RUSH: Now here comes the cover-up. I want to take you back to March 19th, 2007.
You might remember that Alberto Gonzales, a member of the Bush administration as attorney general who fired the eight US attorneys. The Democrats were after Albert Gonzales and other Hispanics that the Bush administration sought to elevate, because Hispanics do not get elevated in a Republican Party. It just doesn't happen. Democrats say they can't allow that to be seen. So Alberto Gonzales became attorney general. He was a good friend of Bush's, really had a lot of respect for him. Miguel Estrada, one of Bush's judicial nominees, was thought to be qualified for Supreme Court.
They did everything they could, the Democrats, to destroy Miguel Estrada. And they wanted to get rid of Alberto Gonzales. And Obama joins the chorus of Democrats suggesting that Gonzales should quit, be fired, or resign. So this is again is Larry King Alive, March 19th, 2007. Larry King said, "The major issue at hand these days is Albert Gonzales' firing of the eight US attorneys. What's your read on that, Senator [Kardashian]?"
OBAMA 2007: 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 Albert Gonzales 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 enabler of the administration as opposed to somebody who was actually, uh, tryin' to look out for the American people's interests. Uh, and for that reason, I think it's time for him to step down and -- and for another attorney general who can exercise some independence to be, uh, put for the remainder of this president's term.
RUSH: They ganged up on Gonzales, and he had to go. And it was over the firing of eight US attorneys. And don't forget, Clinton had canned all 93 within the first week or two of his inauguration in 1993. So Alberto Gonzales had to be fired. And one of the points of controversy (if I recall this correctly) in the Gonzales situation was that there was a misstatement of fact and it was known that Gonzales 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 gotta go." Well, you can apply that same thinking to Holder. Holder has done far more. He has been done far more egregious things here than Gonzales did. So Obama could be talking about Holder here in this sound bite. Everything he said about Gonzales is applicable to Holder.
You think Eric Holder tells Obama what he can't do?
Nobody tells Obama what he can't do.
In fact, what happens is these guys get together and conspire about what they're gonna do. We have spoken to none other than J. Christian Adams. He was with the Justice Department in the Civil Rights Division. Remember, he's the guy who quit when Holder refused to prosecute the case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. J. Christian Adams said, "It was good case. We had a high probability of conviction. Almost a slam-dunk case."
And Holder simply withdrew the case, claiming that black defendants were not gonna be pursued by this Justice Department. So J. Christian Adams resigned and went on television, talk shows, radio, to start to explain this. He wrote a book about it. He continues to talk about it to this day. I interviewed him for the newsletter. Diana, 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 (paraphrased exchange), "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 J. Christian Adams said, "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 was in this Justice Department, and I wanted to know just to what degree they talked. 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 in the Limbaugh Letter and share it with you.
In the meantime, Jason in Waco, Texas. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Mega Republic of Texas dittos. It's an honor to speak with you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: 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?
RUSH: Well, let me ask you a question. What is your opinion of the way Issa has conducted the committee so far?
CALLER: I think it's taken far too long. I think the results have been slow.
RUSH: Wait, though. You just asked me if I thought there was gonna be a lot of political theater. Now, you could, on the other hand, credit Issa for delaying this until an election year. When more people are paying attention. When it will 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 gonna be more for it this year than if they'd gotten this done last year.
CALLER: Do you think they would blow it up any bigger than that?
RUSH: I don't know. A contempt vote would require the whole House. The committee could vote for it, then that recommends it to the whole House. You wouldn't have an official contempt citation 'til the whole House voted on it. The Republicans have the votes for that. That would be a pretty big deal, but beyond that you mean 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.
CALLER: Oh, clearly.
RUSH: It's not something that happens all the time. But whether they would play the game that Democrats do, demanding Holder quit like they did with Gonzales? That's a good question. I think in an election year...? I'd have to guess, but during an election year with the focus on the independents, as it always is, and the overriding desire not to offend them by appearing partisan and all that? Who knows? You could make the case that you may have a point, but time will tell.
Remember this, Jason.
Whatever they do or don't do in Congress, we are still here at the EIB Network.
RUSH: I just found the passage in the interview with J. Christian Adams that I want. I just found it right before this segment began. 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 here just a second.
RUSH: Duane in Huntington, Indiana. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you for taking my call. I tried to call last Friday. This is to what I consider the greater reason why all 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.
RUSH: And that's why Holder won't go anywhere because he's --
CALLER: That's right, he --
RUSH: -- conducting the fraud and all the that.
CALLER: He's got the alligator hide to handle it.
RUSH: Well, how did that work out in Wisconsin for 'em?
CALLER: Well, I know.
RUSH: This notion that these guys have the ability to rig and win every election, then why don't they?
CALLER: Well, the thing of it is, 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 could humiliate the administration enough to get rid of him, barring criminal charges and an indictment.
RUSH: Well, I'll agree with the fact that I don't think they're gonna get rid of him, but this business they gotta keep Holder in there for fraud, we all know that the Democrats engage in voter fraud. The idea that they succeed at it all the time is what bothers me. 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's not gonna force Holder out, and Obama is not gonna force Holder out. And folks, I think both these guys think they're above the law by virtue of the fact that they believe they are the law.
Obamacare doesn't care about the Constitution. Look at what he did last Friday with immigration. Just essentially granted amnesty for certain Hispanic people, just by executive fiat. After Congress had expressly defeated the very plan Obama said (raspberry), 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 Issa, 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, it's not gonna happen. I agree with you on that. I don't think that the sole reason is 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 'em that way, then Holder would be necessary. Thanks for the call, Duane. I appreciate it.
Here is the question and answer. I was talking to J. 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 the stuff himself, but how often do you think that he and Obama talk?"
And J. Christian Adams' answer was, "Here is how it works. There's domestic policy advisers 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 adviser 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, a domestic policy adviser in the White House, assigned to Justice. Obama issues decrees. That guy, the adviser, 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. 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. 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? It might have been one of those three. Obama doesn't really like being around people. 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. I envision them talking about nothing else, no matter where they are. Could be at a party, could be in bed, could be in the bathroom, could be at dinner. They are constantly plotting. They are constantly strategizing.
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 to 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 ACLU will be married to a Supreme Court justice. Somebody in the ACLU will be married to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge.
They never stop talking. They never stop strategizing. Judge Hershner, Anita Hill hearings, is 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 there, talking about this stuff. So I just want to know. But nobody knows. I have to think they talk more than once a week, and I think they sit there and say, "They think they're gonna get rid of us? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. What election?"