All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:01
November 2, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I don't know, it's just all appearing funny to me.
I know it's serious stuff, but now it's starting to get laughable.
And this lawyer for the woman.
I get it right here in the uh in the uh let's see, Washington Post.
Herman Cain's accuser wants to tell her side of the story, lawyer says.
Would you believe, however, the accuser's lawyer is out saying in public that he wants the National Restaurant Association to release his client from their confidentiality agreement so badly.
His lawyer or his client wants to talk, damn it, she wants to talk.
And there's a confidentiality agreement.
Damn it, she wants to talk.
He hasn't even contacted them yet.
This lawyer, Joel Bennett, is out there making it look like this woman's got a bombshell.
That's what this means.
He is laying the groundwork.
He wants everybody to think this woman's got the goods.
This woman's got more than a pubic hair on a Coke can.
This woman can nail Cain.
But she's being forbidden because of a confidentiality agreement.
And damn it, we want to be released.
Except, according to the story, the lawyer hasn't contacted the National Restaurant Association yet to ask them if they will release his client.
He's doing it all in the media.
He's trying to add all this pressure.
We're told that this woman she's ready.
Oh.
This woman is loaded for bear.
She is ready to come out, and she's gonna take Kane out.
She's gonna come out.
She got the goods, boy.
She's gonna destroy this guy.
She's gonna take him out.
She can't wait.
Yet a few paragraphs later in the story we're told that she's wary of her name becoming public.
And that she is discussing with her family whether to make her story public.
The post article says that her lawyer is calling on the association to waive the confidentiality agreement, and then a few paragraphs later we learn he hasn't yet contacted them.
I'm sorry, all I can do is laugh at this.
At the picture that they are trying to create here.
When is a confidentiality agreement ever stopped anybody that really wants to talk and it really thinks there's added money at the end of the trail here?
I would think if Kane's accusers really wanted to speak up, they would have found a way by now.
Especially if they think, and I say this to my family or lawyers, but obviously they think that there's a payoff at the end of the trail here.
This is why this lawyer is involved.
Meanwhile, the news media is bashing Cain for not giving more details.
The lawyer.
Oh, yeah, my client, she got the goods.
My client can take Herman Cain down.
He's not saying this.
This is what this is what everybody is being led to believe by the way the lawyer's handling this.
That this woman, she's got it all.
It is juicy.
Oh, it's more than just a hand up on the chin.
It's something really, really bad out there.
And she can't wait to talk about it.
Except she doesn't want her name public.
She's so eager to talk about it.
Her lawyer hasn't even called the NRA and ask him for permission yet to break the confidentiality agreement.
Meanwhile, the media bashing Herman Cain for not giving more details, the same time attacking him for violating the confidentiality agreement.
So he's not saying enough while he's saying too much.
And now CNN, for what it's worth, CNN's accusing Herman Cain of getting testy with reporters this morning as he tried to make his way around Capitol Hill.
He had to push his way through a phalanx of reporters who were pestering him about the sex harassment charges.
And I don't know about you.
If you look at the video clip, Looks like he was being very polite to me.
I didn't see Herman Cain getting testy.
But I guess testy is in the eyes of the beholder.
From this Washington Post article, in a statement, the restaurant association said that it had not been approached by Bennett, but that it would respond as appropriate.
Asked whether he had violated the non disclosure agreement by divulging details about the matter, Herman Cain responded in the Fox interview that he had not because he didn't reveal the complainant's name.
Okay, so there's that.
Lawyer Kane accuser wants to tell her side of the story.
Then the New York Times weighs in.
Cain accuser got a year's salary in severance pay.
National Restaurant Association gave $35,000 a year's salary in severance pay to a female staffer in the late 90s after an encounter with Herman Cain, its chief executive at the time made her uncomfortable working there.
Three people with direct knowledge of the payment said on Tuesday.
Now note the New York Times calls this severance pay.
Severance pay is not a settlement for sexual harassment claims.
And since the Times says it, that's now the official truth.
That it was severance pay.
And that's what Herman Cain has said all along.
