All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:48
February 1, 2017, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
There's something that you might not know.
You may have heard about it by now, but some of you may not.
Neil Gorsuch is the son of the most hated and reviled EPA director in the history of the EPA.
Her name is Ann Gorsuch, actually Ann Gorsuch Burford.
She was Ronaldus Magnus's EPA director, and they hated her.
They just despised her.
And so it's unstated.
Well, no, it actually isn't.
I mean, you've had Andrea Mitchell in NBC says some others uh in the drive-by's have mentioned this.
They've gone to great pains to say we can't use the sins of the mother against the son, but they are trying to convey that by just saying it.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, or the oil derrick doesn't fall far from the sun, or whatever.
I mean, it they hated the woman.
I I when I saw that when I first saw the name Neil Gorsuch, I mean, whatever it was weeks ago, I said, I wonder.
I wonder.
It's not a common name.
And I knew the name.
So I looked it up, and uh Shazam, the guy is the daughter of the most hated EPA director.
The Democrats hated EPA director.
I mean, she fired people, they accused her of corrupting the agency and polluting America and so forth.
It was vicious, folks.
It was vicious the way they went after, and she was fearless.
She was absolutely fearless and defiant.
Anyway, greetings.
Great to have your Rush Limbaugh here behind the Golden EIB microphone, broadcast excellence, three hours.
We'll have Vice President Prince Pence here in a couple of hours.
He'll join us top of the 2 p.m. Eastern hour today to uh discuss this and whatever else I choose to ask him.
And uh what do we got it for?
Segment or two?
Pretty much it.
Okay.
Uh the reaction to Gorsuch across the leftist spectrum has been political and predictable.
And it basically is breaking down into two camps.
The non-elected left that has ties to the legal community.
They work at think tanks and they are thinkers on the judiciary, or they are judges themselves, or they are close to judges, or they're members of law organizations.
Every one of the you can't deny the guy's qualifications.
There simply is no way to deny his qualifications.
And many of them are saying, look, it's a replacement seat, it's not a net gain and either.
So let's let's kind of keep our powder dry, and let's not launch everything we've got on this guy, because he's gonna get confirmed and he's imminently qualified.
But then you go to the elected Democrats, and it's a whole different story because their lunatic base is demanding rampant, constant lunatic opposition.
And they're getting it.
Leftist the protesting, I was I was watching, I know what O'Reilly was doing.
I was watching O'Reilly show last night after the ceremony.
Well, I had Fox on and watching O'Reilly, and I because I knew he was gonna have some people on to talk about this, and and O'Reilly, I knew what he was doing.
He was playing uh quasi ignorant in order to draw his guests out.
Like he was saying, how in the world, how in the world are guys qualifying?
How can you not approve the guy in order to get Dr. Krauthammer to launch or other guests and so forth?
Um, but for people that didn't know what O'Reilly was doing, I'm sure a lot of people, what do you mean?
How in the world are they not going to oppose?
How can they say he's not qualified?
They're Democrats.
And he's not qualified because this should have been Merrick Garland's seat, number one.
So that's the New York Times and everybody else is saying this is a stolen seat.
The Democrats ought to have this seat.
The Republicans refused a vote even on Merrick Garland.
He didn't even get a hearing, and so Gorsuch ought to be opposed for that reason alone, tit for tat.
But the real reason that they don't want Gorsuch is because he interprets the Constitution.
And he will not overturn Citizens United.
And he will not automatically guarantee that Roe v.
Wade stays intact.
I mean, they have their litmus tests, and Neil Gorsuch will not pass a single left-wing litmus test.
But I tell you what I think is happening.
The left is, and the Democrat Party combined.
I think they are marginalizing themselves each and every day.
The polling data shows that despite all of the efforts that the media has engaged in, and that the Democrats have engaged in, Trump is still a net positive approval rating.
They're really not putting a dent in Trump.
The American people are not being swayed anywhere like they usually have been during previous Republican administrations on things like this.
And the left is really marginalizing itself.
And this guy, there are enough people on the left singing his praises as simply a qualified jurist.
There literally is no way to say this man doesn't deserve to be a judge.
A justice, a judge anywhere.
He's just educationally slam dunk, intellectually slam dunk, experienced.
There simply is no way to say he is not qualified.
So to stop him, they have to go to other lengths and try other techniques.
