All Episodes
Previous Next
June 24, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:38
June 24, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks.
Welcome back.
It's a delight to have you with us.
Rush Lib bought talent on loan from God.
Firmly ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone.
It's great to have you here.
The telephone number if you want to join us, 800 28282.
The email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
One one, just a couple of things here before we get to the sound bites from the Oversight Committee hearings in the IRS and the Democrat donor to the tune of a hundred grand secretary or chairman of the IRS or whatever his title is.
Commissioner, this Koskanan guy is a hundred thousand dollar donor to the uh to the Democrats.
One one thing about uh Iraq, I just want to close the loop on this.
Uh Nouri al-Maliki, who is the soon-to-be gone, apparently, prime minister, did not want us out of Iraq.
In fact, he wanted, he wanted more U.S. troops to stay and longer at the time Obama withdrew.
It was Obama who wanted the complete bug out.
And Obama probably knew what that would mean.
Uh, and that that were that is that we're seeing what would happen now.
We pull out of there, and Iraq becomes defenseless, essentially to uh to an Al-Qaeda overrun.
Uh I I my tendency is just still to pull up short in saying that that's what Obama wanted, but I still maintain that the Democrats' primary objective where Iraq is concerned is to continue to call it a stupid exercise and a and a never-ending Bush failure.
And and for that to be the case, you can't have anything work there.
The Democrats simply have too much invested in Iraq as a failure, a Bush-chainey failure.
And I think that desire overrides any instinct or desire they might have to defend the country and to keep ISIS from overrunning it.
Everything these people do is politicized, and they had so much success, so much success, they drove Bush's approval numbers down into the 30s because of Iraq.
Uh they that is a an ongoing victory for them.
That's a that's a victory that just it it it keeps on feeding them.
And if they do anything, it turns Iraq into a success.
I mean, what what what does Obama gain by that?
He doesn't gain very much, but his base doesn't want any success in Iraq.
They want a continuing Bush failure.
And so this is this is why I go back and forth on what Obama's real desires in Iraq are.
But it's at some point, what is happening there nevertheless uh resulted in pressures being brought to bear on Obama to at least send in 300 military advisors.
But I really sorry, folks.
I mean, I'm guided by my intelligence and experience here with Obama.
And I think the idea that Iraq was a total Bush failure is far more important to Obama than a stable democracy in the Middle East.
I just do.
Now, Fox News just had a uh at a report on the hearings on Capitol Hill about the flood of illegals coming across the border.
And they played uh the head of the Department of Homeland Security.
Guy's name is Jay Johnson saying, how we treat this child these children is a reflection on us as a country.
So, in other words, once again, a Democrats are using children as a human shield, and they're hiding behind these unaccompanied alien children to push for amnesty, Just like they hide behind children, they push for the rest of their agenda.
So the the the Department of Homeland Security, guys, again, I want to remind you what we had at the top of the program and in today's morning update that they have known since January 29th that this influx was coming, and they were preparing for it, and they they were letting contracts for transportation vendors to take them to refugee centers.
They were they were apply they were accepting job applications essentially on their website.
As far back as January.
This is not, in other words, a sudden surge of illegals that nobody saw coming.
The regime knew that it was going to happen in January.
How did they know?
Who can possibly know that thousands of parents in Central America are going to let their kids leave home for a journey of hundreds of miles to the U.S. border?
How can anybody know that that's going to happen?
Can you imagine that meeting?
Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Susan Rice, and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office.
And they're discussing things.
And one of them says, by the way, you know there's an influx of 65,000 illegal kids coming between now and June.
Really?
Well, how do we know?
Well, we just know they're coming.
How do you know this?
I mean, this is this is just not.
If you do know it, you can stop it, but if you don't want to stop it, what happens is what we're getting now.
So now the kids are flooding across the border.
The border patrol's been turned into daycare centers, just like the military's been turned into meatles on wheels programs.
And the chairman of the Department of Homeland Security is out there saying how we treat these children is a reflection on us as a country, meaning we better take them, we better be nice to better feed them, clothe them, educate them, and give them voter ID cards or whatever else we're gonna get, or we suck.
It's it's a guilt trip.
Um if you will.
Okay, John Kuskin, IRS commissioner, major Democrat donor, testified before Congress again last night regarding the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the masterful disappearance of Lois Learner's emails.
Just some things I want you to remember as you listen to the sound bites.