New York Times calls it severance pay.
Got it right here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, not a settlement for sexual harassment claims.
And that bears out Herman Cain's statements.
He said he was only aware of one claim, which the Times article calls the second claim.
The first settlement for 35 grand was a severance settlement with a sex charge thrown into Sweet and the pot.
Which is what Herman Cain said this was.
And yet the article tries to make it sound like they've caught Herman Cain in a lie.
But the size of her severance doesn't refute Kane's initial description of the matter at all.
He said the woman had been given some kind of severance pay, didn't know how much.
The Times uh New York Times cites this woman's anonymous friends and colleagues, quote unquote, who say, as she told them at the time she was deeply uncomfortable about the situation.
Now I have been fired seven times.
And each of those times, just my own personal experience here.
I have been uncomfortable about the situation.
And I have, in talking to friends and family, I have expressed my anger, uh, my discomfort, and my grievances, and how I was wronged.
There's nothing unique here.
Everybody who gets everybody well, then no, there weren't any physical gestures when I got fired.
You mean when I got fired?
No, no, no.
I don't remember any physical gestures.
Um, no, no, no.
But you got me thinking about one instance where I did get fired because I I told a psychopath that the jig was up and everybody knew the truth about the guy.
So I that's why I had to go there.
I just couldn't take the lies anymore.
I just not couldn't take the lies not confronted a guy in the lies.
And I got home 30 minutes later, and the owner of the radio station called me, saying, No, we got to get rid of you, you're unstable, you're causing uh mucho problems, so I figured the guy had covered his bases with a phone call to the owner after I had blown the whistle.
Anyway, so that happens, and I called my dad, I just got fired again, and it was always my fault, by the way, with my dad.
The boss was always right when we were growing up.
No, the boss was always the teacher was always right, the principal was always right.
Authority was always right.
That's that's what you well, that's what you learned when you grew up the Great Depression.
That's what you learned when you went through World War II and you were flew P 51, so you everybody you took orders.
That's what when you had an authoritative father, that's that's uh you know, authority was right.
It was then it was the last word on anything.
Uh So anyway, my point is there's nothing unique here.
Woman gets fired.
She tells people she's uncomfortable about it, big deal.
Everybody who gets canned or leaves in undesirable circumstances doesn't run around and talk about how happy they are.
Everybody hates the boss.
Everybody's got bad things to say about the boss.
The Times in their story goes on to admit that the situation with the second woman appeared to be more in keeping with a standard settlement related to harassment allegations.
So once again, the Times is admitting that the first settlement, the one that we know of for $35,000 was not a typical sex harassment case.
Now, that again supports Herman Cain's claim that he was not aware of an additional harassment claim in that instance.
And he got four reporters on this story, including Jim Rutenberg, Jeff Zelony, and Mike McIntyre.
That's more stories than they ever had on Clinton and Lewinsky, or more reporters.
And uh then we go to the AP.
Now, this story by Nancy Banak at the AP, and what's striking about this, and it's it's and it's striking because the AP is seldom a news outfit.
They're totally agenda-driven, but this one is over the top.
I mean, this is not a news story in any way, shape, manner, or form.
Uh what they have done here, I guess Chris Lahain has made some comments about that, and they simply have dressed up Chris Lahaine's comments and present you know, Democrat activists for Clinton and Gore, and they presented them as as if they were a legitimate news item.
Cain's line in the sand denials invite scrutiny is the headline.
Herman Cain drew a line in the sand, and now he has to hope it sets like concrete.
Kane has responded to allegations of sexual harassment with a series of definitive statements that invite closer scrutiny of his past conduct.
Now, if if he had been vague or wishy-washy, would that have invited closer scrutiny too?
No, no.
What what is inviting closer scrutiny is that Herman Cain is a Republican.
That's what's inviting all of this scrutiny.
Now, Cain is out there violating the advice of Condoleezza Rice.
Condi's out there saying don't play the race card.
Herman's play under race card.
Herman's out there saying this is happening because he's black.