And when they do that, they're exposing themselves.
I think for many people for the first time, see exactly just who the Democrat Party is, what it's become, and who some of these people are.
There's not a dislikable or unlikable thing about Neil Gorsuch as a human being or as a judge, and yet they're going to, the Democrats are under pressure from their from their fanatical base to stop this, to oppose this, because they are trying.
They're living in their own world.
They cannot accept the results of the election.
They cannot accept what Trump is doing because he won.
They just can't accept any of it.
And they do not accept reality.
Remember, reality to them is a construct of people who want to deny the left to participate in things.
It's not really real.
It's all an artificial creation of an evil majority.
And so they just they can't come to grips with what has happened.
Now they're not going to be able to sustain this emotional pitch forever.
Nobody can.
At some point, this is going to, it isn't going to go away.
It's not going to end, but the energy level and the intensity is going to drop and decline.
So simply because it's not humanly possible to maintain this kind of legitimate outrage.
They are going to try to maintain the perception that they're outraged, and as it's manifesting itself here in the Gorsuch case, their protesters outside the Supreme Court last night with prefabricated pre-made signs, no matter who the nominee was, they were going to use them.
And it's what?
He's racist.
He's extreme.
He's anti-female.
He's anti-Re.
Before they even knew who it was.
So much of this is simply what I call by rote.
It's just it's existing because this is all the left knows to do.
It's the only technique they really know how to do, and it's been successful for them, so that's why they don't give it up.
And their media allies have enabled them to succeed in destroying Republican after Republican after Republican.
But in this case, everybody talks about the nuclear option.
And maybe I should take time to explain and define what the nuclear option is.
It gets thrown around before Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option.
The rule is in the Senate, you needed 60 votes to do anything.
That rule goes back a long time.
It's not an original Senate rule.
It was added to the Senate after the founding of the country, but it's been around for decades.
It's been accepted by both Parties.
The Senate, compared to the House, is where things are supposed to slow down.
By design, founding father design, the lat the founding fathers were hellbent to stop government action.
The Constitution limited government.
And that's why people like Obama and Democrats call it a charter of negative liberties because it limits government.
It's an anti-government, pro-citizen document.
And the founders wanted to make it hard.
Gridlock was part of the design.
The founders wanted to make it hard for laws to be passed.
They wanted to make it hard for there to be restrictions on the freedom of the people.
The House was set up as the direct representatives of the people, not direct democracy, but served there.
Many more of them per district and in toto.
They served for two-year terms.
The Senate was the equivalent of an aristocracy at the beginning.
Senators were not even elected.
They were appointed in the early days, then that changed, and senators did become elected.
But the Senate is designed to slow down out-of-control mad cap activity elsewhere in the legislative branch, i.e., in the House.
And the 60 vote rule was part of that.
You have a hundred senators, but for anything to happen, you need 60, which makes it really hard for anything to happen.
Well, the Democrats under Obama never had 60 votes.
For cabinet nominees, you need 60.
For judicial nominees, you need 60 until Harry Reed came along in 2013 and blew up the 60 vote rule.
And this is called the nuclear option.
And Harry Reid decreed, because he ran the Senate, Senate majority leader, he ran it, and he was able to ramrod rules changes through.
So beginning in 2013, 60 votes were no longer needed to affirm presidential appointments, nominations, or judges for every court except the Supreme Court.
All you needed was 51 votes.
This was so Obama could pack the federal judiciary.
Because the Democrats, what they can't win at the ballot box, they enshrine in law in the judiciary.
They place activist judges on courts all over the country who write law, who create law, not interpret it.
The Democrats long ago seized on this opportunity when they couldn't win legislatively, when they couldn't get legislation passed, didn't matter.
When controversial cases came up before that's why Roe vs.
Wade is the law of the land, not because of legislation.
The American people have never voted on it.
The representatives of the people have never voted on it, and this is why I think it's so contentious.
You know, they have uh abortion restrictions in the U.K. But in the U.K. that came after a protracted debate involving the public, and the elected representatives of the public in the House of Commons voted.
So there wasn't so much you could when nine people wearing black robes decide something.
And it becomes law, which is how Roe versus Wade became law.
You're never going to solve the controversy about it because the way things normally happen in this country via the elected representatives of the people didn't happen.
Well, the Democrats have tried that and succeeded with numerous interpretations of law at various federal courts that have not been interpretations.
