All Episodes
Previous Next
March 10, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:18
March 10, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Actually, now that I look at this, let's do three, four, five, maybe six.
And is there a I don't know.
Too many of these NBC people.
I couldn't care less.
Anyway, just follow my lead on this and we'll get to where we go.
Greetings and welcome back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you here.
As always, the telephone number 8282882, and the email address is uh Ilrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Here is Josh Ernest.
Uh yesterday afternoon, Washington Pridehouse press secretary of the daily press briefing gets a question.
We heard from the president in his interview with CBS about this.
And he said that the first became aware of it in his reports last week.
This is Mrs. Clinton's private email server.
So I'm wondering that implicit in that is it the President and Secretary Clinton never emailed one another when she was serving at the State Department.
Because everybody's saying, wait a minute now.
You get an email from somebody, you notice the email address, and particularly if you've had it drilled into you how you have to use government servers for security, and here comes an email or two or three from Hillary from Clintonemail.com.
You got to say, wait a minute, what's this?
And I'm just telling Obama knows.
Just like they knew of General Petraeus and his secret Gmail account, they knew.
Have you ever tried that draft folder trick?
Let me tell you this is a great trick.
If you've got something secret going on with somebody that you don't want your inbox to be seeing emails back and forth with the person you're conducting something secret, whatever it is, use the drafts folder and a Gmail account.
Get a Gmail account, and both of you have the ability to log into it.
And then with every email you write, just put it in the drafts folder.
Never send it.
And then each of you, or however many of you involved in the conspiracy, log into that account, check the drafts folder for the latest that's there.
You never send anything, you never receive anything.
Your inbox never shows anything, your outbox never shows anything.
Nothing.
Maybe you're not sending anything.
So only Petraeus and Paula Broadwell.
That's how they kept emails to each other from being sent.
Well, I'm telling the the regime knew.
They knew.
For Krangon, we're talking about the NSA here.
I mean, and this is this the Gmail drafts folder trick is not exactly new.
But they knew.
They knew that Petraeus was had this all going on, and they held it for when they needed it.
And when Petraeus refused to follow the company line on Benghazi, that's when everybody found out he was having an affair.
And that's when they found out that that uh secrets.
CIA secrets were back and forth in that drafts folder.
Well, Petraeus, he was having it.
This this woman was doing a biography of him.
And he was revealing some things.
They thought it was secure because no emails are being sent.
And they've only they had the password to get into the Gmail account, so who the hell else could know?
Well, Petraeus later ends up running a CIA.
I mean it's it's it's ironic doesn't describe it.
But my my point with all this is that the regime knows what's in Hillary Clinton's emails.
If they don't know that, they know she was doing her emails in secret.
And everybody in government would know why.
Not specifically, but generically.
And anybody who knows the Clintons would know why.
They don't want anybody knowing what they're doing because they are not up and up about most things.
It it's not complicated.
So Obama running around saying, I had no idea.
I didn't learn about it until you did in the news is BS.
And finally, Josh Ernest had to give up the ghost, and he did this yesterday afternoon at the press briefing in response to the question.
Well, wait a minute, then The president never ever saw thought anything odd about any of this?
I would not describe the number of emails as uh large, uh, but they did have the occasion to email one another.
And the point that the president was making is not that he didn't know Secretary Clinton's email address.
He did.
Uh, but uh he was not aware of the details of um how that email address and that server had been set up.
The president did email with Secretary Clinton.
I assume that he recognized the email address that he was emailing back to Wait a minute.
You said he he he did know.
And then you said you assume he recognized.
But he was not aware of the details of how that address in that server been set up.
Well, who is if you were to get an email from me at L Rushbow at EIB net.com, would you even wonder how it got set up?
Now he wasn't sure how it got set up.
What does that mean?
He would know exactly why it was set up.
He would know that Hillary is trying to keep her emails secret, and he would know that his responding to somebody whose email archive is not public according to the law.
He would know that.
After all, is Barack Obama, smartest guy we've ever had as president, right?
