Rush on Democrats & Earle's Subpoena of Critics - "I Detest These People"

RL Site Transcript ^ | December 16, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh

[flattorney]

- BEGIN TRANSCRIPT -

RUSH: Folks, this is hilarious. The media is outraged that Bush would dare compromise the outcome of a fair trial by proclaiming in advance of the evidence that Tom DeLay is innocent. Of course, we're supposed to forget that during Monica, that during Paula, that during Kathleen, that during impeachment, every damn Democrat liberal in the world was running around proclaiming Bill Clinton's innocence and how he didn't lie -- and of course that wasn't compromising the outcome of anything. Sometimes, I am telling you, I detest these people. I detest, and that is why I have to get away from this sometimes. I detest these people. I literally detest them. I detest their ignorance. I detest their lying. I detest their duplicity. I detest their arrogance. I detest their superiority. I detest them --

>>>and now this hack, Ronnie Earle, is out there issuing subpoenas to a group that ran some TV ads attacking him in Travis County, Texas that called him an "attack dog." What is this, the Soviet Union? This is Stalinist. So Ronnie Earle is going out; he's subpoenaing enemies of the state. <<<

- BREAK TRANSCRIPT -

RUSH: This story is hilarious. It's the Washington Post: "Democrats criticize Bush for saying DeLay is innocent." This was the total topic at the White House press briefing yesterday. David Gregory was a vulture. He was a Turkey vulture. David Gregory would not let go of Scott McClellan on this. "Democrat leaders sternly..." and, of course, Gregory may as well be a Democrat leader. The NBC White House correspondent, "Democrat leaders sternly criticized President Bush yesterday for saying that Tom DeLay is innocent of felonious campaign finance abuses, suggesting his comments virtually amounted to jury tampering before DeLay stands trial." Dingy Harry said, "The president of the United States said a jury doesn't need to assemble that Tom DeLay is innocent. To have someone of his stature, the president, prejudge a case is something I've never seen before."

This happened during a Brit Hume interview on the Fox News Channel. We played you some of the sound bites yesterday. Dingy Harry says he's never seen it before. I'm not surprised. He's so old, he's got Alzheimer's disease. These fools who defended Clintons for years say this about Bush and DeLay? During Monica, during Paula, during Kathleen, during Juanita, during Craig, during all of these things, Admiral Boorda, during the impeachment, during the stained dress episode, Democrats did nothing but go on TV and say, "Bill Clinton's innocent." When Bill Clinton went out and said, "I never had sex with that woman, not a single time and I did not ask anyone to lie." Madeleine Albright led the charge of the White House staff going, "We believe our president." He was lying through his teeth. You don't remember this Dingy Harry? You don't remember prejudging Clinton's innocence? And he's actually a felon! It's not a contempt of court. Sorry for my voice rising here. I'm just incredulous today.

- END TRANSCRIPT -

[flattorney]

Background: Washington Post - Democrats Criticize Bush For Saying DeLay's Innocent

The DeLay Chronicles - Texas Criminal Indictments & More
News & Events Tracking, Complete Resources Master, and Expert Commentary - Updated 24/7

Posted by TAB

[gunnedah]

The SOB's do not care that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That only applies to Democrats and Liberals I suppose.

[gunnedah]

The SOB's do not care that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That only applies to Democrats and Liberals I suppose.

[pangaea6]

So if Delay isn't innocent they are presuming he's guilty? W/o a trial? He has to be either or and so we see where the Dems come down on civil liberties. Guilty until proven innocent. Now who's jury tampering!

[Wristpin]

Isn't this latest Earle action a violation of the First Admendment? He is part of the State Government and is going after these people based on what they expressed. Seems to me this is a "protected speech" case.

[hophead]

The dems have been busy saying Delay was guilty for the past what, 2 years? It seems like that long anyway. Remember Howierd Dean said Delay should go back to Texas to serve his jail time. But when the President says he believes someone is innocent until proven guilty, he is "tampering with the jury". Not just "influencing" the trial, but actual jury tampering.
It does not matter to the Dems the facts, or due process. Delay is guilty and thats that! They have completely lost it if my sense is correct. It just gets bizzarar and bizzarar. (is that a word?)
The Dems need for there to be a large Rupub "scandal" to win the next election. None of the Dem drummed up stuff has stuck yet. (Abu Graib, Gitmo, Rove...) This next election will be more interesting than the last.

[Verginius Rufus]

Another case is when some NY policemen were going to be tried for the death of that African immigrant (Diallou?) who was shot dead when they thought he was pulling a weapon on them, but turned out to be unarmed...Hillary saw nothing wrong with calling them "murderers" before they were tried.

[jmaroneps37]

I think that for a long time Rush has been rolling the idea of getting even more involved in everyday political things around in his mind. I think that he has been waiting for some positive turning points in his case so he can go after the rats with a clear head. I think the dopes in Florida made a powerful enemy, one they don't even understand the power of. In January we will see him even more fired up. Go Rush!

[Redbob]

While I find the idea of Rush running for office appealing, I can scarcely imagine an office in which he would be more influential than he is on radio, with millions listening to him daily.