No, that Condoleezza Rice said don't play the race card.
Uh a lot of the former Bush administration Republicans are saying don't play the race card.
Uh but Herman is his own guy.
He's out there playing the race card.
Let's go to the audio sound bites on this.
Uh in fact, this is Herman Cain talking about the race card.
He was on a special report on Fox last night, center seat segment.
And Charles Crowdhammer said, You think that race, being a strong black conservative, has anything to do with the fact that you've been so charged?
And if so, do you have any evidence to support that?
I believe the answer is yes.
I am an unconventional candidate running an unconventional campaign and achieving some unexpected unconventional result in terms of my the poll.
We believe that, yes, there are some people who are Democrats, liberals who do not want to see me win the nomination, and there could be some people on the right who don't want to see me because I'm not the quote unquote establishment candidate.
No evidence.
Relative to the left, I believe that race is a bigger driving factor.
I don't think it's a driving factor on the right.
This is just based upon our speculation.
So pretty much.
You do.
You like you like that answer?
What do you like about the answer?
Let me guess what you like about the answer.
No, we can't prove it, but that's what we think.
Just just being bold as you can be.
Yeah, we think it's I can't give any evidence of it.
Of course that's what we think.
And uh, and yeah, yeah, he did.
And he points out that it's the really the racial aspect of this is coming from the people on the left.
No question, and it's getting to them.
They're but they're they're they're terrifically bothered by this.
That sound bites to prove it.
Here's Condoleezza Rice.
She was on the early show today.
Uh former NBC correspondent, now traitorous Nora O'Donnell over at CBS.
She said Herman Kane predicted he would be the victim of a high-tech lynching.
What do you think of that when you hear that?
I don't care much for incendiary language.
And um I actually am someone who uh doesn't believe in playing the race card on either side.
I've seen it played, by the way, on the other side quite a lot, too.
And it's not good for the country.
I don't like the race card when people say that uh people are criticizing President Obama because he's black.
I don't like that very much either.
He's being criticized because he's president.
And we'll be back.
I gotta take a break.
Sit tight, folks.
Don't go away.
Folks, folks get this.
Washington Post story that I have been citing liberally here for the last ten to fifteen minutes.
There are two versions of that story.
There is a story that appeared online yesterday.
And a second version where something has been omitted.
I have here what has been omitted near the end of the story as it ran yesterday on the Washington Post website.
Are you ready?
This has been deleted.
Because the case is more than a dozen years old, Bennett, the woman's lawyer, said he no longer has the file, nor does he have the confidentiality agreement.
He said that he had not even remembered the name of the association official who his client had accused.
He said he doesn't remember going to the association offices.
He thinks the matter might have been handled over facts and telephone quite expeditiously.
It was that insignificant.
That has since been deleted from the Washington Post story that is now at present running.
Let me read it to you one more time.
Because the case is more than a dozen years, it'll be twelve for those of you in Rio Linda.
Bennett, Joel Bennett, the woman's lawyer, said he no longer has the file.
He doesn't have the confidentiality agreement.
He said that he doesn't even remember the name of the association official who his client accused, meaning he didn't even remember it was Herman Cain.
He said he doesn't remember going to the association offices ever to handle this matter.
He thinks the matter might have been handled over facts and phone and quite expeditiously, meaning rat tat tat, a couple faxes, a couple phone calls, yep, 35 grand.
Fine, we're done here.
See ya.
Never and and it's 12 years old and couldn't even remember that it was about Herman Cain.
And doesn't have a confidentiality agreement.
And the Washington Post has stricken that from their online version of the story.
This was in their online version of the story yesterday.
Not there now.
But um Diana Schneider, editrix of the Limbaugh Letter, saved the cash file of it.
C-A-C-H-E for those of you in Rio Linda.
So that we have it in perpetuity.
And this lawyers running around making it sound like this woman's got the goods.
Oh, yeah, he can't wait to talk.
She just nailed Herman Keenan.
It's gonna be pretty.
We can't wait.
Big bucks away.
Yesterday he didn't even know who this was about.