Koskinen has donated nearly 100,000 to Democrat candidates and groups.
He has been donating to Democrats for four decades, starting with a $1,000 contribution to Gary Hart when he was a candidate for the Senate in Colorado in 1979.
Now, fine, Obama can put in there whoever he wants, but we have the responsibility of knowing what that means.
The IRS is supposed to be an objective, blinded by politics agency.
None of that is supposed to matter, and we know that it does matter totally with this regime.
So that's who this guy is.
He's an arrogant, condescending, know-it-all who doesn't know nearly what he thinks he knows.
He doesn't know who told him about Lois Lerner's emails.
He has no idea.
He isn't sure why the IRS didn't use its existing backup system to recover her emails when he was told, but he can remember by who that they were missing.
No effort was made to recover them.
And he is also pretty sure that no laws have been broken, despite his admission that he doesn't know the relevant statutes.
So with that little background, let us now head to the audio sound bites, and we're going to start with Trey Gowdy.
Trey Gowdy just, I think was superb last night, and he is talking to Cuskin.
He says, You're an attorney.
Can you explain to our fellow citizens what the term foliation of evidence means?
I have no idea what that means.
I practiced law once 45 years ago, gave it up for Lent one year and never went back.
If you destroyed something, the jury has a right to infer that whatever you destroyed would not have been good for you, or else every litigate would destroy whatever evidence was detrimental to them.
Agreed?
I'm not sure.
I think if you destroy the evidence and people could prove it, it wouldn't be a good thing for your defense.
Now, I don't know if you can.
There's a little smart aleck in this in the first part of this answer, because trade guy says, okay, you're an attorney.
Can you explain to our fellow citizens what the term foliation of evidence means?
Well, I have no idea what it means.
I practiced law once 45 years, gave it up for Lent.
I never went back.
I mean, that's that's an in-your-face smarky little answer.
And Gowdy points out if you destroy evidence, the jury has a right to infer that whatever you destroyed would have harmed your case.
Otherwise, every litigant would destroy whatever evidence was detrimental to them.
And Coskine, so I'm not sure that's true.
If you destroy the evidence and people can prove it, wouldn't be good thing for your defense.
Wrong.
In a court of law where evidence is everything, if you can get rid of it and there isn't any, and the jury cannot infer that you threw away something detrimental, then it could help you.
The conversation continued.
The jury can draw, and they're instructed, they can draw a negative inference.
And that's true if a taxpayer is being sued by the IRS administratively, civilly, or prosecuted criminally, and they fail to keep documents, the jury can draw a negative inference from the fact that they didn't keep receipts or emails or documents.
So if it's true and applies to a taxpayer, it ought to apply to the IRS as well.
Agreed?
Is this a trial?
Is this a jury?
Is that what you're doing?
I said administrative, civil, or criminal.
If you want to go down that road, I'm happy to go down it with you.
Again, a snarky in your face response.
See, the guy is a classic leftist.
He's he's he's not up there to answer questions like he's supposed to, or to explain what happened to these emails or what the IRS is doing.
Congress has oversight.
That's what this committee is all about.
And this guy's trying to taunt.
Uh he's the you know, he's no different than um Tommy Vitor, who appeared with Brett Baer on Fox.
Come on, dude, that's two years or so ago.
You're an idiot.
You're a fool.
Don't worry, don't waste my time with that.
Same attitude here.
One of cavalier superiority, if you will, is being exhibited by Koskinen.
So next, Gowdy gets Coskinen to admit that he doesn't know anything about the law.
You have already said multiple times today that there was no evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing.
I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you've evaluated.
I have not looked at any.
Haven't looked at any.
And he says it with defiance.
And like, screw you.
I haven't looked, I don't care.
It doesn't matter.
I can do whatever I want to do, and you can't stop me.
I'm at the IRS and I'm part of the Obama administration, and you people are powerless, and there's nothing you can do to stop us, no matter.
I'll come up here and talk to you, but I'm not gonna at all answer any of your questions, and I'm gonna just be smart alechie right back with you.
Gowdy then brings it home.
How can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there's no criminal wrongdoing if you don't even know what statutes to look at?
Because I've seen no evidence that anyone consciously.
Well, how would you know what elements of the crime existed?
You don't even know what statutes are at play.
I'm gonna ask you again.
What statutes have you evaluated?
Uh, I think you can rely on common sense that nothing I have seen.
Common sense.