And she's the smartest woman in American history.
So, I mean, what that's their image that the media has given us.
And here's Josh Ernst.
Well, you know, yeah, he knew, but he there wasn't very many emails.
They just went back and forth.
Well, yeah, they had sex, but you know, they used the condom.
It really wouldn't lead to anything.
Yeah, yeah, but he didn't inhale.
All of these qualifiers, they all knew what was going on here.
Now they try to make Obama sound like an idiot in order to relate to people.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, he did, but he wasn't aware of the details of how the address in the server had been set up.
What does that have to do with anything?
The president did email to Secretary Clinton.
I assume he recognized the email address that he was emailing back to.
They act like there's something to hide, and that's because there is.
Let's just remember Valerie Jarrett.
So here's Josh Ernest.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Obama and Hillary, they they emailed back and forth, and this is Valerie Jarrett last Friday.
I actually did not.
No, I have not received an email from Secretary Clinton.
Did members of the administration receive emails from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State?
That I don't know.
I do know that obviously the President has a very firm policy that emails should be kept on government systems.
Right.
So she was not telling the truth.
These people just don't tell the truth.
And that's because they're all hiding things.
And it's because it's they must liberalism itself is a lie.
They have to lie about what it is.
They can't be honest about it.
Therefore, they lie.
Clinton lied.
Obama does.
And I d I'm not worried about insulting them or showing them disrespect.
It's what they do.
Yeah, 23 times you get to keep your doctor if you like him.
Yeah, 23 times.
Get to keep your policy if you like it, your plan.
Oh, yeah, how many times would uh were we told that our insurance premiums are going to come down 2,500 bucks?
So they lie.
They have to.
Obamacare would have never gotten close to passing in the House and the Senate if its sponsors had been honest about what was going to happen.
It just wouldn't have.
Practically any liberal program would never, ever see the light of date if they were honest about what was going to happen as a result.
The fact that people continue to fall for it and vote for it is its own psychological challenge that's above my pay grade.
But I think it's rooted in compassion and the good intentions and all that.
But the fact that it never works and the fact that it makes things worse doesn't seem to destroy people's eternal hope that someday government, the Democrats, whatever, will get it right.
Now, this group of Republicans, 47 Republican senators wrote an open letter to the Ayatollahs in Iran, warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with Barack Hussein O will not last after O leaves office.
Organized by uh freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership, as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul.
The letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal.
It's also meant to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
Well, this is not sitting well with the Democrat Party.
It's not sitting well with the White House, not sitting well with Dingy Harry.
Dingy Harry says that Republicans are empowering the Ayatollahs.
Other Democrats are calling this treason.
The New York Daily News front cover has a picture of a bunch of Republican senators accusing them of committing treason by trying to undermine the Obama Iran nuke deal.
Let's get to the truth of the matter.
What this really is, the letter is one thing, but it's peanuts, says John Bolton.
This morning, Fox News Channel's America's newsroom, Bill Hemmer speaking to Bolton about this letter that 47 Republican senators sent to the leaders of Iran.
They said Mitch McConnell signed a letter.
He's one of the 47.
Interesting, um, Senator Corker, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee out of Tennessee, did not sign the letter, left his up in arms over this.
Daily News front page cover today calling these Republican traitors.
What do you say to that, Mr. Bolton?
That's ridiculous.
Senators and members of the House opine on foreign policy all the time.
There's a long tradition of it in this country.
And in any event, we're arguing about the wrong thing.
Let's talk about Iran's nuclear weapons program and the fact that the deal the administration is very close to signing will essentially legitimize uh politically this terrorist supporting regime, will legitimize Iran's ability to enrich uranium and get itself involved in other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.
It will not address weaponization, it will not address ballistic missile delivery systems.
This deal is an act of surrender.
That's what we ought to be talking about.
And there it is on the table.
The deal Iran that Obama is negotiating with Iran is surrender.
Exactly what Dr. Thomas Sowell said he feared from Obama in this Iranian nuke deal.
