Point, Indiana is where we're going to start with.
Frank, great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Yes, hello.
Thank you, sir.
I'm calling about the Fast and Furious thing.
Yeah.
The president or the administration sent guns into Mexico and had to assume that they'd be used and kill Mexican citizens, but then the president's trying to get Latino votes, but he doesn't care if he didn't figure on, he didn't figure on Mexicans figuring out Fast and Furious.
I know what you're saying.
What is Obama trying to pull off?
I mean, he authorizes the walking of assault weapons across the border, and Mexicans end up getting killed, and yet he's running around pandering for the Latino vote when he obviously doesn't care if Mexicans are killed in drug violence.
It's a great question, except Obama never expected us to get to this point.
Remember, everybody was laughing at Fast and Furious.
I mean, treating it as some sort of right-wing conspiracy birther type thing.
But your question is now very relevant.
Now, it's a good question.
Now we can ask Hispanics.
We got the President of the United States and his Attorney General in charge of a program that ultimately resulted in Mexican citizens being killed, including a U.S. border agent, by the way, in addition to Mexican citizens.
And yet, he's out pandering for the Latino vote, but he doesn't care.
He put weapons.
He created crimes.
He put weapons.
He and Holder allowed weapons to end up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and those cartels take action against Mexican citizens.
And Obama knew that that was going to happen, wanted it to happen, wanted there to be crimes with these weapons, folks.
He wanted an assault weapons ban.
He couldn't get one politically.
The American people didn't want it.
This was sort of like if you're NBC and you want people to think Romney doesn't understand a supermarket scanner at Barbara Walters' store, and so you cut short a video of Romney, make it look like he's never seen one of these scanners before.
Or sort of if you're NBC and you want people to think that George Zimmerman's a racist pig, you doctor the 9-11 call.
This is what Obama was doing.
This is what the American left does, by the way.
They can't be straightforward, can't be honest about their plans, their intentions, their ideas, their policies.
They never win an election nationally, anyway.
So Obama has asserted executive privilege.
Eric Holder has testified before the Senate since recanted that it all started under the Bush administration.
Operation Wide Receiver, the predecessor to Fast and Furious, walking guns to Mexico from America.
Eric Holder told a Senate committee, well, yeah, Michael McCasey, Bush's attorney general, he knew about that.
Oh, yeah, ISIS, we need some proof.
Okay, I guess McCasey didn't know about it.
We retract it.
So in the midst of all this, President Kardashian asserts executive privilege.
What is he trying to hide?
Like I said, folks, if they want to lay it off on Bush, make these documents available.
They're trying to blame Bush for the economy.
They're trying to blame Bush for us being hated.
They're blaming Bush for foreign policy problems.
If they could lay it off on Bush, why don't they release the document?
But they're not.
Executive privilege.
So what's Kardashian hiding?
What does he not want us to know?
You boil it all down.
That's a question.
Here's John and Topeka in Kansas.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Google Flex videos, Mahara Rushi.
Thank you, sir, very much.
What's the difference between the Iran-Conscious scandal where the Democrats and the media tried to hang President Reagan, my favorite president, and when he didn't use, I don't think he used executive privilege to try and cover anything up.
And now when Obama has basically implicated himself in this scandal, well, I think you might find some dispute in the notion that Obama has implicated himself.
You think he has because he's trying to hide something.
But others might not look at it.
You could easily say that Obama is simple.
And I expect this to be said, by the way.
Obama, and his media minions are going to say it.
He's not trying to protect himself.
He's trying to protect the presidency.
You can't just have Congress running roughshod over the executive branch.
He's exerting the privilege here to protect future presidents to make sure the executive branch doesn't get run over by the legislative branch.
Don't be surprised if you hear that.
You are inferring that Obama is implicating himself.
And it is a legitimate question.
What is he trying to hide?
As to Reagan, he asserted executive privilege a number of times.
I think.
What did I say?
Hang on just a second.
I've got it right here, folks.
I have to talk loud because of this.
Three times.
Reagan asserted it three times.
I just don't know when.
I don't remember whether it was Iran Contra or not.
John, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
This is Eric and Boise, and you're next.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hi.
Great to talk to you, Rush.
I've listened to you since the 80s, and it's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
My point is: I think every American should be outraged about this fast and furious operation because bottom line is a border agent was killed, a life was lost, there was a cover-up, and now I believe the president, by exerting executive privilege, is complicit in the murder cover-up of that Border Patrol agent.
Brian Terry is his name.
Yes.
And, well, this is the political problem that Kardashian has.
This is what people are going to think.
They're going to, what's he hiding?