Instead of the criminal code, you want to rely on common sense.
No, Mr. You can shake your head all you want to, Commissioner.
You have said today that there's no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
And I'm asking you what criminal statutes you have reviewed to reach that conclusion.
I reviewed no criminal statute.
Because I'm from the Obama administration, and the law is what we say it is.
The law is what we think it is.
I don't care what the statute says, Gowdy.
Doesn't matter.
The statute doesn't apply.
Don't you understand?
This is the Obama administration, and I'm the commissioner in the IRS, and we're not bound by the law.
Have you not been paying any attention?
Have you noticed all the waivers to Obamacare?
We're breaking the law every day, and then nothing you can do about it.
That's Coskinen.
That's exactly what he's saying.
That's exactly who he is.
The law doesn't matter to us.
Can't you look around, Gowdy?
Can't you see we're breaking the law every day, getting away with it every day?
I don't have to know what the law is, because there isn't any law, we are the Obama administration.
And I demanded you stop us.
You can't stop us.
There's nothing you can do to stop us.
It is clear that there's no respect for this committee, no respect for the law, no respect whatsoever.
Um this is statist mentality.
Uh this is utter defiance.
I mean, we we imp this guy needs to be impeached.
We impeached Nixon for less than this kind of stuff.
Nixon only dreamed about doing what this guy's done.
Nixon only dreamed about doing what Lois Lerner has done.
Nixon only dreamed of using the IRS to damage its political opponents, but he never did it.
But they wanted to convict him of a thought crime, nevertheless.
Well, these people have done it.
And now they're being called on it.
Asked to explain well what you you say you haven't seen any violation of the law.
What law are you talking about?
I don't know.
I didn't look at any law.
You don't look at any law then.
What I don't have to look at any law, Mr. Gowdy.
There isn't any.
We are the Obama administration.
We break the law every day and we do it with impunity.
You that's what happened here.
Now it's Jim Jordan, Republican from Ohio.
He says, I want to focus on when you did officially learn about the missing emails according to your definition.
The chairman asked you, who told you this information?
You say you can't remember?
Do not remember.
Did someone say in person?
Did they send you an email?
How'd you get the information?
I don't recall.
I do not get emails on these subjects, so I'm sure it were someone in person.
Someone in person This has been a major news story for the last 13 months, and you don't remember who came up to you and said, Hey, boss, we lost Lois Lerner's emails.
You don't even remember anything about that situation.
No, I remember being told in April.
You don't remember who told you?
I do not recall who told me.
Something of that something that's been a front page for you would think that would be significant enough to remember how it happened when they told you what the actual date was.
Gotta remember, I'm running an agency with 90,000 people.
And this has been the biggest issue in front of your agency for the last year.
Okay, so here we go.
Here we go.
So uh and of course I interact with all 90,000 people every day.
They work for me, they're my friends, and I talk to all of them every day.
I can't possibly tell you who told me this.
I take a brief time out.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
The audio sound bites.
The House Oversight Government Reform Committee hearing and the IRS record-keeping practices and loss of emails related to Lois Lerner.
John Coskinin, the commissioner and hundred thousand dollar Democrat donor testifying.
Jim Jordan, Ohio says Treasury Department knew.
The White House knew at April.
But we didn't know about Lois Lerner's missing emails till June.
The White House knew in April, Treasury knew.
We didn't find out until June.
What did you know?
No one in the IRS talked to the White House.
How'd they find out?
I'm told by the uh people who have read the White House letter, the White House found out from Treasury.
Nobody from the IRS talked to the White House.
Someone from the IRS talked to Treasury, then.
Uh, that's what I understand.
We'd like to know who that person is.
I hope you'll find out.
Can you make a commitment to this committee tonight that you're gonna go find out who that individual was?
Who those individuals were who talked to the Treasury chief counsel, who then talked to the White House two months before the People's House got that same information.
Can you make that commitment?
I'll do my best.
You.
Then you might say, why is this matter?
Because the IRS knew that these emails were gone purposely, probably, and didn't tell the Congress.
They're telling everybody else in the regime, get them up to speed, let them know what's going on.
We're keeping the information from oversight.
So up next is Jason Chaffetz, who is a Republican from Utah.
He says to Coskinen, when Lois Lerner figured out on June 13th, 2011, that her computer crashed, and there have been emails showing that she was going to great lengths to try to get them recovered.