They have been rather Democrats.
I'll give you a great example.
Supreme Court Chief Justice.
John Roberts took Obamacare, the mandate clause, the clause that mandated people by insurance, which is unconstitutional.
The chief justice decided he didn't want to be the guy that declared unconstitutional, something so important to a president, particularly the first black press.
So he rewrote parts of Obamacare in his opinion, which turned the mandate into a tax, which then gave the federal government the right to do it.
That's why everybody was so outraged by it.
Well, the left has done this and continues to do this with liberal judges all over the country.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most famous place where this kind of thing happens.
So in service to this, Harry Reid blows up the 60 vote requirement, which is called the nuclear option.
And for every judicial nominee except Supreme Court nominees, 51 votes, all that were needed.
When he did this, a lot of Democrats said, Mr. Reed, you better think about this because once you do this, you're now opening the door for the Republicans to do the same thing when they end up back in charge here.
And Harry Reid said, I'm not going to be here when that happens because I'm going to retire, so screw it.
He wanted Obama to be able to pack the courts, and this is how he did it.
So in order to get any judicial nominee passed, 51 votes is all that was required in the Senate, not 60, beginning in 2013.
Well, now here we come with the nomination of Judge Gorsuch.
Sixty votes are still needed because he is a Supreme Court nominee, and Harry Reed didn't change that.
But since Harry Reid changed it for everything else, Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, can easily say, you know what?
I'm gonna, I'm just gonna apply the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominees.
And the Democrats can caterwaller and and whine and moan all they want.
But there's nothing they can do to stop that.
Therefore, there's nothing they can do to stop Gorsuch being confirmed.
He's going to be confirmed because there's no way they can really stop him.
They can't convince people he's a bad guy.
They can't convince people he's a bad judge, they can't convince people he doesn't deserve to be there, because they have already unanimously approved every judicial stop on his career.
They by voice vote unanimously confirmed him to his current job and appellate judge in the 10th circuit out in Colorado.
Six states are covered in that circuit.
How do they then turn around and say, well, he didn't have a record then, but that was ten years ago, and he's got a record now, and it's unassailable.
So it the point is they're all all the Republicans need without the nuclear option is eight Democrats to join them.
And so far, seven Democrats have said that they are willing to do so, that they do not want the nuclear option triggered.
Seven Democrats, many of them up for re-election in 2018 in red states where Trump won, like Claire McCaskill is one.
Missouri went for Trump by double digits.
She's up for re-election.
There was no question Missouri wanted Trump.
And if she goes against Trump on something like this, she is imperiling her own re-election.
Joe Manchin in West Virginia is another.
Right as we sit here today, there are seven Democrats willing to do whatever's necessary to avoid the nuclear option, which means joining the Republicans.
So right now, as we sit here on paper, nobody's actually voted.
They've got 59 votes for the guy in the Senate.
As we sit here today, on paper, that look, anything can change, but I'm just we're speaking theoretically here.
Trump today signaled that he's okay with triggering the nuclear option if it's necessary to get this guy confirmed, and it'll so the Democrats, I think they're making a huge tactical mistake by shoeing everything they've got at this guy.
When he doesn't change the balance of the court, he's replacing Scalia.
Have to take a break.
We will continue this until we get back.
Don't go away.
By the way, I should add, outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid said that he is confident that he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if they win back the Senate in November.
Remember now, last fall, everybody thought Hillary Clinton was going to win.
They thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide.
They thought Trump was going to lose in a humiliating fashion.
Dingy Harry was retiring.
Last October, he said that he was confident that he had laid the groundwork for the Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees as well if they won the Senate back last November.
He was envisioning Hillary in the White House.
He was envisioning Democrats controlling the Senate.
He warned Harry Reid, the outgoing Senate majority leader last October warned that if a Senate Republican minority tried to block Hillary's Supreme Court nominee, that he was confident that the Democrats would not hesitate to change the filibuster rules again to include Supreme Court nominees.
The point is he wouldn't say this that he was confident unless he knew that Schumer was going to pull the trigger and pull the nuclear option.
The Democrats, the point is the Democrats are acting like stuck pigs over the idea that the filibuster would be nuked.
In other words, 60 votes done away with to confirm any of Trump's Supreme Court nominees when Harry Reid had laid the groundwork for Schumer, his replacement to do it anyway.
