All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
May 10, 2013, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, this is rich.
Get this.
I wonder this guy talked to Joe Scarborough, Tommy Vitor.
Veter, it's V-I-E-T-O-R.
I'm going to pronounce it Veter.
Tommy Veter, who's Obama's former National Security Council spokesman, is tweeting that Republicans forced the administration to create the talking points.
It's Friday, folks.
Let's keep rolling.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
Ill Rushball behind the Golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute, open line Friday.
This is where when we go to the phones, callers get to choose what we talk about.
That is if we go to the phones.
And we will.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushbought, E by EIBNet.com.
I think that what we have here is an admission that the White House lied to Congress.
Because this guy Tommy Veter, again, I don't know how he pronounces it.
Might be Viter.
I have no idea.
V-I-E-T-O-R.
He's Obama's former National Security Council spokesman is now tweeting that Republicans forced the administration to create these talking points, these 12 revisions.
The 12 edits of the talking Republicans made them do it.
He said the Benghazi talking points were written at the request of the House Intelligence Committee.
The House Committee Republicans.
So they could go on TV.
Congress forced the administration to do them.
Holy smokes.
This takes the cake.
Those mean, dastardly Republicans.
So these talking points are lies, and the Republicans made them do that.
These talking points were not just given to Susan Rice to lie to the U.S. public.
They were given to the U.S. Congress.
This whole business about the video.
Folks, look, just to review very quickly, on the night of the Benghazi attack, everybody on the ground in Libya, everybody in Washington knew it was Ansar al-Sharia.
It was the Al-Qaeda franchise in Libya.
Everybody knew it.
The White House knew it.
It's now clear.
This is not me nor anybody else in the media asserting it.
It is the media reporting it.
And everybody knew it.
And it was immediately concocted by the regime.
We can't have this known for all the reasons that we've discussed since last September.
Well, Obama had beaten back Al-Qaeda.
Well, we couldn't have terror attacks going on in Libya because we couldn't respond to them.
Uh whether it'd be against the government of Libya, we'd embarrass them if we launch military-style attacks and make everybody look bad.
We can't do that.
Um, you know, whatever reasons that they came up with.
And by the way, there's another one out there that I first mentioned to you last fall.
And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't change anything.
And it is that the real reason that our ambassador was in Benghazi was to begin a gun running operation to Syrian rebels.
You remember my telling you about that way back last year, last September, last October.
This is one of the first things that surfaced as people are scratching their heads and trying to figure out what what in the world was the ambassador doing?
Why was there no security?
Why was there no assistance?
Why was it well because there was a clandestine operation going on and we couldn't have anybody know about it?
Well, what was that?
Well, Obama was trying to get some weapons and ammo to the uh to the Syrian rebels uh under the cover of darkness, you know, kind of like Reagan and the Contras.
Oh, is that right?
So that's supposedly gonna have to change things.
Yes, because it was a humanitarian thing that we were doing, and unfortunately, it was discovered, and that's why the ambassador was killed.
Because Al-Qaeda and the enemy of the Syrian rebels found out about it, and they were gonna cut the snake's head off to make sure the operation didn't a regime can't admit that.
Mither Limbaugh, the administration can't admit what was really going on because it was a secret humanitarian effort to arm the uh the uh the Ethereum theory rebel.
Oh, okay.
So that's why we couldn't make an effort to save the ambassador's life.
That's why we made up this whole lie about what the attack was as a spontaneous protest because we couldn't have anybody find out as a secret.
And by the way, this is just speculation.
Uh nobody has confirmed this.
You just if if you hear this today, I'm just want to remind you that this is something that popped up last fall that people were speculating about.
Nothing has really changed here other than today.
Tommy Veter now blaming the Republicans for making the regime rewrite the talking points.
And again, the talking points we're talking about.
Let's grab sound bites one and two and just play them back to back.
This is this is what this is all about.
This is Jonathan Carl on Good Morning America today.
The White House said they relied entirely on CIA talking points, but I have obtained twelve different versions of those talking points that shows that they were dramatically edited by the administration.
Take a look at two of them.
On the left, a draft initially written by the CIA.
On the right, one that was used by the White House, the final version.
What was taken out?
All references to Al Qaeda and all references to CIA warnings before the attack about the terror threat in Benghazi.
I have had emails read to me that show that many of these changes were directed by Hillary Clinton's spokesperson at the State Department, Victoria Newland.
In one email, she said that information about CIA warnings, quote, could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.
So why would we want to feed that?
After that email, all of those references were deleted.
Now, the White House is saying that there is nothing inappropriate about the State Department giving input into this and that ultimately the CIA drafted these talking points and approved them.
But I'll tell you, Josh, they initially said only one word had been changed.
Now, keep in mind it's that that Tommy Veter is tweeting today.
He said, "Well, we changed the talking points because the Republicans made us." The Republicans and the House Intel Committee, they demanded those talking points.
That's why we had to do it.
That's just laughable.
Yeah, it's like Scarborough said today.
Well, you know, Benghazi would have been in the news a long time ago if it weren't for the right wing overplaying it.
The right wing overplay.
If the right wing hadn't paid any attention to this, this would have gone the way of global warming long ago.
And it would now have become an established hoax in the mainstream media would have ignored it.
And nobody would be talking about it if we hadn't been.
Now, this Victorian Newland that Jonathan Carl cites Hillary Clinton's spokesperson at the State Department.
She admits lying to Congress in these emails.
You heard, you just heard Jonathan Carl say in an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, Victoria Newland took issue with including that information because, quote, it could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.
So why would we want to feed that either?
So we didn't, we we we kept the truth out of this because we don't want to be beat up by it or over it.
And now the Republicans did it.
It's the Republicans' fault.
Jay Carney at the White House back on November 27th, daily briefing.
A reporter said on the question of Susan Rice, she's been meeting, as you know, with Senators on the Hill to come to some better meeting of the minds about Benghazi and her public comments on that.
Leading critics who come out, including Senator Graham, and said afterwards that they're even more disturbed.
They have more questions now than they did before.
And I'm wondering, Jay, what your reaction is to that and whether this outreach effort to the Hill is amounting to anything.
The talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community.
Those questions have been answered.
You see, so they they they came from the intelligence community, and the questions have been answered, and we had nothing to do with rewriting.
And at this point, nobody admitted that they'd been edited twelve times or rewritten.
You and all you and I all knew it.
But again, today, Obama's former National Security Spokesman says the Republicans forced the rewrite of the talk.
I I cannot say that enough.
Republicans made us rewrite these talking points.
Republicans made us edit these things.
The State Department didn't pay attention to any of the warnings.
And that's what Newland and Hillary wanted to cover up.
Nobody paid any attention to the warnings.
That's what the whistleblowers were trying to tell everybody yesterday.
Well, two days ago.
The warnings were ignored.
There were warnings before the attack that Al Qaeda was going to attack.
And they knew this during the attack, they knew it was Al-Qaeda, and they put out this false fake story they sent Susan Rice out to tell.
And now the news here, folks, today is that the drive-by's are on this.
There's really nothing new.
I I really only reason I'm spending time on this today is to enforce the notion everything you know has now reached the mainstream media.
Mainstream is a loose description.
Because I don't think they are anymore, but but it's a descriptive term that works, so we'll use it for now.
But that is the news.
And there's a there's a piece here by Dan Gaynor at Fox that reviews just the recent media treatment of the testimony by the whistleblowers.
And he starts his piece this way.
In the real world, when you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail.
In government, you retire with dignity and you run for president with full media support.
That's a reference to Mrs. Clinton.
And up until yesterday, that was the Benghazi scenario following the death of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya.
When you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail.
But if you're Mrs. Clinton, you retire with dignity and huzzahs and kudos with great applause, and then you run for president with full media support.
The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated the true marks of an open and transparent administration, and with a few notable exceptions.
The American media haven't just let them get away with it, they've helped them get away with it.
Capitol Hill testimony of State Department whistleblowers might change that, but it's doubtful given the one-sided reporting so far.
This piece published yesterday.
The Obama administration has lied and stonewalled and bullied.
NBC said there was an obvious political undercurrent to the hearings and accused the Republicans of going after the most popular Democrat Hillary.
And therefore, everything was happening was without merit.
There's a political objective here, and therefore, whatever the Republicans are doing, we can't pay any attention to.
Just because it's political doesn't disqualify it.
Who made it political, after all?
The Republicans didn't do any of this.
They're just reacting to it like we all do to the left every day here.
The New York Times public editor, the ombudsman, criticized her own paper's Benghazi coverage.
The Washington Post Twitter account inexplicably mocked those tweeting about the case as Chick-fil-A lovers.
AP even called it.
A GOP hearing to make sure that the readers saw it as partisan.
A political story about CBS showed the truly insidious nature of media bias in this story and how the network held back their reporter Cheryl Atkison.
CBS News executives see Atkison waiting dangerously close to advocacy on the issue.
Network sources have told Politico.
So much so that Atkison's in talks to leave CBS ahead of her contract.
At the time she hadn't written about it for five months.
She had not written about Benghazi for five months or reported on it for five months, and CBS puts this story out about how she's dangerously close to losing objectivity on this and getting into advocacy.
I mean, that is pantamount ridiculous.
The Washington Post, Dana Milbank, as we mentioned to you yesterday, treated the testimony as if witnesses were lying.
His column called the Sworn Comments a Yarn.
He referred to the number two diplomat in Libya as a virtuoso storyteller.
Dana Milbank pushed the standard leftist response that you can expect to see at least until November of twenty sixteen.
Hicks didn't lay a glove on Hillary Wednesday.
That's not what Hicks was trying to do.
They're trying to get the truth out of what happened.
By the way, there's something that needs a little bit more attention in this, and that is the President of Libya.
And I will get to that before the program ends.
On MSNBC, F. Chuck Todd undercut the scandal on the May 8th morning show.
F. Chuck called a decision to not send more special ops to to Benghazi.
Very rational.
It made perfect sense that Obama and the military wouldn't send more special ops in there.
So Rachel Maddow blasted the GOP on her show, May 8th for an organized conspiracy to make Obama resign, calling it the most ambitious thing they've done.
America's newsman, John Stewart devoted eight and a half minutes to attacking the Republicans for the hearings, even bringing up Nixon cover-ups, saying the Republicans have a history of hysteria.
The Liberal propaganda site, the Huffing and Puffington Post, incredibly didn't even mention the hearings on their front page.
Other liberal sites went even further, ignoring the hearing and the testimony entirely.
The nation, alternate, democracy now, no coverage at all.
That was two days ago.
Now today it's uh it's all blown up.
I got to take a time out as I look at the official broadcast clock.
Sit tight.
We will get to your phone calls when we come back.
The IRS is or has been very recently on a conference call with reporters.
As you know, the IRS today is apologizing for targeting unfairly a number of conservative groups in 2012 applying for tax exempt status.
If you had Tea Party or Patriot in your name, they were inclined to deny you status after making you jump through hoops.
And the IRS said, Well, we sorry about this.
A bunch of low-level staffers, low information people in our Cincinnati office.
On a conference call just now, the IRS is saying there will be no disciplinary action taken against these employees who targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny.
There will be no disciplinary action taken.
The apology is enough.
Bite me.
Well, they didn't say that, but of course, it's implied.
Okay, here we go to Cincinnati speaking of the devil.
Here's uh Ron.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
You are up first.
Thank you, Rush.
I appreciate you taking my call today.
You bet.
Hey, uh, you opened the show by talking about the breakthrough of the Benghazi story, and that uh finally the media appears to be getting it.
And interestingly, Jonathan Carl taking a lot of credit for some of the Steve Hayes work that was done ten days ago.
Right.
There was something else that went on, uh, didn't get as much coverage, but uh John Kerry uh was posed a question in one of his uh travels somewhere about whether you know the State Department would be cooperating, and he said very surprisingly that the State Department would cooperate in any way with any kind of documentation necessary.
Now we'll see if he's if he's true to his word on that.
And if it turns out that he is, I think we just may have a man behind the curtain who may be looking at 2016 and his rival for you know that position.
This is a this is an interesting thing that you bring up here, Ronald Buddy O'Powell.
Yes, sir.
Let me tell you what old Ron's talking about here, folks.
There are clearly Democrats besides Hillary who want to be president in 2016.
And I'll guarantee you that every one of them is sick and tired of this puffball sweetness that's being thrown at her.
The Democrat Party owes this woman.
It was supposed to be her presidency right now until Obama came out of nowhere.
Obama came out of the shadows, if you will.
And took what was hers, and they still owe her.
And she'd been a good soldier.
And she's taking the hit on Benghazi.
When believe me, folks, believe me, there's no way.
You remember the Waco invasion and Bill Clinton say, well, you better go talk to Janet Reno about what 65 people burned up in it.
You better go talk to Janet Rito.
She's the attorney general, she's in charge of that.
And they did, and she took the heat in exchange for a bus with Donna Shalila.
Now same thing is happening here.
They're focusing all this on Hillary.
But there are a lot of Democrats who want to be president too.
And it wouldn't surprise me if Biden wants it.
And if he started helping people out in making trouble for Hillary, and that's what Ron's talking about with John Kerry.
Maybe John Kerry will facilitate Hillary taking some lumps here.
You never know.
Okay, uh, Karen Tull uh excuse me.
Karen Tumulty has issued a clarification.
The IRS when they said no to the question about disciplinary action, they meant they aren't going to answer that question.
They did not mean to say there will not be any disciplinary action.
They said we're not answering that question.
So it's possible that there will be.
There's a conference call going on.
She's monitoring it.
She's tweeting it.
Next thing, why did the IRS decide to look at how these cases are being handled, these applications are being handled?
And the IRS says, well, they read complaints in the newspapers.
That's not, folks, that's not what happened here.
There were official requests for investigations demanded by no less than the Landmark Legal Foundation.
They read about it in the news.
The New York Times had an editorial back in March applauding the IRS for this.
I just saw it, just had a chance to scan it here.
The New York Times has an editorial applauding the IRS and encouraging people to really look hard at these so-called Tea Party groups asking for tax-exempt status.
Here's Garrett, Palm Harbor, Florida.
Hi, Garrett.
Glad you called.
Great to have you on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
I think that our president may have brought himself some plausible deniability on the Benghazi situation because I...
Let me call correctly.
Uh much was made over in during the fall season that the president wasn't taking any briefings, at least not face-to-face briefings.
Yeah.
So he cannot really be held responsible for something he couldn't have possibly known.
So uh yeah, I hope they do.
You know, I hope they try that.
I hope, because the way they're gonna have to sell that is that nobody could reach him for seven hours.
Well, you can't go after Obama.
He didn't know any of this.
Now, what we do know is this at five o'clock Eastern time, when Obama was told about this, he told Hillary and and Panetta in two separate conversations, I believe.
You guys do whatever you have to do.
But they're limited.
They cannot order the military around.
Nor can they order a stand down.
And there were two separate orders, Garrett, to stand down.
Greg Hicks testified to this.
There were two separate orders to stand down.
And the excuse to date that the regime is using, well, there's nobody could have gotten there in time anyway.
But three people did get there in time to get killed.
Three people went over there to help from the CIA mission after being told not to.
They defied orders.
Their colleagues were under assault.
They were told not to do anything about it.
They said to Hegman, they went over there.
You know the story.
You know all of this.
They went over there to try to help.
One of them had a laser, and he found one of the shooters aiming at the consulate, and he painted him.
He thought he was illuminating the target for air strikes above.
Laser guided bomb.
The problem is there wasn't a laser guided bomb in the sky because there wasn't an American bomber in the sky.
So all he did was illuminate his own position, and he died.
He got killed.
So there were people that got there in time.
There were people that wanted to get there in time.
It was entirely possible.
Now, plausible deniability.
Obama doesn't read the Daily Read.
Can you see this?
Can you see them putting this explanation forward?
Entirely believable.
The president of the United States didn't know a thing about this.
It's too important.
This is Trump taint compared to what the president had to do every day.
He did a more important thing than this.
Okay, so 5 o'clock, he tells Hillary and Fanetta, you guys take care of it.
I'm all I'm out.
And he is out, and I'm telling you, where Obama was for the next seven hours, five hours, whatever, is still an unanswered question.
Nobody knows where he was.
He was off the grid.
I gave you the told you a little story earlier in the week about the White House situation room and where it is and how many seats there are in there and the circumstances under which it's used and how that room was filled overflowing during the operation to get Osama bin Laden.
Situation Room wasn't visited by the president during Benghazi, and I don't think it was used.
Now somebody knows where he was, and he knows where he was.
But for some reason, nobody wants to tell us where he was.
What if he was out shooting hoops?
Wouldn't look good.
I don't think the plausible deniability thing has any legs.
Well, we mentioned Cheryl Atkison a moment ago.
She tweeted earlier today.
Sunday I will join Face the Nation Bob Schiefer to talk about the latest on Benghazi.
Bob has been all over this story.
So Jonathan Carl at ABC has this blockbuster Benghazi story today.
And it does feed off of Stephen Hayes.
But in all candor, I mean, Carl added some things to it.
He did advance the ball.
He documented the number of revisions.
There are 12 rewrites or edits, in fact, there may be more.
And he also produced some of the quotes from Hillary's spokeswoman, Victoria Newland.
Newland really ties all this to Hillary, by the way.
Every time you hear her name, you should think Hillary.
Newland didn't do anything that Hillary didn't tell her to do.
So whenever you hear the name Victoria Newland in this, just substitute Hillary's name for hers.
And that is made clear right here from Jonathan Carl's piece, quote, after the talking points were edited slightly to address State Department spokeswoman Victoria Newland's concerns.
She responded that changes did not go far enough.
These changes don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building's leadership, Newland wrote.
So when you see the name it's spelled N-U-L-A-N-D.
When you see or hear the name Victoria Newland in this.
Substitute Hillary.
CNN is even talking about the talking points now.
As we speak.
Jacob Tapper has been on this.
So it has escaped what has been called the Fox News ghetto.
There's a there's a conservative blogger out there which called it the Fox News ghetto.
Uh because Fox is the only one that covered the hearings.
So it uh but what what what is meant by that is the uh the overall conservative media.
Mike out on Long Island.
I'm glad you called your next on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Oh, I uh I just have to uh I I just want to uh to disagree with you on one thing by you saying when um uh lying about Libya is just the same as before Americans getting killed, I think it's much worse.
I think it takes it to a new level on what how they would think.
And by saying this video, can it it could incite riots, it could it could um it could radicalize terrorists, it it could do so much more than just the Americans that got killed.
And I think that the people that spewed this lie should be held accountable, and maybe some job should be lost.
No, I'm I I just can't can't wrap my head around it for some reason I just don't get it.
I am not trying to diminish the cover-up.
But there's a there's a uh you know you know the the conventional wisdom is cover up is worse than the crime, come out and tell the truth.
And and you you are the the loudest vocal person uh about it, and I still I just don't see why other people aren't getting it.
I just don't get it.
Well, I think uh give them time.
Uh when you say other people aren't getting it, specifically what do you want them to get?
I want them to say this administration lied.
This administration put out there that this video caused this, and now the the regular person is a little bit more than a little bit.
Let me give you something on let me give you something to worry about.
What would your reaction be if I told you most everybody who voted for Obama knew he was lying about it, didn't care.
I know.
And and now the people some people I work with, you just say Benghazi, they think it's a person, Ben Ghazzi.
I I don't understand.
I don't know where these people live.
How many people when you talk that suggests something to Republicans?
The Republicans just trying to embarrass Obama.
There's nothing to see here, and I don't care what Obama did.
It's where Republicans are worse.
A lot of people here in New York, Rush.
I I know you know more than other people.
It's it's like talking to it's like talking to a wall.
It really is.
And it's just so frustrating that I've got to let this happen.
Why, sad to say that it's important that ABC has this now.
Because the low information networks are on the case.
Now, they could drop it after the Sunday shows, too.
They could say, okay, we're gonna do this, we're gonna cover it, and then drop it and move on to something else.
Immigration, gun control.
They could do this and drop it and say they covered it.
Don't it's too soon to invest a whole lot of hope.
Just take it one day at a time as it comes, and we'll see, we'll see what happens.
Uh there was something that happened within the past three weeks, wherein the New York Times reported something factually that we have been asserting for a long time, and people were celebrating and clapping their hands, and it kind of made me mad that, oh, okay, so we still want validation from the New York Times.
Still didn't, if it if a New York Times says it, then we can finally trust it.
And it kind of ticked me off.
I wish I could remember what it was.
It was not something insignificant, but it was long enough ago that I don't remember exactly what it was.
But I do remember everybody celebrating and clapping their hands because whatever it was had been confirmed by the New York Times.
And there's a little bit of that here.
I mean, kudos to Jonathan Carl.
I mean, he he did advance the ball.
He did move it forward.
But a lot of this, you and I have known since September 12th of last year.
And it is a little, I'll take it.
I'm not looking, I'm not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth here, because it is what it is.
But it's still just as an isolated thing, it's a little irritating to me that it takes ABC covering this for these Nimrods that you're talking about in New York to finally get it.
It is, it's going to be tougher.
You know, the the normal low information reaction when you bring up Ben Ghazard, eh, this is a Republicans trying to get Obama.
There's nothing there.
It never is.
The Republicans, it's all just political.
They're just, they just hate Obama.
They're a bunch of racists, and he just don't like Obama.
They're mad that he wanted to just try to get rid of him if there's nothing here.
Just because it's conservatives pushing it.
It's impossible for there to be anything factual about it.
So here comes ABC reporting it, maybe even CNN, not a big deal there, not a whole lot of people watch.
The big thing for New York would be the New York City Times.
You know, if they got on this, then that would leave some of these people scratching their heads.
But that's the bifurcation of the culture that's happened here.
And up to now, the media has been doing everything it can to shield and protect Obama and Hillary.
But this is there a couple callers ago, there's a there's a little disgust phenomenon that is going to happen.
And while the conventional wisdom is that the nomination and election in 2016 is Hillary's, it's wrapped and ready to go.
You know Biden wants to be president.
And you know John Kerry does.
And who knows who else in the Democrat Party wants it?
There will be a primary.
She is going to have opponents again.
And when the contest is between us and them, they will always circle the wagons and protect themselves.
And they will never throw anybody under the bus if it means us winning.
But if it's a self-contained objective like the White House, they will undercut each other.
And they'll unite after the fact against us.
But it's entirely likely that there will be some attempts made by other Democrats with presidential aspirations to leak stuff about Hillary.
And in fact, that may be what's happening here.
That means this.
It was the Pigford story in the New York Times.
New York Times did a story that the Pigford settlement was massive fraud, that a bunch of people who were not black farmers ended up being given massive welfare benefit repayments they didn't deserve.
And this is a big Andrew Breitbart cause.
And so people are saying, all right, the New York Times is validated what we said the New York Times, and just kind of bothered me that we needed the New York Times.
I understand it.
Now, the folks, let me I know you're gonna find this incredible.
The media, the left-wing media, the White House state control media on certain cable networks today, where the Jonathan Carl, Stephen Hayes expose has finally reached them, MSNBC for one, they're actually asking, why would the White House cover up Benghazi?
Why would they cover that up?
I mean, various hosts and analysts are seriously asking themselves that question.
As if they don't know.
And so a guy named Ben Smith at BuzzFeed, who was us, I'll tell you why.
They're covering up their incompetence.
They're covering up the fact that it was a massive rage, that they weren't prepared for it, that they didn't have the proper security.
They're covering up their incompetence, and they're covering up they didn't do anything good about it.
And it was right before the election in front of and oh yeah, yeah, that makes sense.
Okay, okay, okay.
Now as though it's a first day realization to them.
See, in their mind, we we have a messiah as president, and and would never do anything wrong.
He wouldn't lie, wouldn't make anything up.
He doesn't do he wants to improve the job situation.
He wants to make sure that he has cheaper health care.
And so he's a wonderful guy.
The country is loved again.
Why would he cover anything up?
They until today didn't even or weren't even able to entertain the notion.
A cover up, that's what guys like Nixon do.
Not our guy.
Honestly, that is an accurate portrayal of what some state controlled media people were talking about just today on their networks.
Ladies and gentlemen, Article 2, section one, Nixon impeachment articles, were about the IRS being used to go after his political enemies.
Obama made jokes about going after political enemies with IRS audits.
▲
Export Selection