To the phones we go to Atlanta.
Jim, thank you for calling.
You're up first today.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Mega Diggles Rush.
How are you doing today?
Very well, thank you.
Um I was just calling him and make a comment on Bloomberg's um statement that uh he was definitely correct in saying that uh Congress was the cause for the housing uh failure that we've had mortgage breaker for twenty-eight um years, and because of the decisions, uh my income has dropped ninety percent, where I had to get out of the mortgage industry and find something else at uh at age in the mid-50s.
Well okay so you can confirm people like you were ordered by federal officials to make loans to people couldn't pay them back.
We had to come up with loan programs, and it was an admirable idea.
We were told to devise loan products to put people into homes that really didn't, you know, could afford to help.
Wait a second.
I know you're trying to be a nice guy, but what's admirable about that?
See, this is where we get caught up in somebody's good and say, yo, I would love for everybody to have a house.
Why not on the beach?
Well, basically, everybody shouldn't, you know, have a piece of American pie, own a home.
But, you know, quite honestly, we saw products that people were, you know, no credit, no down payments, no nothing.
And, you know, we had to put them into loan programs in order to buy a house.
You just said that you thought they should have a home.
That was admirable.
So what difference does it make if they can't afford it?
Good question.
That's what we thought of the banks.
You know, when they revised the Community Investment Acts, they told the banks, if you want federal funds, you have to get people into – we felt, basically, they were borrowing.
buying buying votes uh putting people into homes to buy votes that's exactly what they were doing very admirable too but uh anyway you you you've you've seen 90% of your income vanish.
Yes and what Bloomberg was saying is what we all know.
They're trying to blame people like you is the thing they're blaming you for hooking people into these loans.
That's what's going on people like you are trying to be blamed for this when you were forced to do it.
And everybody's no Bloomberg finally said it because he's probably ticked off by now mortgage broker from Atlanta said that it was an admirable objective to get everybody in a house why stop there why not get everybody in a house in the Hamptons but that's not the point of this the point of this is Bill Clinton,
federal government, Janet Reno, various members Democrats of Congress created this program, led to the collapse of the housing industry, and a huge problem in our financial system subprime mortgage.
They then tried to blame it on guys like the caller from Atlanta.
Tried to blame it on the big Wall Street banker.
Yep, even Obama is out there saying poor people got hoodwinked.
These evil bankers, the predator lenders, I think they were called.
Yeah, these predator lenders, you know what they did?
They left their cushy offices on Wall Street.
And they went down to homeless areas in Manhattan and all over the country.
And they found these schlubs and they said, come here.
I'm going to lend you some money and I'm going to force you into a house and you'll never be able to pay me back.
That's what they want us to believe.
That's what happened these poor saps were sucked in by a bunch of evil idiots who lent money to people who were never going to pay it back.
The mortgage bankers were forced to lend the money because it was such an admirable idea homeownership every American yes and so what happened then is that these mortgage bankers under the threat of investigation from Janet Reno and Barney Frank had to come up concoct ways to make that worthless mortgage worth something to them.
So they found ways to sell what was worthless to a bunch of dupes who they lied to about what they were selling.
And then those dupes figured out that they were dupes and they repackaged the whole thing to another set of dupes and that kept happening until finally they run out of dupes just like the end of a Ponzi scheme at the end of the day there weren't any dupes left to buy these worthless mortgages.
That's the simplified version of what happened here.
Thank you.
And if they hadn't done this if they hadn't come up with these derivatives and credit default swaps and all these other phony baloney ways to to assign value to worthless loan paper, they might have gone out of business.
You can't stay in business giving money away.
And that's what they were being forced to do.
For the express purpose of Democrats being elected to office by these people.
And now look what's happened.
The value of everybody's home has plummeted.
Folks, this is an outrage.
It's it's near criminal what has happened.
And it was all perpetrated by Democrats in the federal government.
I'm sure there were some Republicans along the way who thought it was a good idea, too, because they'd have the guts to oppose it, since it involved the poor.