This was going to be the most transparent presidency ever.
This is a guy.
Grab, I don't know, what's the sound like number seven, six?
I've already put it to the bottom of the stack.
I should have kept it at the front.
Heck, I don't know what it is.
Play number six.
This is Obama again in 2007 being asked about executive privilege.
There's been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place.
And I think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this.
There doesn't seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. attorney question.
There doesn't seem to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these U.S. attorneys were targeted when, by all assessments, they were doing an outstanding job.
I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there.
Yeah, that's what a lot of people are going to say now, Mr. President.
People are going to wonder what you're hiding.
People are going to wonder: are you, did this plan end up getting a border agent killed and you knew about it?
You haven't done anything about it?
Don't care about it.
These are questions that are going to be asked.
These media minions are going to do their best to deflect this once they get over the shock of this.
Remember now to the media: executive privilege equals Nixon.
Just like to the Republican establishment, a conservative nominee to them equals Barry Goldwater losing in a landslide.
To the media, the greatest event in American media history was getting rid of Richard Nixon.
They all, even the ones alive today had nothing to do with it, claim credit for it by being members of the fraternity, members of the industry, journalism.
They got rid of a corrupt president in their mind.
And that's so front and center to them.
And what did Nixon do?
Well, he was a raging criminal from start to finish.
And he exerted executive privilege, but we were able to force him along with the Supreme Court to reveal what he was trying to hide.
That's how executive privilege scares them.
Their formative experience with executive privilege is an evil president trying to hide the truth.
So they've been gobsmacked with this.
They'll get themselves put back together.
It's going to take a while, though.
Maybe by tonight.
Hi, folks.
Welcome back.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned Maharashi.
Executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
I'm sitting here thinking this might be the first time in history that the original crimes are worse than the cover-up.
Nobody normally gets killed in a cover-up.
But we've already had people get killed here in Fast and Furious.
I don't know how many, but it's a lot of people killed, a lot of people wounded.
A Border Patrol agent was killed.
Now, here comes the cover-up.
I want to take you back, March 19, 2007.
You might remember that Alberto Gonzalez, a member of the Bush administration, the Attorney General, has fired the eight U.S. attorneys.
And the Democrats were after Alberto Gonzalez and other Hispanics that the Bush administration sought to elevate because Hispanics do not get elevated in the Republican Party.
It just doesn't happen.
We can't.
Democrats say they can't allow that to be seen.
So Alberto Gonzalez became Attorney General, good friend of Bush's, really had a lot of respect for him.
Miguel Estrada was thought to be qualified for Supreme Court, one of Bush's nominees.
They did everything they could, the Democrats, to destroy Miguel Estrada.
And they wanted to get rid of Alberto Gonzalez.
And Obama joined the chorus of Democrats suggesting that Gonzalez should quit, be fired, or resign.
So this is, again, Larry King alive.
March 19, 2007.
Larry King said: the major issue at hand these days is Alberto Gonzalez's firing of the eight U.S. attorneys.
What's your read on that, Senator Kardashian?
Part of the role of the Attorney General is to say to the executive branch: here are the limits of your power.
Here are the things that you can't do.
I don't think Alberto Gonzalez ever told the president that there was something he could not do.
What you get a sense of is an attorney general who saw himself as an enabler of the administration as opposed to somebody who was actually trying to look out for the American people's interests.
And for that reason, I think it's time for him to step down and for another attorney general who can exercise some independence to be put for the remainder of this president's term.
They ganged up on Gonzalez and he had to go.
And it was over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
And don't forget, Clinton had canned all 93 within the first week or two of his inauguration in 1993.
So Alberto Gonzalez had to be fired.
And one of the points of controversy, if I recall this correctly in the Gonzalez situation, was that there was a misstatement of fact, and it was known that Gonzalez did not lie.
It turned out that he had incorrectly or erroneously passed on some wrong information.
The Democrats said it doesn't matter whether he lied or not.
Presidents have to be able to trust attorney generals.
And if they can't trust them, if they can't be trusted to get things right, they got to go.
Well, you can apply that same thinking to Holder.
Holder has done far more.
He's been done more egregious things here than Gonzalez did.
So, Obama could be talking about Holder here in this soundbite.
Everything he said about Gonzales is applicable to Holder.
Do you think Eric Holder tells Obama what he can't do?
Ha!
Nobody tells Obama what he can't do.
In fact, what happens is these guys get together and conspire about what they're going to do.
We have spoken to none other than Jay Christian Adams.
He was of the Justice Department of the Civil Rights Division.
Remember, he's the guy who quit when Holder refused to prosecute case against the new Black Panther Party in Philadelphia.
Jay Christian Adams said it was a good case.
We had high probability of conviction, almost a slam-dunk case.
And Holder simply withdrew the case, claiming that black defendants were not going to be pursued by this Justice Department.
So Jay Christian Adams resigned and went on television talk shows, radio, starts to explain this, wrote a book about it, continues to talk about it to this day.
I interviewed him for the newsletter.
Diana, grab me.
See if you can access this section of the J. Christian Adams newsletter interview, because I want to read it to the audience if I can get it here in time.
But I asked him, how does it work?
How do Holder and Obama communicate?
How does Holder find out what Obama wants to do?
Are there meetings?
Does Holder ever go to the White House?
And Jay Christian Adams, that's not how it would happen.
It would all be done through intermediaries for plausible deniability and other things.
But he was there.
He's in this Justice Department, and I wanted to know just to what degree.
And by the way, they should talk.
Don't misunderstand.
Presidents and their cabinet members ought to talk.
And the cabinet ought to be there to do the bidding of the president.
That's why he hires them.
So I'll try to find that excerpt from the interview to Limbaugh Letter and share it with you.
Meantime, Jason, in Waco, Texas.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush, mega Republic of Texas dittos.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
There's a whole lot of political theater that could take place between now and November.
Do you think that the Republicans are content to just run out the clock, so to speak, on Fast and Furious?
Or do they have the stones to actually seek some legislative remedies?
Well, let me ask you a question.
What is your opinion of the way ISA has conducted the committee so far?
I think it's taken far too long.
I think that the results have been.
Now, wait, though, you just asked me if I thought there was going to be a lot of political theater.
Now, you could, on the other hand, credit ISA for delaying this until an election year, when more people are paying attention, when it'll have more impact.
I don't know that he's doing anything of the sort.
I'm just suggesting that if you want bang for your buck, there's going to be more for it this year than if he'd gotten this done last year.
But, I mean, would there be anything other than a contempt vote?
I mean, to me, that seems like just kind of legislative censure or something pretty slap on the wrist.
Oh.
Do you think they would blow it up any bigger than that?
I don't know.
A contempt vote would be and require the whole House.
The committee could vote for it, then that recommends it the whole House.
You wouldn't have an official contempt citation until the whole House voted on it.
Republicans have the votes for that.
That would be a pretty big deal.
But beyond that, you'd be calling for his resignation, this kind of thing.
We know clearly the Democrats play the game that way.
Would these guys do it during an election year?
I don't know.
A contempt vote is pretty serious.
It's not common.
It's not a.
Oh, clearly.
It's not something that happens all the time.
But whether they would play the game the Democrats do, demanding Holder quit like they did with Gonzalez, that's a good question.
I think in an election, I'd have to guess, but during an election year with the focus on the independents as it always is, the overriding desire not to offend them by appearing partisan, who knows.
You'd make the case that you may have a point, but time will tell.
But remember, remember this, Jason.
Whatever they do or don't do in Congress, we are still here at the EIB network.
We will take care of it.
I just found the passage in the interview with Jake Christian Adams that I want.
I just found it right before this segment began.
And it's behind me on the computer.
And I can't turn around and read it on the computer because I got a camera here.
And I don't want to look that way on the camera.
So we'll get to it here in just a second.
In the meantime, where are we going?
Well, Twy Duane in Huntington, Indiana.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Turn it off.
Just give it to me.
It's a pleasure to talk to you again.
Thank you for taking my call.
I tried to call last Friday.
This is to what I consider the greater reason why all of this criminality and corruption, which hadn't even occurred, which happened in this last 24 hours, hadn't even occurred.
Why you will never see Eric Holder out of that office?
It goes to next November.
And reminder of Philadelphia four years ago and how he deflected, refused to pursue any corruption in voting, any intimidation, and voter fraud.
And I think they're even now planning the voter fraud and intimidation for next November.
And that's why Holder won't go anywhere because he's conducting the fraud and all that.
He's got the alligator hide to handle it.
Well, how did that work out in Wisconsin for him?
Pardon me?
How did that work in Wisconsin for him?
I mean, if this notion that these guys have the ability to rig and win every election, then why don't they?
Well, the thing of it is, he needs this may be the edge that Obama is hoping to have if it gets close enough.
I don't think it's going to, but if it would get close enough in some areas where they would need his protection, I think it's important to keep him in there.
And I don't think they can humiliate the administration enough to get rid of him, barring criminal charges and an indictment.
Well, I'll agree with the fact that I don't think they're going to get rid of him.
But I, you know, this business of they've got to keep Holder in there for fraud.
