All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
May 1, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh behind a golden EIB microphone.
Talent on loan from God.
Both feet planted in the cement of reality.
Here serving humanity by showing up.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
Betsy McCoy has a great column today in the New York Post.
Republicans are fooling themselves if they think they can fix Obamacare.
Republicans are fooling themselves if they think that they can reform it or fix it or whatever, that the only thing, the only option we really have is to just repeal it.
And she gives evidence, and we'll have that.
And LeBron James, Miami Heat, is upset that Donald Sterling still owns a team.
LeBron spoke to the media days.
Hey, let's get going on this.
What are we doing here?
Why haven't they voted yet?
We got to get going.
We got to change that out there.
This is going to take a while, LeBron.
And there's a, you know, something, folks, just something for you to think about.
A, I'm going to say what I think.
I think Sterling is going to fall on his sword.
I don't think he's going to make this easy for these people.
Number one.
Now, Sterling bought this team back in 33 years ago, bought this team for like, yeah, $12.7 million.
And the supposed sale price today is around $575 million.
Do you know what his capital gains taxes would be?
$200 to $300 million.
Well, I know.
Good, good.
You just financially raped the SOP.
Good.
But he could make argument.
Wait a minute.
You cannot force me to take a financial hit like this because if he bequeathed a team to his wife, it costs nobody anything.
And the asset then assumes the $575 million value, not the $12 million.
$12.7 is what the starting asset value was, or is, if there's any sale.
But if he holds on until he passes away and then gives the team to his wife, and she hasn't said any mean stuff, she has nothing.
She wants the team, too.
No, I don't think the gift tax, if he gave it to her, well, wait a minute now.
Wait, wait, that's a good quick.
You can give, you can give your, yeah, you can.
That's an interesting thing.
If he did that, that would fry him.
Oh, geez, would that fry him?
Because right now, LeBron and everybody thinks that Oprah's a new owner.
That's what the, come on, when is this going to happen?
Oprah's going to own this team.
And LeBron thinks it should have happened by now.
And I'm sure a lot of these other guys think it should have happened by now.
I mean, what's the point?
What's the point of doing all this if this guy still has a team?
Is what a lot of people are thinking.
That's why this I could get in a lot of trouble for saying this, but watching this play out the way it's going to play out could end up being fun in the sense that people who don't understand it are going to have reactions to it that will be humorous and entertaining.
Okay, Benghazi, let me get to this.
And just to show you, grab somebody 26.
Just to show you how important this is to their series of lies.
They've been caught.
Judicial Watch has caught them.
Cheryl Atkinson has caught them.
This is a sorry, sorry episode.
This is disgraceful.
There was never any real military or foreign policy reaction to what happened in Benghazi.
It was purely political from the moment it happened because everything with these people is.
The moment it happened, the only thing they were thinking about at the White House is how do we shield Obama?
We got the presidential race coming up in November.
My God, what do we do?
How do we protect Obama?
How do we keep this from happening and affecting and touching him, blah, blah, blah.
And it was just a derelict of duty.
It's just, it's just, it's sickening.
Four Americans are dead.
That didn't matter.
All that mattered was Obama's political fortunes.
And this video, it's never been about this video.
I still can't believe that we're really talking about what we are because that's all the regime has is convincing as many people as possible that this video caused that nobody saw.
Well, some people saw it, but not enough to cause whatever unrest happened.
And it certainly had nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.
But they're trying as hard as they can to make sure or make people believe that it did because it started in Cairo.
Now, they had a press briefing today, Jay Carney, and he was questioned by Ed Henry.
He said, retired Brigadier General Robert Lavelle testified under oath today.
And we've got these, by 3.15 a.m. after the 9-11-2012 attack, they dismissed the video as a cause for the attack.
And they very quickly identified this as a terrorist attack, Jay.
Retired Brigadier General Robert Lavelle said, under oath, the video had nothing to do with it, Jay.
Now, in light of that, why, on September 14, two and a half days later, was Ben Rhodes, White House guy, whose brother works at CBS News.
Ben Rhodes' brother is an executive at CBS News.
Cheryl Atkinson, gone, anyone?
Ed Henry said, why was Ben Rhodes writing an email two days later about the general state of affairs, as you say, highlighting the video and not highlighting a terror attack?
Jay, it was a terror attack.
Everybody knows it.
Why were you still talking about the video?
the email was about protests around the region if you want to tell me today Benghazi was part of it, right?
Right.
And I would refer you to the CIA produced talking points on that that referred at the time to currently available information suggesting that the protests outside there were protests outside of the facility in Benghazi inspired by demonstrations outside of Cairo.
What inspired those demonstrations outside of our embassy in Cairo?
Do you even remember?
There was a lot of tumult in the region.
They were in reaction to what people felt was an offensive video.
And there were demonstrations outside of U.S. facilities because the video was produced in the United States.
So they're sticking to the video theory.
This is just moments ago that this happened.
Cairo is the key.
And I'm telling you, this is just another case of brazen lying.
And Kearney is not good at it.
I don't think.
I don't think he's bringing this off.
I think Carney himself is giving credence problems to this.
There was tumult in the region.
What inspired?
Do you remember that end?
Tumult, the demonstrations outside our embassy in Cairo.
There was a video, an offensive.
It was not.
They were planned protests because it was the anniversary of 9-11.
Nobody had seen this video.
And again, this is for down the road, but there are traces back to Hillary as the person who came up with the video story.
Hillary found out about it, designed the theory and the strategy, and went to town with it.
Let's listen to the retired Brigadier General Lavelle.
This is this morning, House Oversight Government Reform Committee hearing on the Benghazi attack.
Oh, it's Lovell.
I'm sorry.
Retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified, and we have a portion of his remarks here.
The discussion is not could or could not of time, space, and capability.
The point is we should have tried.
As another saying goes, always move to the sound of the guns.
We didn't know how long this would last when we became aware of the distress, nor do we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it a kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all of the above.
But what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action.
This was no demonstration gone terribly awry.
To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack.
The AFRICOM J2 was focused on attribution.
The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.
So here's the retired Brigadier General, Air Force Generals.
There was no demonstration going awry.
This was terrorism.
So the regime's calling this guy a liar.
Here's more of General Lovell.
He was asked by Darrell Issa, what time did you first hear that there was a video?
It was early on in the evening of September 11th, before 3.15 in the morning.
Yeah, absolutely.
We were absolutely, I would have to say, probably dismissed that notion by then by working with other sources.
As the deputy and the highest-ranking person at moment working these issues, you dismissed the idea that this attack was, in fact, a demonstration that went awry and it was based on a YouTube video out of Los Angeles.
Yes, sir.
Meaning, yeah, we dismissed that notion.
And then Jason Chaffetz, Republican Utah.
You said in the last sentence of your testimony that attacks became attributable very soon after the event.
What do you believe they were attributable to?
That they were attributable to an Islamist extremist group.
Al-Qaeda?
We felt it was Ansar al-Sharia.
Which is affiliated with al-Qaeda?
Yeah, yes, sir.
How quickly did you come to the conclusion that you believed that there were al-Qaeda affiliates or al-Qaeda themselves involved and engaged in this attack?
Very, very soon, when we were still in the very early, early hours of this activity.
Was it a video?
No, sir.
But the regime is sticking with it.
Let's go back.
Let's listen to the regime.
We've got a review of the lies that a number of American leaders fed the American people and the world between September 20th and September 28th of 2012.
I don't care how offensive this video was, and it was terribly offensive.
And we should shut it.
This video is disgusting and reprehensible.
It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.
Let's be clear.
These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.
You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, who is an extremely offensive video.
The unrest we've seen has been in reaction to a video.
It was a crude and disgusting video.
Sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.
It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.
I know there are some who ask, why don't we just ban such a video?
And the answer is enshrined in our laws.
Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
He's telling that last comment happened at the United Nations with a room full of dictators and thugs.
Why don't you just get rid of it then?
Why don't you get rid of the guy?
Well, because of our laws.
We can't do that because of our laws.
And telling Donald Sterling.
And tell it to this guy.
They put him in jail.
The video maker's in jail, and he's scared to death now.
He'll say whatever they want him to say.
He's scared to death.
So there you hear everybody lying about it.
And let's not forget this.
This is January 23rd, a year later, 2013, in Capitol Hill during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Benghazi.
We've been trying to get to the bottom of this, and they keep lying about it.
And Senator Ron Johnson, Republican Wisconsin, said, we're misled that there were supposedly protests and assaults sprang out of the protests.
And that was easily ascertained.
That was not the fact.
The American people could have known within days, and they didn't know that.
What difference at this point does it make?
She was.
Hillary Clinton was livid.
What difference does it make?
What difference does it make?
How four people died right now.
What difference does it make?
So we've heard from General Lovell.
We've heard from the montage of the regime and their leaders, and they're lying to their teeth and Jay Carney today.
And it all goes back to Cairo, folks.
And if you'll recall, our embassy apologized before anything had happened.
I mean, that's the thing I remember.
That's the thing that first got my attention.
I said, what the hell is this?
There's something like seven or eight hours ahead of us, so it was well known by the time this program was on the end.
This already happened.
When in the world are they apologizing?
Nothing had happened.
And then I heard, well, we're apologizing because we were hoping that it will mollify any protests.
And then the protests happened, and Obama, if you want to know why they're still desperate to blame this video, you know, why they were then, they're desperate to blame it now to support the lies they told then.
Back then, the reason they blamed the video was Obama had told everybody he'd killed off al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda was dead.
There was an election coming up, and terrorism had been vanquished.
Obama did it.
Yeah, we were sitting there, and you know, pictures of Obama in the situation where they went in there and got bin Laden and Obama's dead and GM's alive and all that stuff being said at the convention.
And then we had a terror attack on the anniversary of 9-11 while Obama's in office.
Oh, my God, we can't have that.
Oh, gee, that undercuts everything Obama stands for.
So they all got in gear.
Somebody found this video, heard about it, came up with supposedly Hillary, and they ran with it 12 different redactions or revisions of the memos back and forth to explain all this.
It was a purely political cover-up.
And now they're engaged in a cover-up of the cover-up.
That is what is happening now, a cover-up of the cover-up.
Carney was grilled about this.
You know, these just released emails that Judicial Watch found.
And a lot of us have been arguing all along that this blame the video thing was a lie that the regime crafted through and through, intended to run through the 2012 campaign.
And we remember the debate where Romney let it go and let the lie, and then Candy Crowley dumped on Romney for when he did call Obama out on it.
We sit there scratching our heads.
A lot of that made sense later on.
Well, made sense in a sense, and it didn't make sense ever, but we understood why it happened.
But the point is, they had to, the regime had to obscure that Obama's foreign policy was empowering Islamic supremacists.
And the president's reckless stationing of American government personnel in Benghazi and his failure to provide protection for them was driven by a political campaign imperative to portray the Obama-Libya policy as a success.
And then Benghazi, oh, no.
I mean, they had so much writing on this.
Obama, the vanquisher of bin Laden, Obama, the vanquisher of terrorism, Obama, and then terrorism happens.
Well, it couldn't be terrorism.
So they came up with this lie.
And they're just digging deeper and deeper now on this lie.
They're trenching in.
And one of the emails that Judicial Watch has come up with refers expressly to a call that prepped Susan Rice the Saturday afternoon before all those Sunday appearances about what to say.
The whole thing was politically concocted.
I'm going to continue on Benghazi, but people have been waiting on the phones for quite a while here.
In fact, the whole show.
And I want to get a couple of calls in before we get back to Benghazi, but the nut of it has happened, but there's still some crucial stuff.
But in the meantime, Beth and Everett, Washington, I'm glad you waited.
You're next.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Yeah.
I just, I could respond to virtually everything you say every day, but I had to take a minute to say thank you for correctly responding to this retarded article or study about how to raise our children not to be violent or whatever with food.
I mean, this is dumb.
And how dumb do they think parents are to be told this?
And there's studies like this repeatedly.
And the PSAs that are out there, they just treat parents like they're dumb.
What she's talking about here, folks, is this study from Cornell University said if you give your kids fried chicken on the bone and they eat it all the way to the bone, that they're going to end up being twice as aggressive and mean to their parents and anybody else.
And you ask, how in the hell does anybody even come up with this concept to study A?
Then you worry, okay, who, and you know there are going to be some, will believe this.
And we like we were smart enough to have children.
We're smart enough to, you know, go out and buy the food, but we can't teach our children to eat properly at the table and that we think that this is going to create violence in our children because we let them eat with their fingers once in a while.
Well, I don't know how much.
Look, it obviously doesn't take a whole lot of brains to have sex and have kids.
That's obvious.
Well, you got me there.
But pretty much anybody can do that blindfolded.
Well, money on the study.
But the study, who even conceives the idea.
You know what?
We think kids eat chicken on the bone twice as violently.
Let's study that.
And then they study it, and then they report it, and the media picks it up, and it's just, it's not even questioned.
Guarantee there will be a PSA out there, and we'll have to hear it over and over on the radio about how to teach our children to eat properly at the dinner table.
Well, before that, we're going to have to have, we're going to find out who does this.
You know, what kids do eat chicken all the way to the bone?
It's just, I don't know, I'm with you.
It's preposterous, but it's the news.
I mean, it's right there in the news.
Thank you, Beth.
We'll be back.
Okay, back to the program, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
As I mentioned earlier, Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online studied, this is his bailiwick, Islamic Jihad Terrorism, Militant Islam.
It is his area of expertise, working closely with me.
And he has this piece at National Review Online today posted earlier this morning with a front-to-back analysis of this whole thing the regime is attempting.
There are two points that need to be made about this.
The first involves the regime's just blatant over-the-top lying about this.
Remember those five TV show appearances Susan Rice did?
Why do that?
Why do they even send her out?
Benghazi.
Benghazi was the only reason that Susan Rice went on all those TV shows.
And why?
Why would a video-inspired terror attack require Susan Rice to appear on every TV show?
The reason is, is that nobody bought this video business.
Or the regime wanted to make sure nobody bought it.
They didn't buy the terrorism asset.
They wanted to make sure every day buy the video aspect of it.
But if the massacre at Benghazi had not happened, there would not have been an administration offering one of the top Obama officials to five different TV networks to address a calamity that had happened a few days before.
That's point number one.
So she's out there.
They sent her out anyway.
It was a cover-up.
Also, as is well known to anybody who's ever been involved in government presentations to the media, to Congress, to courts, to other fact-finding bodies, the official who will be doing the presentation is put through a rigorous rehearsal preparation process.
They are hit with every possible allegation of lying, every possible point of criticism.
They are grilled in this rehearsal like good trial lawyers rehearse their defendants on the stand before they put them up there.
And this is, it's a session in which the questions likely to be asked by TV people are posed.
Potential answers are then proposed based on the questions that are discussed and massaged.
The idea that Susan Rice, less than 24 hours before being grilled by high-profile media figures in five TV shows, was being prepped on something totally separate and apart from the incident that was the sole reason for her appearance is so far-fetched.
It's amazing Carney thought he could make it fly.
But that's what he said.
Carney said, no, no, she was not to talk about Benghazi.
That's not the way we sent her out there.
Jay Carney actually said that's why I'm saying he's not a good liar.
He actually said, no, no, Susan Rice's TV had nothing to do with Benghazi.
There's something totally separate and different apart from that.
That's why we prepped her, or why she sent her out.
The second point, again, takes us back to Egypt.
Why would Kearney claim with a straight face that Rice was being prepped about protests around the Muslim world?
That's what he said was the reason for her five TV appearances.
Well, there were all these protests around the Muslim world because of the video, and we had to prep her.
Why would he say that with a straight face?
Because other than Benghazi, these protests around the Muslim world that Americans know about is the rioting at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
That's the only thing Americans knew about.
What protests around the world?
Where were these protests taking place?
Before Benghazi.
And the only place they were taking place was Cairo.
They can't let go of Cairo.
They've got to make as many people believe that this video inspired protests in Cairo, and those protests inspired what happened in Benghazi.
That's the regime's line, and they are sticking to it.
When Benghazi comes up, the regime, be it Obama or Hillary or Susan Rice or Jay Carney, they love to talk about the Cairo protests.
And why?
Because the media and the public have bought Hook Line and Sinker, this fraudulent claim those protests in Cairo were about the video.
So Obama is calculating that if you blame the video as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible and easy to accept the blame the video excuse for Benghazi.
So the Benghazi fraud hinges on the success of the Cairo fraud.
And if you're hoodwinked by the Cairo fraud, if you can be made to believe that what happened in Cairo that, you know, earlier in the day is responsible for what happened to Benghazi and what happened in Cairo happened because of the video, then the regime thinks they've got you and that you will believe them and not believe what anybody else is telling you or what the evidence says.
But the blame the video bit is every big the deception in Cairo that it is in Benghazi.
You know, Obama had a policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.
You remember this?
Egypt?
In the post-Mubarak Cairo.
And post-Mubarak Cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists.
Once they got rid of Mubarak and the Brotherhood was in there, there wasn't any reason to protest anything.
They got what they want.
Tahriri Square and all this.
That included all the al-Qaeda leaders like Mohammad Zawahiri, the brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri.
In the weeks leading up to September 11th, 2012, when Benghazi Cairo happened, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
The blind Sheikh's son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy.
We knew that these things were going to happen in Cairo.
That's why we apologized in advance.
Some employee in the State Department, the embassy in Cairo, puts this apology out.
We knew that there were going to be anniversary al-Qaeda protests in Cairo.
Nothing to do with the video.
The video was just used later as an explanation.
State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11th.
It was well known things could get ugly, and when they did, it would become very obvious to Americans Obama had not decimated al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail.
Even worse, it would have painfully been evident that his pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda's capacity to attack the U.S.
We had facilitated this whole Tahriri Square thing, getting rid of Mubarak, who, for better or worse, was our ally.
The Muslim Brotherhood's in there.
Obama helped make that happen.
And then this, if there are Islamic-type protests at our embassy, that cannot look good for Obama.
It just can't, because he was the guy that was going to wipe this stuff out.
He was the guy that was going to end all of this.
Now, the State Department knew about this obscure video.
Hillary knew about it, but few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it.
The Grand Mufti in Cairo had denounced it on September 9th, but it didn't.
When the Grand Mufti on September 9th denounced it, it didn't cause any protests.
It didn't cause anything.
There was barely a ripple.
Nevertheless, before the rioting began, but when they knew there was going to be trouble, State Department officials began tweeting out condemnations of the video while ignoring the real sources of the threat, which was the resurgence of jihadists in the Muslim Brotherhood governed Egypt.
That's how we first heard about the video.
The State Department sends out this apology for this video before anything had happened, folks.
That's what we couldn't figure out here.
What the hell is this?
We figured that somebody had gone rogue and made a mistake and put this apology out in advance, that it was prepared, ready to go if needed, but it wasn't going to be used if not.
Then it goes out before anything can happen, and it blames this video.
That's where we first heard about it.
So they'd already prepared to blame the video before any protest had even happened.
And they knew the protests were going to happen because of Intel and because the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over Egypt and was pretty much running Cairo at the time.
So it's just an abomination, folks.
It's, you know, Pelosi's out there.
Why are they made to home at Benghazi?
Why is everybody talking about him?
There's so much to talk about.
Why is everybody talking about Benghazi?
Because the chickens are starting to come home to roost.
Slowly but surely.
The chickens are starting to come home to roost.
No forgiveness to Reverend Wright.
But the reason people are talking about it is because there are still millions of Americans who are outraged.
There are four dead Americans, and this regime has never taken that seriously.
This regime didn't do anything to protect them.
This regime didn't do anything to defend them when they were under assault and has turned this whole thing into a political event to protect our dear leader.
Nobody's been brought to justice except the stupid video maker.
Nobody's been brought to justice on this.
That's why people are talking about it.
It's an abomination.
I've got to take a brief time out, folks.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
I really appreciate your patience.
Those of you on hauled hanging on, this is Tom in Spring, Texas.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
Good day to you, sir.
And it's always a privilege to talk with you.
I'm going to go back to your open when you were talking about how TV shows aren't based on ratings anymore.
Now, your show is highly based on ratings to attract advertisers.
You have a loyal base of listeners who support those advertisers, the products they sell, the services they provide.
But when you get to the late night TV, you don't have the advertising.
It doesn't matter as much.
What they're advertising is they're advertising for votes to push the liberal agenda, to appeal to the low-information voter, to shine a good light on liberal candidates and show a bad light on conservatives.
And that's what they're selling.
They're not selling products.
They're selling votes.
You know, I did not go there, but that is an interesting observation that you've made because the advertisers know where the dollars are going.
And if you're going to advertise at a late-night show that's going to be trashing Republicans and promoting liberal candidates, and you don't mind your dollars being spent there and your product being associated with it, then it's an obvious conclusion that you're making.
And so your point is that the advertising dollars are actually in-kind donations to liberal and Democrat causes.
And it's just part of your corruptions of your pillars of corruption.
Science, media, education.
They're just playing their part.
They have their marching orders and they're following through.
Well, now that is going to be a tough one for people to believe.
But you may have a point because people are not going to think of advertisers that way.
They're not going to think of it.
Pick your favorite late-night advertiser, ABC Widgets.
Are they really buying X show in order to fulfill or promote the liberal agenda?
Well, folks, make no mistake that the media buyers at advertising agencies are predominantly leftists.
I mean, most people that come out of college are.
And you may have a bit of a point here.
But the end of the day is it's...
Real quick on Benghazi, sir.
Yeah, okay.
What happened in Benghazi is just unspeakable.
To leave those people over there and not respond, first not provide any help, but then not respond to their calls for help, and then to cover it up is just criminal.
It's completely criminal.
It's heartless.
And you have a good day, sir.
Thanks very much for the call.
It's heartless is what it is.
Criminal when it's heartless.
From the people who claim to have the biggest hearts.
From the people who claim to have all the compassion, all the tolerance.
One of the Navy SEALs was over there painting the reason he got killed is because he lasered a target, a terror target, because he thought he was helping a laser-guided bomb from an American-born airplane fire on the target.
And all he did was expose himself and got killed.
So they thought that they had some support.
These are the guys that ran.
That's what the Brigadier General was talking about.
You run to the sound of the guns.
When this all happened, the regime didn't assign anybody.
It had four rogue military people head over there trying to help the ambassador and whoever was caught in this terror attack.
And one of the things that one of them did was find one of the shooters and light him up with a laser, thinking that there was some American around that was going to then send a bomb or some other kind of ammo at the target he was painting.
And all he did was expose his own location and got killed.
Here's Chris, Charleston, South Carolina.
Glad that you waited.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
Huge honor.
This is about Benghazi.
We know that the 9-11 anniversary happened right during the campaign of the last election.
And the way I see it is the regime knew a 9-11 attack or something similar was probably imminent.
So they needed a protest.
There's no real guarantee that just because it was 9-11, there'd be some minor protests.
I think someone, Cheryl Atkinson, someone brave needs to investigate, get to the bottom of who was it at State Department that Google searched offensive Islamic videos just to find one, then pre-apologizes, basically to cause a protest, that they could then say, well, everything that happened in the region sprang from that.
I mean, this to me looks like they know that if someone says anything denigrating about Islam, there's bound to be a protest, which is a cynical view on the regime.
Well, that's the thing.
When you apologize in advance for something nobody's seen, when the State Department, when the embassy apologizes for this video before anything happens, you're inviting something to happen.
Hillary Clinton ran the State Department.
Whether she knows how to Google, who knows?
Even with all that we have covered today on the EIB network, I think, truthful to say, we barely scratched the surface of what's available.
I'm going to try to get as much in in the next and final hour, plus your phone calls.
So stay glued to where you are.
▲
Export Selection