Why didn't they just go to the six month tape and get them back?
Because that six month tape is a disaster recovery tape that has all of the emails on it and is a very complicated tape to actually extract uh emails for, but I have not seen any emails to explain why they didn't do it.
So I uh it would be difficult.
But I don't know why.
Did anybody try?
I have no idea, indication that they did.
Now, this is they've got a backup tape, right?
Six-month backup tape.
It's an emergency backup tape.
The emails are there.
But it's just worthless, Mr. Chaffetz.
I'm sorry, uh, but uh we may as well not even have it, because it's so hard to find what you want from that tape, because everything's on it.
We've never been able to get anything from it, because it's just so well, it's crowded.
There's so many emails, it's so much backup history on the six-month tape that it just it's not, it's very complicated tape to extract emails from.
Uh, but I don't know why they didn't do it.
But it would be really hard.
And you don't know why.
No, I don't know.
Did anybody try?
I don't know if anybody tried.
And you know what?
I don't care if anybody tried.
And you know what else, Mr. Chaffetz?
You're never gonna see these emails.
I don't care what you do.
You can impeach the president, you can impeach me, you can sit Trey Gowdy on me.
But let me tell you one thing.
You're never gonna see these emails.
You know why?
Because we've got them locked and secured away, and nobody's gonna ever see these emails.
I know exactly what's in them.
I know what I'm hiding from you, and I know what you're not gonna get.
And I don't care what you do.
We're the Obama administration, and we don't care about the law, and we don't care about you.
You can keep flapping your gums, you can yell and scream at me all you want, but I'm just gonna never let you see what you want, even though I've got it you.
Eric, Margate, New Jersey.
Hi, welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Honor to talk with you again.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Listen pertaining to the emails now that they're lost.
Uh I was telling Mr. Sterley that uh why don't they just request the emails now from the White House during that period of time from the IRS or sent to or from the Lois Learner?
They have to have a log there.
Uh you the White House has Lois Learner's emails?
No, I'm just just sending the emails pertaining to the IRS at that time.
Oh, I see.
Why don't they just subpoena the uh the emails from the regime to find out what kind of coordination might have been going on?
Yes, maybe that would answer a lot of questions and uh delay our fears.
Well, if I had to guess there aren't any.
If I if I had to guess, this regime is smart enough to know that they're not going to put these kinds of instructions where they can be found by people.
In other words, fast and furious, I guarantee you there is not a paper trail between Obama and Eric Holder about that.
They talked about it maybe somewhere, or they had a third party, a liaison do it.
Is uh I asked J. Christian Adams, who used to be in the Justice Department, I said, can you walk me through?
I mean, because obviously got like-minded people.
You got Obama, he puts Holder in there, they have the same objective, where the Department of Justice is concerned.
How does Holder find out what Obama once done?
And he told me what he said he doesn't need to find out.
He already knows there are two P's in a pod.
A. That's why Holder's there.
He doesn't need marching orders.
Lois Lerner did not need any instructions.
Lois Lerner did not need any approval.
That's why these people are where they are.
That's who these people are.
That's the exact reason why they have been put in these positions.
Coskinen does not have to hear from the White House what to say, what to do.
He's there because it's already known that this is the water he's gonna carry.
Now, if Coskinen or Obama happened up at a cocktail party near Rose Garden someday, or you know, on flag day or some such thing.
Who knows?
You're never gonna recover that.
Um but the White House ain't gonna give that stuff up anyway.
That that's the separation of powers would uh would would come in and uh besides Josh Ernest, who was Tommy Vitor Jr., uh Jay Carney the third, who was a new White House press secretary, already said that they had checked and that the White House doesn't have any emails from Lois Lerner, so you see, what are you gonna do after that?
Josh Ernest, doing his best impersonation of Jay Carney, said, we aren't in, and you know what?
Dude, aren't they here?
We looked in there, aren't any?
Yeah.
Trail you want, but you're not gonna find him.
It's two years old, dude.
Besides, we know we don't care.
Lois Lerner, who is she?
Some bimbo?
We know who is she is.
Screw you.
So what are you gonna do?
Uh Obama's you do that, and Obama's is in front of some college kids the next day, whining and moaning about how the Republicans are letting children starve, women get beat up, focusing on him, but he'll take it.
He'll take it.
Uh, the key here is learner.
They're trying to get to Lerner anyway they can.
They know the emails exist.
They know they're there.