Now, his definition of Obama's surrender was a little different.
I you know, he created to set this up, he created a scenario.
We wake up one day, we find a major city in America obliterated by an Iranian nuke.
And he said he feared that rather than retaliate, Obama would surrender.
And here Bolton is calling the whole thing a surrender.
Everybody's up in arms about the letter, and these guys have every right to send this letter.
By the way, this letter, this letter pales in comparison to all of the similar times or the similar techniques that Democrats have engaged in.
Ted Kennedy sent a letter to then Soviet leader Yuri Enbropov, apologizing for Ronald Reagan and begging the Soviets not to overact, overreact, essentially saying that Reagan was a reckless cowboy, and worse, that the Democrats are going to do their best to reign him in.
But the Soviets were reminded he's not going to be president forever.
Just be patient.
We're doing everything we can here.
And then there were all of the efforts by the Democrat Party, primarily in the House, but the Senate as well, back in the 80s, where they were practically aligned in the mind and heart with the Soviets in Nicaragua.
I will never forget.
I mean, I've that this was this was a front end center.
This was the prelude to the entire Iran Contra subject matter and scandal.
First, there was a Boland amendment in the House, which forbade any foreign aid going to the Nicaraguan Contras.
And Reagan found ways around it, Oli North actually did.
And when that happened, the Democrats just went ballistic, and they would go down there and they would have joint press conferences with Daniel Ortega or Ortega would come to New York.
You want to talk about traitors?
The Soviet sponsor in Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega would come to New York, and Peter Paul and Mary would take him out on a trip to buy sunglasses.
With your favorite Democrats, George Miller, congressman from the Bay Area, was the point man whenever Ortega did anything to embarrass the Democrats, and there were many.
Give you one example.
The Democrat House of Representatives successfully voted down an aid package to the Contras.
Reagan wanted to, he Reagan often referred to them as the moral equivalent of our founding fathers, the Contras in Nicaragua, trying to kiss Soviets out of the country, prevent a beachhead from being established.
So when that vote was defeated, Daniel Ortega got on a plane for Moscow and came back with 500 or 600 million dollars of his own from the Soviet Union and ended up bragging about it and waving it around.
So they sent George Miller down there.
You can't embarrass us this way.
You don't do this.
If you're going to go to the Soviets and get money, do it on a down low.
But you certainly don't come around and go back on TV and wave it around.
Don't embarrass us.
We're your friends.
At the time, one of the ranking members in the Democrat House was a man named James Jones.
He was in Colorado or Oklahoma.
He went on later to run the American Stock Exchange.
He was one of the architects of the Dear Commandante letter.
The dear command letter to Daniel Ortega, urging him and teaching him and telling him how to behave so as not to embarrass the Democrats, because the Democrats were clearly on the side of the Soviet Union.
And you want to talk about treason.
They were trying to undermine Reagan, who was arranging, trying to arrange freedom for the Nicaraguan people vis-a-vis the uh the freedom fighters there who were called a Contras.
John Kerry was part of this guy on April 18th, one year in 1980, some odd, uh, 1985, John Kerry and Tom Harkin traveled to Nicaragua to meet with Daniel Ortega.
And through Kerry and Harkin, President Ortega offered a ceasefire agreement on the condition the U.S. stop aiding the countries.
Reagan denounced the officer, the offer as a transparent propaganda initiative designed to influence an upcoming House vote on $14 million of Contra aid, but Kerry said, I am willing to take the risk in the effort to put to test the good faith of the Sandinistas.
The Democrats aligned themselves with the Soviet sponsors in Nicaragua, and they were embarrassed time and time again because the Sandinistas were just unable to hide their loving relationship with Moscow.
Anyway, the point is Ted Kennedy writing letters to the Soviet Union begging them to, hey, hey, hey, we got Reagan under control here.
Don't worry about things.
Uh, promising that they would uh Kennedy and the Democrats do everything they could to make sure Reagan oops, gotta take a break.
Just saw the.
