Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: We finally have the press release which has been made public here by the independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald — who, by the way, the liberals, the Democrats are all calling him “Elliott Ness.” He’s an Elliott Ness out there. What does that mean? It means that Al Capone is in the White House. These terms here are not accidentally chosen. It’s a five-count <a target=new href=”http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html”>indictment</a>, one count object construction of justice, two counts of lying to investigators, and two counts of perjury. Five-count (interruption). What? It’s Libby. Yeah, this is Libby. It’s the only one that there’s any mention of today. The only indictment is of Libby and it’s one count of obstruction, two of lying to investigators, two counts of perjury. The details of these counts and the reasons are in the documents and they’re being pored over now. Apparently they have evidence he said one thing here and another thing there. Still don’t have any indictments on who it was that supposedly broke the law and released the name of Valerie Plame to the public or made her name public. Here’s Rob in Binghamton, New York. Rob, glad you called. You’re on the EIB Network and Open Line Friday.
CALLER: Well, I guess I just want to be the first to ask you. You know, a lot of people took you at your word a few years ago when it was Bill Clinton. You’re outrage, conservatives’ outrage over the perjury. It wasn’t about politics; it was about principle, and I’m wondering if you feel as strongly about Mr. Libby.
RUSH: Well, see, I know your question here. I know where it’s going, and let me answer it as fully as I can for you. I don’t support perjury or lying to investigators, and I’m not going to fluff it off, and I’m not going to say, “What’s the big deal?” I am going to point out the differences in these two cases, though. In the Clinton case, it wasn’t just about sex. There was lying under oath, cited as such by a federal judge. There was suborning perjury on the part of Monica Lewinsky. He wrote for her a false affidavit that she presented. He conducted from the highest levels of this government, the Oval Office, Bill Clinton conducted an entire attempt to obstruct justice and lie, and he did lie under oath. That was the president of the United States, and he was not indicted. He had his law license suspended, and he was disbarred from the Supreme Court for a number of years from trying cases or working at the Supreme Court as a lawyer, but the independent counsel said, “Well, he’s the highest man in the government. This just wouldn’t be right. We’re not going to indict,” and Mrs. Clinton, by the way, the independent counsel said that she “made materially false statements in her grand jury testimony [the travel office firings], but they decided not to indict her, either. They thought that she had made materially false statements and that the statements couldn’t be squared, but nothing was done. Now, what is this case?

This case is about — and we’ve been at it now for two years — this case is about finding out who supposedly broke the law in leaking the name of Valerie Plame and making that name public. She, a valued and brave and courageous CIA agent, and after two years, we apparently don’t have any evidence that a crime of such was committed. We don’t have any evidence whatsoever that that was a crime. So after two years this independent counsel decides to indict Libby on perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators. Now, you’re not going to have me sit here and defend any of that. I’m not going to defend lying to investigators but I am going to point out to you the differences in how justice is applied and let you make the call on this. To me, it’s rather obvious, but I don’t know what your point is. You have not heard me defend Libby. You’ve not heard me say the independent counsel ought not do this. I’ve just made the point here that the original crime after being investigated for two years doesn’t seem to have occurred. Now, I’m looking forward, I always do in situations like this, if there ever gets to the day that we’ll have a trial, I’m looking forward to that coming down. I hope he goes out and I hope he gets a lawyer that sends chills up the back of the Department of Justice.
There are lawyers like Brendan Sullivan who was Oliver North’s lawyer. Brendan Sullivan will go in there and make the justice department the target of the case, rather than Libby’s actions, and that’s what you have to do, even though you’re the defense you’ve got to fight offense on these kinds of things. I hope that’s the case. I never attacked this prosecutor during this whole process as the liberals attacked Ken Starr as a sex-starved, dirty old man or having a political agenda. I’ve never — and you haven’t heard anybody on my side of the aisle, Rob, go after this prosecutor. We’ve not attacked him whatsoever. We have pointed out how the left has built this guy up to be somehow apolitical an Elliott Ness, a prosecutor’s prosecutor, unassailable because they want to insulate him. They want to make him bulletproof from any kind of attack, because he’s indicting Republicans, or a Republican here, the vice president’s chief of staff. I understand, and I know you’re rubbing your hands with glee out there thinking you caught old Rush in a little bit of hypocrisy. But as usual, it’s you people that are behind the eight ball and don’t see what’s actually happening and can’t get it straight what happened in the past because you don’t want to admit it anyway. So that’s my answer to you.
RUSH: Okay, let me go through this one more time for you libs out there who think you’ve caught us in all kinds of hypocrisy. Bill Clinton should have been indicted, and not over an e-mail, either, like Scooter Libby has been but rather for preparing a false affidavit, having his lawyer introduce it into evidence, testifying to its truthfulness and so forth. He did all of that obstructing justice, multiple acts of perjury, conspiracy and contempt. These were premeditated. They were central to the sex harassment case and Clinton never disputed them, even though he could have in a hearing which he refused you. In this case the underlying issue was whether Plame was covert, whether she was outed, thereby endangering her and national security. This Libby indictment doesn’t even deal with what this special counsel’s investigation was about. Robert Ray — and I misspoke — Robert Ray concluded Hillary Clinton lied repeatedly about her role in the travel office firings, not the Rose Law Firm billing records, but he decided not to charge, even though he concluded she lied under oath. Now, Hillary is said to be a terrific senator. She’s going to run for her party’s presidential nomination, all is well. Now, is something wrong with this picture or what? And she did conceal those Rose Law Firm billing records for two years in the private residence of the White House and didn’t know how they got there. Libby didn’t do any of this.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This