Now the Democrats are acting like it would be this great offense, great constitutional assault, be totally unacceptable for him to they were prepared to do it themselves.
Once again, rank smelly hypocrisy pouring out of every cell and orifice of the Democrat Party amoeba.
Wait, an amoeba is only a single cell.
I've just described their brain collectively.
At any rate, look, I just wanted to get that explained.
So when you hear nuclear option, no question what it is now.
Back with more in a minute.
Hey, by the way, there's a couple of things out there that I want to mention to you that are big news.
Before we get back to the Gorsett situation, uh this morning, Orin Hatch did something that we haven't seen Republicans have the courage to do in I don't know how long.
Republicans are getting fed up with Democrat delays on the nominations at Tom Price, Healthy Human Services, and uh Minuchin as the Treasury Secretary.
And so and the way they were doing this was by not showing up at the hearings.
And the rules are such that if Democrats aren't there, the hearings can't go on.
There have to be a certain number there.
And they were saying they weren't showing up because these people were lying to them.
The nominees were not telling the truth.
They're gonna waste their time showing up unless these people continue to tell them lies.
So Orin Hatch invoked a rule that said, okay, if you don't want to show up, we're gonna have the vote anyway.
Screw you!
And they did.
The Republicans voted and confirmed Tom Price and Manuchin with not a single Democrat present in the committee.
And it's done.
It's just that simple.
And all the Democrats can do is scream like stuck pigs, and all the media can do is run around and talk about how unfair, anti-democratic the Republicans were and Oren Hatch are.
These people were going to be confirmed anyway.
The Democrats are just bollocksing things up because they want to make it hard for the Trump administration to function.
And so the Republicans said, enough is enough.
Went ahead and had the vote.
The committee vote on Jeff Sessions took place right before the program started today.
What's his name?
Al Franken made an absolute fool of himself.
When it was his turn to speak, he got into minutiae of previous testimony in the hearings.
Grassly tried to shut him down and then figured out politically it would make more sense to let Franken drone on.
So they let Franken drone on about things anybody was watching.
they wouldn't have the slightest idea.
It just looked like a maniac, a measured maniac, but nevertheless a maniac.
Spoiled sport, everything else.
So after Franken finishes, he was reading, which is boring to listen to anyway from his own typed manuscript.
Grassley called for a vote.
The vote took all of two minutes, and the committee confirmed sessions with a recommendation that means the full Senate will vote on sessions, hopefully this afternoon.
Uh and and maybe uh maybe tomorrow.
So action took place up on Capitol Hill on three different nominations before the program started.
Also uh it is being reported that the White House has blackballed CNN, that the Trump administration is now refusing to send any surrogates, any spokespeople, anybody from anywhere in the administration to CNN because they're fake news.
The administration is not going to grant CNN access to any administration officials.
Finally, this kind of thing should have been done long ago.
The way Republicans are treated by these fake news outfits, there's no reason to show up there and get pummeled unless you have the ability to pummel back.
So the Trump White House has told CNN you're fake news, we're not sending any of our surrogates to your network audio sound bites.
The way one of the ways the Democrats are going after Gorsuch.
By the way, let me get a little uh political theaterslash strategy here.
There are two schools of thought.
I can see it developing, by the way.
This is my interpretation analysis based on reading and what I've seen today.
On the left, in the activist community, in the community organizer community, in the elected community, in the legal community in the left, you got two camps.
One camp is, hey, the guy's gonna get firm confirmed, let's back off.
You know, let's let's mount some opposition and make him have, you know, have to work for it in the hearings, but he's gonna get confirmed, and we know it.
It's not worth using all of our ammo because it doesn't change the balance of the court.
The other faction on the left is made up of most of the elected Democrats who want to yose every bit of ammunition they have to try to destroy the guy, because that's just who they are.
And that's what their base is demanding.
Their base, their lunatic, genuinely insane base, is demanding that there be no tolerance and no acceptance, no niceties, no compassion, no collegiality here.
They want this guy destroyed like they want every Republican related figure destroyed.
The elected Democrats have to listen to that base because that base sends them money and votes for them.
But in that, in that group of elected officials are tenators up for re-election in two years that come from red states that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
They are walking a tightrope.
