All Episodes
Previous Next
May 20, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
May 20, 2013, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
And greetings to you once again, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists on the cross.
The fruited plane, great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network at the Limbaugh Institute.
For advanced conservative studies, a telephone number if you want to be on the program.
800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Look, I don't mean to make this personal.
I I'm I really don't.
You people in this audience and have been here for years and years understand that, for example, when I say that this past weekend, today, all of last week, the Limbaugh theorem has been in full display.
I don't mean to make that about me.
Remember what we're about here.
We are about persuading people.
We are about creating the largest group of informed, educated people participating in our process as possible.
And as such, it is I who try various ways to come up to exp with come up with ways to explain things to people that will convince or persuade them.
And also do so in a way that will help them then explain to other people.
And we create a cascade.
Now Limbaugh Theorem was not about me giving me credit for something.
It was simply sharing with you when the when when the light went off.
And just to just to restate it again as as briefly as the reason I'm doing this is I had a I had a bunch of emails from from friends over the weekend who are in the media, who have never heard of the Limbaugh theorem, alerting me to a they're they're sending me, can you believe how how Obama's getting away with all this?
Like he had nothing to do with the IRS and he had nothing to do with what went on at the Department of Justice and the AP.
And I politely well, I'll tell you what I did.
I went to the website, Rush24-7, and I got all of the relevant transcripts from the archives of this program going back to February, the Limbaugh theorem, and I fired the stuff out.
I mean, I buried them with data.
And I said, Look, I finally figured this out.
I'm I'm everybody is coming to it now, but they still they haven't closed the loop on what it means.
Where everybody is, and I'm sure you've seen this, where everybody is now is wow, even their satirical uh members of the media doing parody and satire on Obama.
Uh for example, I saw one of the Borowitz report or something, and it was a satire on Obama saying, Well, you know, I I didn't know this thing was going on in the IRS.
Um I found out about it when uh when the press told me it was it was a takeoff on on how Obama is literally not attached to anything in his administration.
He's not attached to his agenda, he's not attached to these scandals, he's not attached to anything.
But what they're missing is that this has been going on since day one in 2009, and what they're missing is the purpose of it.
They all acknowledge, for example, that Obama's on a perpetual campaign, but it stops there.
They're all remarking to me, boy, did it amazing how this Obama guy, he doesn't know anything about what's going on, and he's just like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But do you know why all this is happening is the point.
And the answer is right here.
Obama approval holding steady at 55%.
Now it's a CNN poll, and we have to treat this in a guarded way.
President Obama's job approval rating holding steady despite a trifecta of scandals.
Candy Crowley said on State of the Union yesterday that 53% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing.
His approval virtually unchanged from a poll CNN did before the three scandals that have put the administration on the defensive were revealed.
And the three scandals, of course, of the IRS probing the Tea Party, Republican criticism of Benghazi and Libya, and the AP phone records.
The approval rating hasn't changed.
They don't attach Obama to it.
There's a reason.
It's not just something to marvel at and insult voters over.
There is a there's a studied purposeful reason why Obama is never going to be seen as governing.
And it is precisely within the minds of low information voters to make sure he's never seen as responsible for any of this.
It is it is purposeful.
It's not it's not just some anomaly that happened that everybody can scratch their heads at or laugh at.
The limbaugh theorem attempts to explain why the administration is doing this and how it is working and how it is succeeding.
For example, here is the kind of reporting that we're getting from our so-called news media, this the um uh associated press.
Obama agenda marches on despite controversies.
Of course it does.
Despite Democrat fears, predictions of the demise of Obama's agenda appear exaggerated after a week of cascading controversies, political triage by the regime and party leaders in Congress, and a lack of evidence to date of wrongdoing close to the Oval Office.
Now that's not journalism, that's cheerleading.
They're all excited.
This is the AP excited that none of this is attaching itself to Obama.
This is the AP thrilled over there.
They're thrilled to be able to report that the agenda marches on despite the controversies, despite fears in the Democrat Party, despite predictions of the demise of Obama's agenda, all that's exaggerated, after a week of cascading controversies.
Remember, these are the same people, folks, who constantly tell us not to jump to conclusions.
But now the news media are proclaiming the scandals are all behind us now, and that Obama's emerged unscathed, and that his wonderful agenda marches on.
There it is, right there in the AP.
And unfortunately, that last part about his agenda marching on is true.
But that's only because it takes two to tango.
Scandals never stop at administration unless the media wants them to stop an administration, which means that no scandal is ever going to stop Obama.
I I can remember people here last week, rush this IRS thing.
This is really gonna get no, it's not.
It's not gonna get Obama.
We continue to learn that the regime was totally behind it.
We have learned that Obama met with the leader of the union that IRS employees belong to, a woman at the White House.
It was the next day that the Tea Party began being targeted.
I mean, it's highly circumstantial, but uh it's it's certainly not not proof, but it's it's it's uh all these stories that that Obama didn't know.
There's another story.
Everybody's trying to figure out one thing here on this IRS story.
It's being reported that I think it was uh Lois Lerner revealed the details of the scandal during QA at a congressional hearing.
That's how we first learned of this, by the way.
If you've forgotten, that's it.
The IRS announced it at a congressional hearing.
We have since found out that the whole thing was scripted.
At the member of Congress who asked her the question, was given the question specifically so that she could answer it.
This happened a day or two before the Inspector General report came out.
And everybody's trying to answer the here's the answer to the question.
The reason why that happened is so that it would appear, and again, everything is targeted to low information voters, folks.
It's all that matters to the regime.
Obama's voters.
That's where those polling numbers come from, and that's what all this stuff is targeted to.
So the purpose here was to have it understood, have it known, have it uh indisputably appear that the IRS announced the scandal.
The IRS discovered what these rogue employees were going on, and they got the news out before the Inspector General's report.
If the Inspector's General report, Inspector General's report had been the first thing anybody heard about this, then whatever the IRS says after that would appear to be cover-up.
But the way this happened, with a scripted, structured QA in a congressional hearing, the IRS gets the credit for revealing the details.
It was it was okay, that's right.
It was a bar, not a congressional hearing.
It was a Bar Association tax conference.
That's what it was a it was a QA, Lois Learner at an American Bar Association tax convention.
And the question that she got was staged.
She knew it was coming, she had the answer.
The reason for this is so that it they can say, and it appears the IRS discovered the dirt in its own shop and announced it, and then immediately began to take steps to fix it.
Now the truth of the matter is that this was a purposefully structured, might say brilliantly conceived, and almost flawlessly executed attempt to tamp down fundraising donations, and in fact, voter interest among the Tea Party.
The IRS delayed the process for granting tax exempt status to a whole bunch of Tea Party organizations, over 30 of them.
That delayed them in their campaign efforts, in their fundraising efforts.
It also sent some of them home to hell with it.
They just, I'm not putting up with this, and they stopped.
A couple stories from women who were trying to start Tea Party foundations to heck with it, and it's not worth the hassle.
And remember, we've uh we know that Obama got a lot fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, but so did Romney get many fewer votes, millions fewer than McCain got.
Well, I think now we're starting to see exactly what the IRS targeting the Tea Party meant.
It actually suppressed conservative vote.
It suppressed Tea Party fundraising.
Tea Party was the sole reason for the 2010 midterms.
That's when the IRS got in gear.
Made sure that wasn't going to happen in 2012, and they did.
In all of this, Obama's over there unattached to it.
In all of this, Obama's sitting there saying we're going to get to the bottom.
And over the all of this, Obama's over there firing, quote unquote.
The acting head honcho, when he didn't get fired, he was leaving anyway.
It was just made to look like drastic action had taken place.
That's just the IRS scandal.
Yeah, just to be clear, Lois Lerner made her admission, quote unquote, at an American Bar Association meeting.
She got a lawyer friend to ask her the question in the QA.
The bar meeting was May the 10th.
The IG report, the IRS Inspector General report came out on May 13th.
They were hell-bent, they knew what the IG report was going to say, because they knew what was going on in there.
They knew how the Tea Party vote was being suppressed.
They knew Tea Party fundraising was being suppressed.
They knew that Tea Party enthusiasm and the full force of the federal government was being brought down.
They were being told to furnish the details and the contents of prayers in the case of a religious organization seeking tax exempt status.
Now the news media right now, folks, is in full Praetorian Guard mode.
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times had stories over the weekend reporting that the IRS's suppression of the Tea Party, it couldn't have been political.
Oh no.
Anybody thinks that's just a freak gook extremist.
The IRS suppressing the Tea Party Could not have been political, say the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Because all the workers at the tax exemption office in Cincinnati say they aren't political.
That's right.
The Washington Post, the New York Times found some of the employees there.
Oh no, no, we're just overworked.
I'll tell you where this is going to go.
You let some time pass, and what's going to happen is, say, six months, eight months, a year from now, at a congressional hearing having to do with something totally unrelated.
Somebody's going to say, you know what, the IRS needs more money, needs more and more and more staff.
The reason why this unfortunately happened with Tea Party isn't under staff.
Oh, yeah, yeah, that's exactly right.
And that's that's how this could potentially backfire.
The IRS could end up getting bigger.
Which is not what we want.
But that could be when nobody's looking a few months from now, the supposed solution to this.
It was just a coincidence, you see, and general incompetence that kept five hundred conservative organizations from being granted tax exempt status for more than twenty-seven months.
By the way, during that entire period, every liberal group sailed through.
You know, there's another question I have.
Where I think the mach the regimes dropped the ball.
If they were really on their game, and they are on their game, don't mean this is just a little side illustration.
But if in the middle of all this, if some left-wing group of people had popped up and said, Yeah, well, we were denied our tax exempt status too.
The IRS was asking us all kinds of, can you imagine how that could have been played in the media?
It wasn't just a conservative Tea Party groups.
Look at the uh National Association of Bald Condoras over here.
They didn't get their tax exempt status either.
If the regime had come up with some left-wing organization also denied, but that didn't happen.
Every left-wing group seeking tax exempt status got it.
Everyone, over 500 Tea Party groups did not in a 27-month period.
And Obama had nothing to do with it, folks.
And employees in Cincinnati are not political.
Washington Post, New York Times trying to convince us these um these uh IRS workers weren't political, just incompetent.
And a member of Congress said, you know, that that's really cool.
Let a taxpayer try saying he didn't know what he was doing when you guys come calling and see how that works for him.
But you guys come before our committee and you will say, Oh, this happened because you're incompetent.
The gallery in the house stood up and cheered when that guy, forget his name at the top of my head.
So when Obama says there's no there, as far as the media's concerns, he's right.
As far as limbo theorems goes, he's right, there's no there.
No matter what Obama does, no matter what he does, it will never be reported he did it.
In fact, what'll be reported is in this case, Obama's trying to fix it.
Like the deficit, like the healthcare problems, like the national debt.
He's trying to fix it.
Quick timeout, folks.
Greetings and welcome back.
Folks, please indulge me here.
I must take some time here.
I need to issue a thank you to a company that really did a great job for me.
I order a lot of stuff off Amazon, and normally I have a one specific address that everything from Amazon gets shipped to for a whole host of reasons.
But sometimes Amazon uses third-party sellers.
And sometimes they don't ship in a way that will get to me at the address I use for Amazon.
So I ordered a bunch of stuff two weeks ago.
And after I ordered it, I noticed that it was going to be coming from a third-party shipper.
And every time that's happened, the stuff has never arrived, and it's gotten lost.
Because the third-party shippers use mail and I don't.
So I used the proper form at Amazon and I sent the shipper, it's an outfit called Burns Wholesale.
And they're someplace in Michigan.
And I just sent an email saying, please do not send via United States Mail.
I will not get it.
Please do please.
I gave them the instructions and so forth.
And I knew they'd never see it.
I mean, how many millions of such emails are they going to get as an Amazon customer?
But they did see it.
And they replied, and they uh they shipped it in the way that I asked, and it's a way they never ship.
I was told that the people in the shipping are big fans and that they made an exception in this case.
Uh this is a fairly decent size order, and I just wanted to think it was great customer service, just like we have at 2 if by tea.com.
These people at Burns Wholesale, third-party sellers at Amazon, they're just the best.
Doing that which I was born to do, and so are you.
I was born to host, and you were born to listen and to learn and then go vote.
And it's working well within our little universe here.
Telephone number, we got to the phone calls uh at some point 800-282-2882.
Now, I got some audio sound bites here going to demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about with the Limbaugh theorem.
Snerdley just told me that I've ruined his day.
You know, during the entire monologue, the opening monologue of the program today, I've looked in the other side of the glass, and Snerdley's in there with his mouth sort of open and a facial expression that was either, oh no, as he's depressed hearing what I'm hearing, or he he thinks I'm off my rocker.
So I asked him about it during the break.
He said, Well, I gotta tell you, I'm spending a whole weekend, I'm watching the Sunday shows, I'm watching this stuff, and I'm thinking finally something's gonna stick.
Now, Democrats are nervous, they're running for the hills, they're scared, and you come along and in two minutes and you dispel the whole notion.
I said, Well, I could be wrong.
He said, You're never wrong.
I said, I know.
But I still could be.
I could have this wrong.
Maybe.
Maybe the low information voters are getting ticked off.
Maybe they're holding Obama accountable, but I don't see it.
I don't see it happening now, and I don't see it happening in the future.
Let's go back for a second to the CNN poll.
Now, admittedly, it's CNN.
But I'm not gonna make the mistake again that I made in the 2012 election.
I figured that those pre-election polls in 2012 were wrong because they weren't factoring the 2010 midterm election turnout, and I was wrong about that.
And I didn't know that the IRS was suppressing Tea Party fundraising and enthusiasm.
There's a lot we didn't know that was gonna.
I mean, I think it's a legitimate question to ask.
If the IRS had not suppressed the Tea Party in the ways they did, would Romney have won?
Not could have.
Would he have?
Is this election fraudulent?
So it's a it's a legitimate question because of what the IRS did.
It's also legitimate based on Benghazi, but that's another thing.
And I still submit Benghazi, just in terms of substance, it's far worse as a scandal than the IRS thing is.
But let's go back to the CNN polls for just a second here.
I have the same poll reported on in two consecutive days.
The first day was yesterday.
CNN's Candy Crowley on State of the Union said that Obama's job approval rating is holding steady despite a trifecta of scandals.
53% of Americans approve of the job that Obama is doing.
His approval is virtually unchanged from a poll the network did before the three scandals that have put the regime on the defensive.
Obama's senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer told Crowley the American people have great faith in the president.
And they do.
They think he's trying to fix all of this.
Look, you are the exact opposite of low information voters, and it may be hard to understand.
When I say they think Obama's trying to fix it.
But they do.
That's they're emotionally invested in the guy.
And nothing is going to change that.
I don't see anything changed.
I mean, something unforeseen would have to happen to change that.
I don't I just don't see this as being that.
Now here's the next day.
The weekly standard.
A new poll from CNN demonstrates that Americans say the continuing investigations into two scandals that have arisen in the last week are important.
Here we go again.
The respondents in the CNN poll give Obama a 53% approval rating while at the same time say that these scandals are important and that number is rising.
According to the poll, 55% of those surveyed say the questions about the regime's conflicting stories on the cause of the 9-11 attacks in Benghazi are very important.
On the issue of the IRS targeting conservative groups for increased scrutiny, 55% said that it was very important.
Another 30% said it was somewhat important.
And get this, 59% now say the U.S. government could have prevented the attack in Benghazi.
That's up 11 points from last November.
It was 48, but now it's not.
Now it's 59% say the government could have prevented the attack.
Only 37% say congressional Republicans are overreacting.
It's the same with the IRS controversy.
Fifty-four percent say the GOP in Congress is not overplayed its hand.
Yet Obama's approval is at 53% unchanged.
And it's the same thing in Gallup.
So it's the same anomaly that I saw the New York Times back in February that got me going on all this.
That poll back in February was that by vast majorities, 55 to 58, someplace 60 percent people opposed Obama's agenda and didn't like the direction the country was going, but loved him.
I said, wait a minute.
They don't approve of the agenda, and they don't like the direction the country's going, but they don't attach Obama to any.
How is that?
That's what people are not connecting.
How that's happening.
And it's the permanent campaign with Obama running around himself appearing opposed to what's happening.
The truthful way to characterize that is Obama is running around opposed to his own agenda.
He too opposes his agenda.
And is trying to fix it.
And that's how people see it.
They don't see him as governing.
They don't see him as ultimately responsible.
That's why we've gotten the stories Obama detached.
Obama a passerby.
Obama a bystander.
I mean, everybody's figured out what's happening now.
They haven't closed the loop, as have I, your beloved host to explain why.
Now let's go to the audio sound bites, shall we?
Dan Pfeiffer.
Dan Pfeiffer, uh White House senior advisor, first on Slay the Nation with Bob Schiefer.
Bob Schieffer is starting to get a little put out with these guys.
And he doesn't want to compare any of this to Watergate.
But he's very alarmed the way the White House is handling this.
He said he said to Pfeiffer, okay, yesterday the White House leaks a story to the New York Times.
It says the White House chief of staff, Dennis McDonough has told his staff not to spend any more than 10 percent of their time on these issues.
Does that mean you don't take any of this seriously, Mr. Pfeiffer?
The point that our chief of staff is making is that this is a Republican playbook here, which is try when they don't have a positive agenda to try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings, and false allegations.
We're not gonna let that distract us and the president from actually doing the people's work and fighting for the middle class.
You know, I I don't want to compare this in any way to Watergate.
I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch.
But you weren't born then, I would guess.
But I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took.
They said these are all second rate things.
We don't have time for this.
We have to devote our time to the people's business.
You're taking exactly the same line that they did.
But it's not Watergate.
Bob had to make everybody sure aware it's not Watergate, not saying it's Watergate.
Nothing can ever be Watergate, because that's a Republican.
Nothing can ever be Watergate.
But you guys are starting to alarm me.
What do you did?
You know, Obama said he's working hard for the middle class.
It reminds me of Bill Clinton.
I didn't have sex with that woman.
Not a single time, never.
Now I gotta get back to work for the American people.
He's wagging that crooked finger and walks out of the room.
And here in the midst of the IRS, Benghazi and the media spy, and by the way, this media spying story is much more than AP Nance encompassed James Rosen of Fox News.
And there's a big story in the Daily Caller.
Oh, we have linked to this at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Uh Jeff Poor at the Daily Caller chronicles all of the Obama administration efforts targeting the media, and I'm mentioned in that story two or three times all the uh accounts, all the attempts that Obama has made to try to come after me.
Anyway, you hear Pfeiffer look.
Our chief of staff is out there saying it not the Republicans are making all this up.
I mean, the Republicans don't have a positive agenda, so they're bringing all this IRS stuff, and they're bringing up Benghazi and they're bringing up, and we're just not going to talk about it, Bob, because we got more important things to do.
We gotta keep working for the middle class.
We had time for talk about this stuff.
And yeah, and and Schiefer Schiefer uh, well, gee, whiz, you know, I'm not saying it's Watergate, but my God, that's exactly what Nixon said.
They said, we don't have time for this, you guys are barking up the wrong tree.
We're gonna work on the people's business, second rate stuff going on.
You know, next thing we're gonna hear from Dan Pfeiffer is no investigation ever fed a hungry child.
That's a line Clinton used against Bob Dole in a debate in the 1996 campaign.
Dole's out there saying, where's the outrage over Clinton's lack of morality and all this?
And Clinton said, no attack ever fed a hungry child.
So after Schiefer told Pfeiffer that, you know, you guys are playing this exactly like Nixon did in Watergate, he kept going.
But uh Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is in charge of the executive branch of the government.
It's my I'll just make this as an assertion.
When the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any uh uh hesitancy of the White House to take uh credit for that.
When Osama bin Laden was killed, the president didn't waste any time getting out, getting out there and telling people about it.
Here you have it right out in front of his eyes here.
It's the Limbaugh theorem is what Schiefer's talking about, but he's not heard of the Limbaugh theorem, so he doesn't know what it is.
But he he knows what it is.
He just doesn't know that I have concocted that name for it with an in-depth explanation.
But you notice how timid he is.
Look, you know, Mr. Mr. Pfeiffer, I don't mean to be argumentative.
You ever remember him treating a Republican that way?
I don't remember, I don't know argumentative.
Please forgive me, Mr. Pfeiffer.
Please, I don't really.
You know, I got my job here, and I've got to do my job, and I've got to ask you, please, please, but I just, you know, I'm I'm just gonna make I'll tell you what, I won't even ask you, I just make an assertion.
When the economy is going great guns, you guys take the credit, but no Sam Bin Laden's killed, you guys don't waste any time taking credit for it, but on this other stuff, you guys are nowhere to be found.
So Schiefer and a lot of these people are they're they're just saying they're gliding around, circling the truth here.
Uh they're afraid to head for the bullseye on this.
I've got to take a break.
But this goes on, and there's more.
We'll have it when we get back.
Minor correction, I said Burns wholesale Amazon third party resailer or reseller, it's burn.
B U R N. They don't, they don't have their own website.
They are a um wholesaler of tobacco products, Calibri lighters and butane and uh all kinds of stuff.
And they're a third-party seller for Amazon.
And I bought a bunch of lighters.
Give them away, this kind of thing.
And I didn't, I noticed after the fact that Amazon wasn't shipping.
And if you're buying from Amazon, you know that you've got a bunch of presets you can set up for when Amazon ships, they usually use UPS.
But none of their resellers use FedExa UPS.
They always use U.S. mail or express mail, and I don't.
So stuff sent by the third party resellers never gets to me.
And I never order stuff from third party resellers because of that.
At least not from Amazon.
And I didn't realize that the stuff wasn't going to be shipped by Amazon till after I had placed the order.
And I don't cancel orders, it's too big a hassle.
It's uh I don't even know how to do it.
So I used the uh opportunity Amazon offers to send an email to the wholesaler, figuring this'll never be seen.
I mean, how many gazillions of emails are these guys getting?
I can't possibly read all the emails I get.
But they did see it, and they did ship it in a way that I would get it.
And they shipped it in a way they never ship.
I mean, they ship a lot of stuff, they've got their systems, and they went outside of their system for this order.
And I just wanted to thank them.
I don't when I've when I encounter customer service like this uh or any company product that in my mind excels, I'm just I'm gonna take the occasion of the opportunity I have with this microphone, thank them, even though I did in another email, but I just think they're really good, and I just want to thank them publicly here.
And I made the mistake, I said it's Burns wholesale, and it's B-U-R-N.
Now back to the audio sound bites, Bob Schiefer still telling Dan Pfeiffer that he really can't believe the take that Pfeiffer brought to his show yesterday.
Here's the next example of it.
But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know uh what has happened.
And I use as an example of that, Susan Rice, who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast and other Sunday broadcasts five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that.
The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where uh four Americans were killed.
Now, what's interesting about this is Schiefers, look, I don't want to get an argument with you here about who changed what.
Why not, Bob?
That's the story.
But Bob's sitting here telling Pfeiffer, look, I don't understand the way you guys are playing this.
I don't under you're saying nobody knows anything, Obama didn't know anything, and you're telling me that people that I can't talk to are coming up with these explanations.
I don't want to argue with you about course because you're a fellow Democrat, and there's no way I'm gonna use my show here to embarrass you guys.
Here's the last bite we have with Schiefer.
I think he sees what's going on here.
He doesn't like it.
But what I'm saying to you is uh that was just PR.
That was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened.
Why did you do that?
Why didn't the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew?
And if you knew nothing, uh say we don't know yet.
Why didn't the White House Chief of Staff come out?
I mean, I would, and I mean this is no disrespect to you.
Why are you here today?
Why isn't the White House chief of staff here to tell us what happened?
Can you imagine watching this show yesterday and hearing all of this?
But that, again, folks, not to overdo it by any stretch.
It's the limbaugh theorem.
Nobody is responsible for anything.
And all Schiefer's concerned about is why aren't you guys doing it a different way?
Look, Dan Pfeiffer, I don't know if we've got this in the audio sun, but I thought we did, but regarded Dan Pfeiffer told another Sunday morning show that none of this is relevant anyway.
None of this matters.
The law's not relevant, he said.
The law is not relevant, Pfeiffer said.
So Schiefer didn't get that, somebody else did, and I'll find that.
▲
Export Selection