And there were Republicans out there talking about the wonderful aspect of home ownership for all and what it meant for America and what it meant for their administration to be able to put so many people in home while what we did.
Look at what it says about America.
Blah, blah, blah.
It's all phony and trumped up.
So while a bunch of phony politicians engage in something near criminal to get themselves votes and make themselves look good to value everybody else's house plummets.
To in many cases, under water.
And that is the primary reason this economy is in the sorrow shape that it's in now.
That subprime mortgage is the primary reason for unemployment today.
It's the primary reason for economic collapse throughout other areas of the economy.
And it was brought to you by Bill Clinton and Barney Frank and Janet Reno and Chris Dodd and any other Democrat you might want to name.
You know it and I know it.
And now Bloomberg probably ticked off at these Occupy Wall Street people for polluting his city and whatever else finally has had enough and looked at, and you know, let me tell you something.
It's not the bankers that are your problem.
Congress did this.
Yeah, Congress did it along with a couple of presidents.
Okay, where are we going now?
Kevin DeComumbus, Ohio.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Yeah, your disdain for the poor never ceased to amaze me.
My disdain for the poor.
My point was about Mr. Pain that you keep vigorously trying to defend while we know he's lying about what happened.
Of course, this woman doesn't want to come out because it'll look what it'll do to her family.
Wait a second.
Her lawyer says she can't wait to come out.
Her lawyer says she can't wait to go that you guys will never nominate.
I don't even know why you guys are leading him on that way.
I'd love to see two black men duke it out for president.
That'd be more history.
Well, sir, are you on a cell phone?
Yes, I am.
Well, I can't talk to you because you can't hear me.
You don't want to take them point.
That's what that is.
Uh no, I've been talking to you the whole time.
You just can't hear me.
Yeah.
Because if we got a phone system, it doesn't matter.
Like I'm talking to you.
That's all you do is call.
Look at I we're gonna have to we can't take cell phone calls.
I can't I can't talk to him.
This is just absurd, and it's 23 years we've had this problem, we can't fix it.
Um anyway, this I I guess what this guy's point is that I'm attacking the woman.
Uh uh when it was Herman Cain who started it, sir.
It wasn't Herman Cain that started this, it was the politico that started this.
If you've got a beef with anybody for talking about blame it on the politico, because everything was hunky dory fine until Sunday night when they came along.
And you say this woman wants to talk, her lawyer says, or you says she doesn't want to talk, but her lawyers out there saying just the opposite.
She can't wait to come forward, which is not true.
Anyway, who's next?
Uh Santos in Yubas City, California.
Great to have you on the program.
Oh, hi, Rush Megadiddos.
Thank you.
I don't know.
I don't know why I find uh this uh hilarious that they go to Condoleezia Rice to criticize Herman King for uh playing the race card.
I mean, what is it about her that uh carries uh her opinion on this carries so much weight?
I mean, she was Secretary of State.
It'd be one thing if she was a past President of the National Uh Restaurant Association, or maybe she had been accused of sexual harassment herself, or she was a victim of sexual harassment.
So the only thing I could think of that they went to her for uh uh reason they went to her is because she's black.
No, she's gonna wait.
No, no, no.
No, no, she got a book out.
She has a book.
I've got it over there.
It's uh called No Higher Honor.
And she's out doing a book tour, and so since they've got her, they ask her about this.
And uh since she's black, they're asking her about about the race card and stuff.
That's what I'm yeah, that's what I'm saying.
They're it's in a way they're using her to play the race card against Herman Kane playing the race card.
Well, I guess that you know what I'm saying?
I guess that's what makes it that makes it funny to me that why of all I mean, is this something that's covered in her book, sexual harassment?
No, no, no, no.
It's it's well, I I I don't know.
I haven't I haven't read the book yet.
I just got it a couple days ago.
Yeah, and I haven't I don't know if she talks about sexual harassment in the book or not.
But she she uh one of the reasons why they ask her is that they know what she's going to say.
They know that she's going to deplore uh the actions of a black Republican.
So she's useful in that regard.