Now, since this seat does not change the balance of the court, you've heard it said that Gorsuch is a scalia clone in terms of uh his judicial temperament, his view of the Constitution, original intent, and all that.
That's that's not an attempt to uh take away from Gorsuch individuality by calling him a scalia clone.
It's uh the point being made that the balance of the court doesn't change.
It's still gonna be five, four.
Well, it's gonna be four, four plus Kennedy.
And Kennedy, you know, goes whichever way the Washington Post style section goes.
So that's the way it was with Scalia.
No real change in balance.
The Democrats are fuming that Merrick Garland ought to be there, and this balance ought to go out the window, but Merrick Garland isn't there.
So they want the Democrats to score a point, make the Republicans pay by having a tough road or impossible as it can be made road for for Gorsuch.
The real energy is is what this one faction that wants to bide their time and let this guy eventually get confirmed, like in March or in three months.
The non-elected half of the Democrat opposition, they're worried over who the next opening, who will present the next opening by virtue of resignation, retirement, or dare we say, uh physical impairment.
You have Ruth Bader Ginsburg who's 83.
You have uh others that off and on have talked about retirement.
She doesn't want to go anywhere because she doesn't want Trump appointing her replacement, but we're looking at four years.
If if one of the four lips, cutting to the chase here, if one of the four lives in the court, retires, resigns, is incapacitated, and Trump nominates Gorsuch Jr., that's what some of these Democrats want to save their fire for.
Don't want to blow everything they've got here on somebody who's going to get confirmed, on somebody they can't damage, on somebody who doesn't change the balance.
I think they're misreading all of this.
I'm just telling you the way they're looking at this.
They don't know anything but launching everything they have.
Their primary technique for achieving political victory is precisely to destroy political opposition.
They are not interested in debate.
They're not interested in the arena of ideas and prevailing in debate.
They want to clear the playing field of any opposition.
They do this by impugning, by destroying, not just careers, but lives, families, if they have to.
And half of them want to go for the throat for Gorsuch, and the other half say, no, no, no, it'd be a waste of resources.
Here's the thing.
They're not going to be able to avoid looking like they're launching everything to casual viewers and observers.
The degree of opposition to Gorsuch is going to be profound enough, and it's going to be predictable.
He hates women, he's uh he's a white heterosexual male, he can't possibly relate to America, you know, wacko things like that.
People are going to see it for what it is, and they're gonna they're not gonna think that it's tempered, they're gonna think, my God, the Democrats are launching everything they've got.
How many times can you launch everything you've got?
I mean, how many times can you cry Wolf?
How many times can you claim a Republican nominee hates women, hates gays, hates transgenders, hates this, hates that, hates Hispanics, hates blacks, racist sexists, big how many people can you accuse of doing that before it begins to sound like a yawner?
In this climate, with the Trump administration thriving and prevailing and public opinion approval numbers on the positive side for Trump, I don't think they have the slightest idea of the damage they're doing to themselves because it's never damaged them before.
They've always profited from this kind of lunacy.
They've always succeeded, more not, well, not always, but more often than not, they've been able to take out Republicans because the media never chides them.
The media never criticize them.
The media never castigates them.
The media is them, the media and they are the same.
The media promotes their lunacy and their insanity and their unhinged nature.
But after a while, when that's all the Democrats do, no matter the issue, no matter the person, no matter the legislation, eventually it's just gonna lose its impact.
Because people are gonna eventually say, wait a minute, everybody can't be a racist, sex is big and homophobe.
And you might think, well, that should have happened by now, Rush, because they've been doing it.
Yeah, but the the lay of the land is different now.
This election, and you know, elections have consequences.
We had an entirely different electorate show up in 2016.
An entirely different electorate, and they are happy.
They are satisfied.
They're not afraid, they're not frightened, they're not worried that Trump's gonna cave.
So I say let them be who they are and let them bring it on.
I think the people on the left who want the Democrats to temper this on Gorsuch and kind of dial it back a little bit, I think they're gonna be frustrated.
Because I don't think the Democrats know how to dial it back.
Uh Pelosi is who she is.
Schumer is who he Is.
All of these Democrats and the media, they are who they are.
I'll give you an example.
Some audio sound bites when we come back.
And then we get to your phone calls.
Don't go away, folks.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I was watching Judge Gorsuch make his remarks after President Trump had nominated him last night in the East Room of the White House.
And he said something that I thought was remarkable.
And I thought it was actu not just remarkable, but extremely helpful for his upcoming confirmation hearings.
Let me see if I can explain to you.
Judge Gorsuch made the point that he is unhappy with some of his own results, with some of his own rulings, make him unhappy or dissatisfied.
Now I knew exactly what that meant, but I wondered how many people watching knew.
Not not questioning people's intelligence, but rather understanding really what he meant by that.
What he meant was it was his way of explaining his judicial independence and the fact that he approaches every case as strictly a student and interpreter of the law.
And what he meant was, when he said that several of his own decisions or results disappointed him.
It means the law required him to find in a way he personally disagreed.
But his personal, he didn't say this.
This is what he meant.
His personal political biases or opinions are irrelevant when it comes to applying law and judging a case.
And I thought that is that is going to be a magic bullet for his confirmation hearings because that that sums it all up.
I mean, there's not much you can accuse a guy of when he's willing to admit that he is perfectly fine with judgments that violate his own wishes.
That's not how the left does it, folks.
That's what packing the court for them is all about.
That is what using the judiciary to advance the liberal agenda is all about.
They do explicitly rule on their political biases, not the law.
That's what judicial activism is.
That's what it's called.
Judicial activist.
Activist judges are judges that don't interpret the law.
They find and and adjudicate results that advance their own personal political policy beliefs.
And that is precisely how the left does it.
And that's what they demand of judges, and that's when they say a judge is out of the mainstream, which is one of the favorite things of Chuck Schumer to say.
He is an extremist, he's out of the mainstream.
What that means is he will not find for the liberal agenda in his rulings.
That's exactly what it means.
But nobody calls them out on that.
The media doesn't call it out.
They just leave it standing as the some poor guy's in the mainstream, or out of the mainstream, there's an extremist.
What that means in liberal speak is he's not going to find for us.
He's not going to rule that in a way that implements our agenda.
And Gorsuch admitted it by saying some of my own rulings disappoint me.
I'm sure many people said, well, then why did you rule that way?
Not knowing what he meant.
But he had to find according to the law, not his own personal beliefs.
And so that's why he's going to be called an extremist.
That's why he'll be said to be out of the mainstream.
Here, uh Grab, we have a little montage here.
This is one of the ways the knee-jerk reaction to the left to oppose the guy.
Many Democrats refer to this as a stolen seat.
Some Democrats are calling this a stolen seat.
This is in some way a stolen seat.
The stolen seat, quote, a stolen seat.
Referring to this as a stolen seat.
Their base calls this a stolen seat.
It's not a stolen seat, it's Scalia seat.
Stolen seat.
I mean, wellish.
No, it's not Scalia's, it's Merrick Garland's.
Merrick Garland.
Obama nomineated Garland.
Garland shouldn't have been a here, should have gotten hearings and he should have been confirmed.
But the Republicans didn't do it, and they stole it from Garland and gave it to this guy Gorsuch.
That's what they're the New York Times even editorializes that way.
Now, here is this is classic.
This is Nancy Pelosi last night CNN Town Hall with Pelosi.
Jake Tapper speaking with her about Trump's nomination of Judge Gorsuch.
We're only going to be talking about the Supreme Court, but it did just happen.
Do you care to comment, Madam Pelosi?
What I do want to say about this is that elections have ramifications.
And here is a living, breathing example of it.
The president in his first appointment to the court court, and hoping his only appointment to the court has appointed someone who has come down on the side of corporate America versus class action suits, uh on securities fraud.
He's cleaned I played the wrong bite.
employees'rights, clean air, clean water, food safety, safety and medicine and the rest.
I played the wrong bite.
I've got the heading up here and I think what follows it is what follows.
But it's not.
The second bite here is what I want to display, where I don't have time to play it.
But she says if you breathe air, if you drink water, if you eat food, if you take medicine, this guy is a bad judge.
I'll save the bite and play it for you when I have a moment.
Don't go away.
No, I've got a heading here on the roster.
Pelosi on Gorsuch, if you eat or drink or breathe, and the Gorsuch nomination is bad.
But the next bite is not that.
It's the second bite under the heading.
And so that's the only thing that went wrong in this hour.
I gotta change the way this is done because this is so misleading.
And I am America's chief communicator.
It's embarrassing, but I'll play the right bite when we get back here, folks.
▲
Export Selection