Everybody knows these emails are somewhere.
Why, Mr. Snerdley just said, why are the guys on the left unafraid to do what they're doing?
Well, again, uh Snerdley, you are deeply immersed in the traditional ways of Washington.
And those traditional ways of Washington have been blown smithereen's.
Under normal circumstances, uh a situation like this.
I guarantee you, if it was the other way around, and if the Democrats wanted some emails in the Bush administration, our guys would be up there begging and cajoling, and they'd be producing everything they had uh trying to satisfy it.
Bush would require it to make sure that the uh principles involved here were honored, that the Constitution was revered and all that.
But but these people uh they don't view the House of Representatives as legitimate.
They're not they're entitled to it.
Who the hell are you guys?
We're doing what we're doing here, we're transforming this country, and then you there's nothing you can do to stop us.
And we're not, I don't care what tradition is.
Okay, tradition is that you uh you want some evidence that we have screwed, we're not gonna give it to you.
We're not gonna incriminate ourselves, and we're not doing anything wrong anyway.
You guys who screwed up this country for all these hundreds of years, we're just fixing it now, so screw you.
And they can take that attitude, because can anybody point to me where they've paid a price for that attitude.
They haven't.
They continue to break the law, get away with it.
All the waivers with Obamacare, the flooding of the border, suing the state of Arizona.
You name it.
The list is long.
Where is there any evidence that they are held to account for any of this by anybody?
So that's that's why they're fearless.
It's their their fearlessness is accompanied by a cockshore arrogance.
And in a way, I mean, you could you can understand it.
They're getting away with whatever they want to do for the most part.
And I tell you now that Obama's lame duck.
Now they're really just now getting up to speed and getting into gear.
I laugh, these people who think, oh my God, the president's see that last poll, oh my God, it's over.
His presidency's imploded, the president's over.
Jeff Chuck Todd.
It's just now getting up to speed.
Werner's, look at this.
Lerner's supposed hard drive crash happened just ten days after the very first time Congress asks the IRS about the targeting of the potential targeting conservatives.
When this thing first got going, and Congress wanted to know, officially know, if the IRS was indeed targeting, or it was just these rogue employees in Cincinnati, or was there something more to it?
Ten days after that is when Lois Learner's emails just happened to disappear.
They weren't whistling Dixie or taking any chances.
They got rid of them two years ago.
That's how long they've been going, which is only recently it's been discovered.
I gotta take another obscene profit timeout, ladies and gentlemen.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
And to Detroit, where the United Nations might be called in to help pay water bills for customers.
Here is John.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush, for taking my phone call.
Yes, sir.
I wanted to jump back to your discussion on Iraq and their free flow of oil.
In reality, you've got ISA fighting for the oil, and you've got the Iraqi teaming up with the Iranians fighting for the oil and oil wells.
Either way, one of those two is going to control the oil fields, which means they're going to control the money, and the money that's used for that will probably go to uh instigating terrorist attack against us.
So my question is, is it going to be in our best interest in the future to send some tomahawk missiles in and take out all that oil and refineries in order so it's not going to be used against us.
No, I don't think that'll we don't want to set the precedent of uh of doing that.
Uh that's that's just not something we would do.
That's something Saddam Hussein does is light all his oil wells on fire as he's being kicked out of Kuwait or the Kuwaiti oil wells.
Um but your your circumstances here, you your uh possibilities, you basically have said that no matter who wins the conflict, the bad guys are gonna control all.
Either the Iraqis, in partnership with the Iranians, brokered by John Kerry, are gonna have control of the oil, or ISIS is going to have control of the oil.
And uh, there again, folks, another argument for having a relationship with the country that Obama doesn't seem interested in because Obama is busy as the conductor of decline.
The symphony that he wrote, he's the conductor.
He's uh his orchestra's playing, and they're orchestrating a decline of the United States.
More and more people are now finally again starting to see this and say it.
And I'm happy about that.
I don't mind being the first, but you know, sometimes it's lonely being the only when it's just right in front of everybody.
So I'm glad others are now seeing what's going on and saying so.
John, I appreciate the call.
We'll close it out after this.
Well, folks, another another program in the can exciting excursion to broadcast excellence, Fini on the way over to Limbaugh Broadcast Museum at Rushlimbaugh.com.
Great being with you today, as always.
I thought the first hour was absolutely spectacular.
The rest was simply great.
We will see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection