RUSH: USA Today: “President Obama, a sports fan who makes a living dealing with political issues, says more sports stars should speak out on public matters. In an interview with People magazine, Obama praised basketball star LeBron James and other athletes who protested grand jury refusals to indict police officers involved in the deaths of African-American males. ‘You know, I think LeBron did the right thing,’ Obama told People, referring to the decision by the Cleveland Cavaliers leader to wear a ‘I Can’t Breathe’ T-shirt at a recent game.
“Obama noted that there has been a rich of tradition of athletes speaking out on public issues, particularly during the volatile 1960s. ‘We forget the role that Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe and Bill Russell played in raising consciousness,’ the president said. That tradition has dimmed in recent years, he added. ‘We went through a long stretch there where (with) well-paid athletes the notion was: just be quiet and get your endorsements and don’t make waves,’ Obama said. ‘LeBron is an example of a young man who has, in his own way and in a respectful way, tried to say, “I’m part of this society, too” and focus attention. I’d like to see more athletes do that — not just around this issue, but around a range of issues.'”
He might be surprised at what he would get there, if that happened. You know, I’ve had, interestingly enough, I have had numerous conversations about this very subject with people that have worked in executive positions in the media and with some owners of sports franchises and so forth. And, believe me, everybody’s uncomfortable with it.
On the endorsements, for example, you know how much money Michael Jordan did on eBay last year? Want to take a guess? Take a stab at Michael Jordan stuff on eBay this past year. Try $175 million. Michael Jordan, you may know, you may not know, he’s a Democrat, but he also knows that Republicans buy tennis shoes and he doesn’t want to tick ’em off. So that’s been the largest reason why a lot of athletes have not gone political. As polarized as society is, you literally would anger half of your fan base if you did.
It’s why General Powell tried to run for president without enunciating his position on abortion. He didn’t want to disturb his 75% approval rating that he had. But, you know, the big point about this is that Obama saying LeBron James did the right thing in protesting the grand jury refusals, see, this is where this breaks down. If I were to make a statement to you that the justice system is about finding the truth, would you say yes or no? (interruption) Justice system or justice. I’ll remember ’til the day I die my dad’s long dissertations on this subject at the dinner table.
It was complicated trying to understand it. So I’m gonna synthesize the best I can what he said. But do you believe that the justice system or justice is about finding the truth? If you said “no,” you are closer to being right than not. So if the justice system is not about finding the truth, what is it? The justice system — and this is, by the way, this is gonna infuriate some, which is going to end up making the point, the justice system is about the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Now, it’s never gonna get everything exactly right, and that’s the point. When it doesn’t go your way, you still respect it. If it’s going to work, if the justice system is going to work, it has to be respected, whether it goes your way in a particular case or not. And you have to know that it’s never gonna go totally your way all the time. The justice system is like any other system set up and devised by mortal human beings: It is flawed. It isn’t perfect.
Our justice system is forged by our founders, forged from what they believed the best systems at the time from all over the world and history. The British traditional system is different from ours. They’ve got a Miranda warning. You need a dictionary to follow it, but they’ve got one, for example. But the British don’t have a constitution. There is no UK constitution. The EU people might have tried for one, but Great Britain itself never has had a constitution, but yet they do have their own system of justice.
The president, this is incendiary, to go out and say we need more athletes speaking up against the grand jury. No. Unless you’re trying to tear down the system. (interruption) I know, I know, you’re gonna have grievance — the whole Democrat Party now is one big grievance industry, and they’re gonna claim that they never get a break and it always is a stacked deck against them. That isn’t true! Especially now it isn’t true.
My God, we bend over backgrounds. I mean, the cops sometimes almost give up trying to catch bad guys because of how quickly they’re released now. Technicality here, technicality there. We’ve swung so far the other way now that affirmative action, I mean, you name it, there’s any number of steps that we have taken here to, quote, unquote, try to make amends for our original sin of slavery.