We all know that the Democrats engage in voter fraud.
I mean, it's but the idea that they succeed at it all the time is what Bob they don't.
They'd win every election if they were this good at it.
They would never lose.
And of course they do lose.
Now, we know the media is not going to force Holder out, and Obama is not going to force Holder out.
And Holder, Folks, I think both these guys think they are above the law by virtue of the fact that they believe they are the law.
If you look at Obama doesn't care about the Constitution, look at what he did last Friday with immigration.
Just essentially granted amnesty for certain Hispanic people, just executive fiat.
After Congress had expressly defeated the very plan, Obama said and did it with the stroke of his pen.
So I think both of these guys think that they are the law.
And I think that in private, they are both indignant as they can be at this insolence.
How dare we?
How dare ISA, how dare the Republicans come after us?
How dare they?
They are the closest thing in their own minds to kings and royalty that you can imagine.
They have a sense of entitlement.
So the reality of Holder going anywhere for the benefit of the Department of Justice, for the benefit of the country, to spare the country term, it's not going to happen.
I agree with you on that.
I just, I don't think that the sole reason so they could have the ultimate arbiter to look the other way at all the Obama election fraud or Democrat election fraud.
Clearly, if you want to think of them that way, then Holder would be necessary.
Here's the thanks for the call, Dwayne.
I appreciate it.
Here is the question and answer.
I was talking to Jay Christian Adams.
This is the November 2011 issue of the Limbaugh Letter in the era of Limbaugh.
And the question was: well, how often, Mr. Adams, do you think that Obama and Holder speak?
And how often do you think Holder is told what to do by Obama?
I can only assume how things work when you've got radicals like this who are totally agenda-oriented.
Holder, I'm sure, can do all this on his own.
He fields this stuff himself.
But how often do you think that he and Obama talk?
And Jay Christian's Christian Adams' answer was: Here is how it works: there's domestic policy advisors in the White House in the West Wing, and somebody is assigned to justice.
I don't know who that person is.
It's an interesting point that I might follow up on.
This domestic policy advisor would be the person who lords over justice on a daily basis, talking to all the political appointees, cracking the whip, making sure that everybody's in line.
That's how it works on a daily basis.
Obama and Holder talk on an almost weekly basis, I think, either in national security briefings or otherwise.
So there's an unbroken chain of communication between the White House and Holder.
And again, it is with somebody, domestic policy advisor in the White House, assigned to justice.
Obama issues decrees.
That guy, the advisor, then either calls or goes over to justice and says, here's the agenda, here's the plan, cracks the whip.
He made it sound like Obama and Holder really only talk once a week.
So I was asking this because my curiosity about the functioning of government at the highest level is something that I've never really gotten answers to.
I'm curious.
I heard that Clinton was never off the phone.
He and Lyndon Johnson.
These people were on the phone constantly, issuing orders, twisting arms, whatever it takes.
Now, we're told that Obama doesn't do that.
The rap on Obama is that he doesn't like people.
Where was this?
Was this in the Atlantic or Vanity Fair or was it the Daily Beast?
Might have one of those three.
Obama doesn't really like being around people.
He's not crazy.
He doesn't like having to answer their questions.
He doesn't like giving orders.
He has other people do that.
He's not crazy about talking to people on the phone.
But I just think of these liberals and their lives are this stuff.
And I envision themselves talking about nothing else, no matter where they are.
It could be a party, could be in bed, could be in the bathroom, could be at dinner.
They are constantly plotting.
They are constantly strategizing.
And so what I was trying to figure out, how often does Obama pick up the phone and call Holder and they get together as good friends and plot the next move and laugh amongst themselves about how much fun they're having, how much success they're having?
How often does that kind of stuff happen?
And there's nobody who really knows except those two.
These people marry each other.
They divorce themselves and marry others just like them.
They constantly talk about this stuff.
They never stop talking about it.
Somebody in the ACL, you'll be married to a Supreme Court justice.
Somebody in the ACL, you'll be married to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge.
They never stop talking, never stop strategizing.
Judge Hirschner, they need to heal hearings.
He's married to some left-wing radical guy, and they sit around and plot all the time, even in the bathroom, shaving and everything else you can imagine going on.
They're talking about this stuff.
So I just want to know.
But nobody knows.
But I have to think they talk more than once a week.
And I think they sit there and say they think they're going to get rid of us.
What election?
You know, folks, there is other stuff out there.
I haven't gotten to one thing that I prepared for this show today.
Not one thing.
These first two hours have been totally off the top of my head with, of course, in-show research going on.
But there are other things.
▲
Export Selection