They're pretty confident that she's not going to approve of what Herman Kane's doing.
So that's a gold mine.
Uh pure and simple.
You never hear them ask Condoleezza Rice what she thinks about Al Sharpton.
You never hear her ask what she thinks of the uh Reverend.
They didn't ask her about any of the Democrats uh cartoonists who were drawing some of the most racially offensive uh single panel and multipanel cartoons about her when she was Secretary of State.
They didn't go talk to her and ask her what she thought of some of the uh uh jokes people were telling about how she got the job as Secretary of State and all kinds of sexual favors that she had to perform on George W. Bush.
They never asked her about that.
But she's got the book out now, and so uh perfect time to ask her what she thinks of all this.
And they're um they're pretty confident.
As far as the media is concerned, yeah, only blacks uh can with credibility decry playing the rest race card.
So Herman Cain was uh what was d look another reason here uh they they want her to answer this in a certain way is that they are playing the race card, and the left is in the media, and we're turning it around on them, and it makes them very uncomfortable.
And so their standard operating procedure is to play the race card.
Well, we come along and play it on the net time, oh time out, time out.
We need to stop playing the race card.
We just really need to stop playing the race card.
When they're playing it and they're called time out, time out, time out, time out.
And they go find a bunch of people on our side who will agree because they want to sound worse.
Yes, we agree it's time to stop playing the race card.
Okay, so everybody stops playing the race card for a couple hours until the next time the left does it.
I'll take a break.
Back after this.
Here's a sound bite mentioned earlier that Herman Cain uh on CNN said he was testy, testy with reporters on Capitol Hill today.
We've got the audio of that, and you be the judge.
Let me say one thing.
I'm here with these doctors, and that's what I'm gonna talk about.
So don't even bother asking me all of these other questions that you all are curious about, okay?
Don't even bother.
That's a good question.
But are you concerned about the fact that these women do want to do that?
What did I say who wants to come forward?
Are you concerned about excuse me?
Excuse me.
No, no, no.
What part of no do some people?
Herm, he's losing it now, folks.
The media's out is losing it, getting very testy.
Very testy.
All right, who's next?
Joshua in uh in Selmar, California.
Hi, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, how are you doing, Russ?
Excellent.
Thank you, sir.
Uh I I'll have a quick question.
I've been hearing uh reports, plenty of reports saying, you know, top one percent uh own forty two percent of the wealth in America.
Uh wealth distribution hasn't been this lopsided since before the Great Depression.
And my my question is the the way I see it, if there's no more money to be distributed, where exactly is someone like me, a college graduate, you know, in the middle class.
Where where's my where's my opportunity for advance for advancement?
You know what I mean?
Because the way I see the top one percent, is they're holding their money and uh investments and you know accounts, but they're not spending the money.
No, but they're not spending it.
If they have if they have all their houses, they have their boats, they have everything they need, they don't need to spend money to spend money.
Joshua, um you have asked a very timely question with an opportunity here for me in my answer to educate gazillions of people.
But I don't have time before the next break.
So I need to ask you politely and admirably if you can hold on to the next segment at the top of the hour.
I can do that.
You can, I appreciate that.
Also, you say you're a college student.
Correct.
You're 23 years old.
Correct.
Graduating in June.
Graduating in June, and you think, just make sure I heard right, you think the top one percent, they've got everything they need, they got their boats, planes, houses, and they're not spending anymore, and so therefore, there's no more money to be distributed, therefore no money for you to be paid if you get a job.
Correct.
Correct.
Okay, good.
That is I understand totally why you think that.
Okay.
But I want you to know that you could not have been more ill-informed about something than whoever it is that's put that thought in your head.
You are you are not you that is as wrong as any lie anybody has ever told you.
And I'm looking forward to the chance to explain this when we talk again at the top of the next hour.
Please don't go away.
Thank you.
The uh idea that that uh Joshua started with here that you're gonna have to take money away from the rich that they don't spend it, they freeze it.
That is actually a tenet of Marxism.
That is something that is Marxist theory.
▲
Export Selection