But the grievance industry is not gonna acknowledge any of them. The grievance industry is based on the fact there hasn’t been any progress. The grievance industry is the Democrat Party and the civil rights coalitions that make up that particular facet of it and there never can be permitted an acknowledgement of success or of any improvement. But the legal system, try to tell people that justice isn’t about right or wrong, justice isn’t about the truth, and you’ll lose ’em, ’cause they think that’s civics 101. The purpose of a trial is to get to the truth. Not for the defense. Nine times out of 10 the defense is trying to obfuscate the truth or create doubt about the truth left and right.
If the justice system were about the truth the defendants would be required to confess. The justice system is about the peaceful — I say, peaceful resolution of disputes with the full recognition it’s not always going to go your way. We have so many built-in safeguards. I’ll tell you what’s repugnant in our system, in terms of people that founded it. The thing that just scared the most was wrong convictions. Our justice system bends over backwards to make sure that the innocent are not convicted. That’s why the appeals process is what it is, and it’s even been expanded upon. (interruption) What did you say about injustice? What was your question about injustice?
What is the perspective on injustice? I need a specific. What do you mean, the perspective on injustice? (interruption) Largely. I’m trying to give you an umbrella explanation for it. I told you at the outset that for everybody that hears me, there’s gonna be, “Well, wait, what about X?” So we’re gonna have to use, if we wanted to delve into this deeply, we’d have to really, really get into the weeds on it. And I understand that. I mean, if it’s easier for people to think that the purpose of the justice system is to find the truth, go ahead. I’m not trying to talk anybody out of that, but that’s not really what it is.
But there are a lot of assumptions made here, by the way, assumption that everybody’s gonna be honorable, assumption that everybody’s gonna accept results, assumption that it was fair. If any of those assumptions go by the wayside, then to hell with peaceful. That’s not gonna be part of the resolution. And then you have the people that don’t like the justice system anyway. They think it’s bogus and rigged and so forth, trying to destroy it. I think it’s amazing it’s lasted this length of time, with as many assaults.
But I’ll tell you how bastardized it’s gotten. It’s gotten to the point now where whatever ends up being disputed in terms of legislation and politics, nine people who wear black robes now determine what’s legal and what isn’t. Everybody has knowingly invested in that proposition, the Supreme Court is the final word. And that, particularly on political matters, is a little risky. But even then you have to realize you’re gonna win some, you’re gonna lose some.
I realize here that the attempted simplified explanation of the justice system is not about truth. That makes people sit up. “What do you mean, not about truth?” If it were, then the defendants who were guilty would have to confess. “No, Mr. Limbaugh, ’cause you have to prove it.” And therein you have now just unknowingly, perhaps, made my point. It isn’t about the truth. A trial, is it about the truth? Trial about perceptions, trial about theatrics, trial about performances? There are a lot of factors, characteristics here.
But look, my overall point is, the justice system used to be a backstop. It used to have the moral authority just by virtue of its own existence. And it could have. I said this on Fox News Sunday. The president out there inciting anger over grand jury decisions? That is the height of irresponsibility, go out and praise LeBron James for disagreeing with a grand jury decision and urging more athletes to take steps and action or whatever against grand jury decisions? No. Presidents, attorneys general ought to be coming out and explaining to people the grand jury system and telling them what all went on here and giving them as much of the evidence that was presented as possible to show them why what happened was the truth.
But there doesn’t seem to be anybody in this administration, certainly not the mayor of New York City, certainly not the civil rights coalition, nobody seems to be interested at all in trying to quell any of this upset.
RUSH: A criminal trial, I just want to tell you, is not a search for the truth. You hope you get there. Don’t misunderstand. You hope you get to the truth, but that’s not what it is. In the case, if you’re up against the government, the purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not the government can prove it or whoever your accuser is, state government, Feds. If it’s a criminal trial, can the people doing the accusing prove it. The burden is on them. And if you did it and they can’t prove it, you walk.
Some people don’t think that’s justice, but it is. You know why it’s justice? ‘Cause both sides had their chance. Injustice is when the court is closed to you. Injustice is when the judge tells you you can’t come in. Injustice is when your lawyer is disqualified and you’re not allowed to get a new one. Injustice is when somebody says, “You don’t have a right to a trial.” If you think somebody’s probably guilty, it’s not enough. Gotta be found not guilty. In some cases it means the truth might be served, but it also might mean that presumptions in favor of innocent are served as well as. There’s all kinds of things that happen, but truth as a quest is not one.
RUSH: Let me share a couple other things here about this just to do as much as I can in closing the loop here on the purpose of trials and the legal system, the justice system, not necessarily being about a pursuit of the truth. As I said, if it were solely about the truth, we wouldn’t allow defendants the opportunity for lawyers to present their case and try to confuse everyone. We’d demand that they confess. If we had the evidence, if we knew they were guilty, what the hell, it’s about truth here, wrap it up, be done in five minutes and move on to the next one. Just confess.
It’s not what happens, is it? And get this. We bend over backwards for defendants. If you’ll just search your memory, how many times can you remember being frustrated at somebody you thought was obviously guilty but it was let go on a, quote, unquote, technicality. Might be was not properly Mirandized. Might be the cop had a conflict that he didn’t announce, any number of things that had nothing to do with the actual deed the bad guy did, but he walks. Even though we know the truth, he still walks. You know it and I know it. You’ve been frustrated by things like that.
This is why Obama is really conducting a disservice on all of this by encouraging people, sports stars and anybody else to rag on the justice system such as grand jury proceedings. This is irresponsible. He is the number one law enforcement officer in the country, swears an oath, this is outrageous. He should be doing the exact opposite what he’s doing and throwing cold water on all this fire, and he’s not doing that. Neither is this idiot mayor. And of course if they’re not gonna do anything about it, why should lesser people? If the people who set the example are gonna punt, then why should anybody else worry about it? Louis Brandeis commented about this, former Supreme Court justice.
But other privileges. For example, a priest cannot divulge the details of confession. A wife or husband cannot testify against a spouse. We do not allow it. There’s the attorney-client privilege. Your defense lawyer might not take your case unless you tell him whether you did it or didn’t. Your defense lawyer may assume that even if you did it, you’re lying about it, still takes your case. But whatever you’ve told him, he can’t tell a soul. Well, how can we possibly say we’re searching for truth here if the defendant has all these exemptions or privileges?
So the privileges demonstrate that the justice system considers some social relationships and professional relationships so important that we elevate them over the importance of arriving at the truth. If you did it and your wife knows you did it but she doesn’t have to testify, then you can’t say the system is about getting to the truth. The system, in this case, is about hiding it, in fact. Therefore it’s up to the other guys to prove it despite the privilege, because the dirty little secret here — and this is why the system needs to be defended at the highest positions of authority and consistently — we would rather have a guilty person go free than an innocent person convicted. That is one of the foundations of this system.
Now, I know, I know, if you happen to be a minority, you think I’m the biggest blithering idiot, that I don’t know what your life is like. “What do you mean, they don’t care about our innocence. They convict us when they don’t –” I know the grievances. I’m fully aware of ’em. The system’s like any other human devised system, depending on the people involved, it’s gonna have corruption here, it’s gonna get it wrong. But the key to it is everybody accepting it and working within the bounds of it to change it when it doesn’t go your way.
But the way to fix it is not what’s happening, shooting cops, kill cops, dead now, we want ’em dead now, marching in the street, telling people “hands up, don’t shoot,” didn’t happen, telling them it did happen when it didn’t. That’s not the way to deal with what you think is an unfair justice system. All this is doing is destroying it. And that’s why it is imperative that people like the president and people like the mayor and people like the police commissioner and people who are gonna get involved in this fray do the right thing where the system is concerned.
RUSH: Dan in Virginia Beach, Virginia. I really appreciate your waiting, and welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Yeah, thanks, Rush. First of all, my sincere condolences to the families of the slain New York City police officers and all of the NYPD police family. Like many Americans, this week I found myself just wondering, what could motivate someone to this level of hatred and violence? I was doing some research on the despicable Brinsley character, the murderer of the New York police officers, and what I found out is that Brinsley is a member of a Baltimore gang called the Black Guerrilla Family. And the article I was reading curiously did not give any information on the theology of this Black Guerilla Family gang. So I did a Wikipedia search on it. And what I found out, Rush, is that one of their fellow organizations or groups that they’re linked to is none other than the Weather Underground, which was cofounded by a fellow community organizer and cop killer, Bill Ayers, which is one of Barack Obama’s early mentors.
RUSH: Who remains unrepentant, by the way.
RUSH: In fact, the only degree to which he’s repentant is that his bombs didn’t kill more.
CALLER: Right, now, I don’t believe in guilt by association, Rush. But the link here is chilling, and it’s not isolated. I was curious as to what you thought about the link.
RUSH: Frankly I hadn’t thought about the direct link between Obama and Ayers to this guy, but it doesn’t matter. The point to be made here, and I do have a short little story on the details of the suspected, see, even though we know, we can’t say we know. We know the truth but we can’t say it. We have to say supposed, suspected, alleged. They still have to prove it, and there are gonna be some witnesses that will lie through their teeth. You just wait. Just like there were in Ferguson, Missouri.
The DA in that place has finally come out, he’s released some of the actual lies that the grand jury was told. People came in and purposely lied under oath intentionally, and they were able to disprove ’em one after another. Well, you know, we’re not gonna do perjury because that would just incite more.
“The man suspected of gunning down two police officers on Saturday afternoon is reportedly a member of a gang that called for the murder of NYPD officers just a few weeks ago. According to the New York Daily News, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the man who police reportedly believe orchestrated an execution-style attack on two NYPD police officers, may be a member of the Black Guerrilla Family. The organization reportedly put a greenlight on officers in response to the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown at the hands of police officers.”
As far as the link is concerned, look, you don’t even need a direct link, and it would be difficult to trace one anyway because it’s been going on for years what’s been happening here. I still maintain to you that way too many average American liberal supporters, Democrat voters, have been driven into a literal insanity. By that I mean they have a constant unnatural anger and rage, and it’s fed every day, and it’s fed with propaganda and lies. And it has a purpose.
You always must ask, “Who benefits from all this?” And it isn’t these people who are being driven into this constant state of anger, quivering in their boots rage. It’s not them. The people they end up voting for are the people who actually benefit. And the people they donate to end up being the actual beneficiaries of this kind of thing. I could be wrong, but I would guess that in this Brooklyn neighborhood where this happened, I would venture, I would safely assume that well over half of the minority population there doesn’t want stuff like this happening in the neighborhood.
They don’t want the cops gunned down. They don’t want this happening. (interruption) Well, okay, okay, good, it’s a lot more than half. It’s a lot more. Another false impression is being created that the entire, quote, unquote, minority community is now lined up and supporting this kind of stuff because that’s what it looks like the way the media reports it. And like most of liberalism, it is a minority. It’s an elected minority. It’s a minority of thinking, the thought process. They’re nowhere near the majority, but media attention and media technique makes them look like they are unbeatably large, and yet they’re not.
Look, all I can do is repeat myself on the question of the link here. There is behavior, there is action, there are words, there are deeds that the president and the mayor could take that would quiet this, and they’re choosing not to. And in the case of the president, he’s doing both. He’s out there acknowledging now — since I said this on Fox News Sunday a couple Sundays ago — now Obama’s out talking about the progress that we’ve made in racial relations. All of a sudden now he’s talking about it. Anything to prove me wrong. But while he’s talking about all the progress he’s saying, “I wish there were more LeBrons who would show up in public and disagree with the grand jury decision.” Nope, nope, nope. Wrong thing to say.