Okay, you want to hear what Ted Kennedy wrote?
Actually, what he did, he um he sent his close friend and trusted confidant, a guy named Jay Tunney, who was in Moscow.
He charged Tunney to convey the following message through confidential contacts to Yuri Andropov.
It was in 1983.
Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, this was the message to the Soviet leader, Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, very troubled by the current state of Soviet American relations.
Events are developing such that this relationship, coupled with the general state of global affairs, will make the situation even more dangerous.
The main reason for this is Reagan's belligerence and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.
According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the president's refusal to engage in any modification on his politics.
Kennedy asks that Yuri Andropov consider inviting him, Kennedy, to Moscow for a personal meeting in July 1983.
The main purpose of the meeting would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament, so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.
Kennedy wanted to coach Andropov on how to deal with Reagan.
Kennedy wanted to assist the Soviets in prevailing against the United States and Ronald Reagan in nuclear arms talks with Ronald Reagan.
So the New York Daily News, and these Democrats, they can run around a bellyache and whine and moan all they want about this letter that the Republicans have written to leaders of Iran and call it traitorous, while they conveniently forget all of the multiple occurrences of things worse than this by the Democrat Party.
And remember John Bolton called this Iran deal what it is.
Surrender.
Okay, your telephone calls are coming next till we get back, folks.
I have to say I like this new Senator from Arkansas Tom Cotton.
He organized the letter, by the way, he organized the letter to the Iranian Ayatollahs led by Ayatollah Homini, telling them that whatever deal they do with Obama is not going to last much longer after Obama's presidency lasts.
Tom Cotton is now firing back at Vice President Bite Me, who has criticized his letter to Iran.
Tom Cotton said, What does he know about foreign policy?
I love this.
We uh we finally have some people that don't appear to be intimidated by Democrats and the media.
Joe Biden, as Barack Obama's own Secretary of Defense has said, has been wrong about nearly every foreign policy and national security decision in the last 40 years, Cotton said today.
And that was a reference to Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, who ripped Bite Me in his memoir after leaving office.
Biden has been wrong about virtually or nearly every foreign policy, national security decision in the last 40 years.
So Biden's been out there complaining and whining and moaning about this Republican letter, Tom Cotton said, what does he know about foreign policy?
Moreover, if Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal for the approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in the Senate.
And of course, Obama is going to go around Congress on this, like he is on as much as he can.
Senate has to ratify, but if Obama doesn't send them to him, he just implements it himself, which he claims he's going to do.
And if the Republicans have said that they're not going to do anything to stop Obama in all this, Obama's just going to keep doing it, which reminds me.
I've got to get to this.
Jack Coleman at Newsbusters wrote up my reaction to a caller last week asking me to uh analyze a hypothetical.
The hypothetical being Obama not leaving office after two terms and blowing up the 22nd Amendment.
But I've got to get to phone calls because I haven't gotten there yet, and it's we're already over halfway through the show.
So we'll start with Russ in Calabash, North Carolina.
Really glad you called.
I'm glad you waited.
I appreciate that.
And hello, sir.
Please, sir.
My question was General Petraeus was found guilty or said guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling of classified document.
How many classified documents could possibly have been mishandled by Hillary Clinton?
Well, we would assume quite a few.
We would assume that Mrs. Clinton, the Secretary of State, has access access to quite a lot of classified material, and with her secret and private email account, who knows what's happening to that information.
She's emailing it back and forth more than likely.
As Petraeus.
Well, remember, though, nobody was on to Petraeus until the regime turned them on him.
The regime knew what Petraeus was doing, and they held it in reserve.
When Petraeus refused to follow the corporate line on Benghazi is when the leak and all of the hell descended on Petraeus, because he's had this mistress who was the author of his biography, and by definition, he had to reveal some things to her, because it's his biography.
She's the official biographer.
And so the it's it's not that law enforcement was on to Petraeus and finally found him.
They were tipped.
Now I get your point.
I mean, if Petraeus mean, he cut a deal to avoid a trial, and the reason that he did that, legacy, reputation.
Look at how look at look at the difference here.
Petraeus ended up being a person of such high repute and stature because of the success of the surge in Iraq, that Obama kept him on.
Obama wanted him in the regime over at the Pentagon at the CIA, because Petraeus's reputation was so impregnable that it was shared with Obama.
Having somebody like Petraeus in your administration gave you credibility that you otherwise didn't have on your own.
And now look.
Petraeus cuts a deal, agrees to a misdemeanor of sorts, all to avoid a trial.
And the reason he wanted to avoid a trial, even if he would have ultimately won the trial, was all of this stuff would have come out and bye-bye reputation.
I don't know if you've known people who are obsessed with their legacies.
And with their reputations, but people who are everything they do is about how they are going to be perceived, and especially after they are dead and gone.
Everything they do is designed to engineer the utmost respect and admiration, character that you can imagine.
Now, people like that are different than you and me.
I mean, that that that kind of vanity, I'm I've seen it in some people.
I it's it's different.
But to those people, it is everything.
It's all that matters.
It shapes every decision they make.
Every decision, personal, professional, every decision is made on the basis of what will happen, how will it help?
Could it possibly hurt my legacy, my reputation?
And at one point, Petraeus, David Petraeus, was as high on that pedestal as you can get.
Now look.
And all it took was the regime revealing that he had violated the law on sharing classified documents.
It didn't matter, but it was with his biographer, his official biographer.
His reputation isn't what it was.
And I'm sure he's going to be working as hard as he can to rebuild it.
Mrs. Clinton, I think, also has, I think her husband and I think they both have the same kind of devotion to legacy and their place in history and how they will be written about and remembered.
They know that the real history of anybody is written by people who are not even born.
The real history is written by people who are not alive when you were out doing what you were doing.
And that's why all of this stuff in these people's lives is ordered and arranged so that people not even born yet looking at the historical record will have to conclude that we were looking at a great man here, or a great woman.
Now, my only point here is it didn't take much to totally destroy this for Petraeus.
And I don't know that with everybody it is destroyed, but certainly it's not where he wanted to be.
Mrs. Clinton's doing the exact same thing.
Mrs. Clinton was who knows what kind of private clandestine things were going on in her emails.
And that's why she did it was to be able to do this stuff privately.
And I don't doubt for a moment that the reason she did it was also because of all this money coming into this foundation.
And from where, from who, and what they were expecting for it.
She couldn't afford for that to come out.
The Clinton Foundation is exactly it exists precisely for the reason I gave you.
The Clinton legacy.
The Clinton Foundation, the library and massage parlor, all of that is meant to erase the Lewinsky event from their biography.
All of it is.
That's what they're hell bent on doing is erasing that whole sordid period in long-term history.
And collecting a lot of money.
They're obsessed with money.
Here's Christopher in Timonium, Maryland.
Great to have you on the EIB Network.
Hi, Russ.
Nice to speak with you.
I think you may have been thinking along the same thing I was thinking when I was listening to you.
I was wondering if perhaps Hillary's use of a private email count is not a single incident, but maybe perhaps there are other people in the White House who also other insiders who also use private email for the purpose of being able to say, I didn't know, I had no idea, I didn't have the details, etc.
You know.
And uh I I was just wondering if perhaps this is a more common thing that we know, because obviously uh President Obama knew about it, and uh wouldn't be surprised if there were others.
I mean, I don't know for a fact.
And I was also wondering if perhaps it might even have something to do with the IRS scandal and their uh refusal to release those emails because maybe that would have indicated something like Hillary's case, you know, uh a private email.
No.
That this is the thing.
This is when when there are secrets, and when there are secrets purposely kept by stratagems such as this, people's imaginations run wild.
Okay, is the route here, okay?
She did this because she wanted whatever she was doing to remain private, no matter what.
It would not have to be released because it's not part of the government server program, so it's uh uh uh array, so it's not subject uh to the uh the the records law, federal records law, she thought or hoped, or at least a case could be made.
There's no doubt, folks.
This is where the obvious is in front of everybody's face, and since it's so obvious, people think that can't be it.
She was hiding things.
She was doing things in email precisely because she wanted to hide them.
She didn't want anybody to see them.
That's that's the reason to do that, because she suspects.
I think the Clintons had a little paranoia, too.
I think the Clintons thinking everybody's out to get them.
And just because you're paranoid does not mean you are wrong.
Jack in Columbia, Pennsylvania, you're next in the Rush Limbaugh program.
It's great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Oh, Russ, thanks for taking the call.
You bet.
Uh earlier today, uh, you were talking about uh the rise of Fox News and uh decline in CNN ratings, and I wanted to let you know I've been trying to help.
Um because uh as you know the uh CNN is ubiquitous in rating rooms all over the country, uh airports, uh automobile dealers' service lounges, uh anywhere and everywhere you can think of.
So uh I try to change uh that physically myself to uh Fox News whenever possible, and I requested it be changed.
I wonder what effect, if any, uh this may have been having on the ratings because uh CNN's uh presence in all of those places counted.
I know they don't they don't rate uh airport terminal buildings, the that that's not only a passive audience instead of active, it's transient.
I mean, you may have people sitting around watching, they've got no choice.
CNN owns the concession to be broadcast at airports, so where CNN is buying coverage essentially like that, uh it it's not it's not going to be rated.
Now, I know you think there's a lot of people pouring through there, but but they've got no choice.
They're watching passively.
Uh it's not the same as making the decision to turn on CNN in your home or to listen to CNN audio in your car if you have satellite.
This is called passive listening while you're eating, drinking, walking by, and you may notice it.
The uh look, everybody knows the ratings are pretty accurate on this.
I mean, they they uh maybe off by single percentage point here or there, but they're pretty accurate, which is and you can tell everybody knows and believes the ratings to be accurate by virtue of their reaction, and CNN never cites all the viewers that are not tabulated that that are watching.
Uh it it's it's not a matter of dispute.
What that's that's what makes the psychology of the CNN people and to a lesser extent the MSNBC people so fascinating to me.
I can't imagine what it's like to get up every day, go to work at CNN and know.
I know you know what they tell themselves?
The important people are watching, others in Washington are watching us.
Newsmakers are watching us.
Albert Obama watches us, Secretary of Defense, other journalists watch us.
The rest of the Hoy Poloy, screw you.
If you're not smart enough to realize how brainy and right CN is CNN, it's your problem.
That's what they tell themselves.
And they they tell themselves people watching Fox are so stupid they don't even know they're being lied to every day.
Fox is just much of propaganda.
Fox is the lowest rung of the news ladder.
It's where all the dregs are.
The people on Fox are just a bunch of mo blonde model factory uh output.
Uh those anchors, they're not real news people, the CNN people say.
You can't be beautiful and be an anchor, and we at CNN prove it.
And uh and the same thing with the mail anchors.
There's a bunch of cookie cutters or right-wing extremists.
That's what they tell themselves.
They tell themselves the right people are watching.
The professors, people at Harvard watch us, people at Yale, and that's that's how they get to the day.
Uh and if you watch CNN very carefully, you can see that I'm right about this.
If you watch CNN through a very analytical eye, and as I don't care what the story is, ask yourself if you think that the way they're covering the story, the way they're talking about the story is actually aimed at John Q Citizen,
or instead, if it is aimed at elitist opinion maker, newsmaker, politician, think tank, or university official or what have you.
And you will it's easy to see.
They have disdain for stories of interest to people in flyover country.
They revel in stories where people who live in the South and the Midwest end up looking like Hayseeds and Hicks.
They love those stories.
Well, they they love making fun of the people ought to be comprising their audience.
They love belittling the people that ought to be their audience, ought to be their target audience.
Because there are far more down-to-earth real Americans than there are people in the faculty lounge, or over at this think tank, or over at that opinion leader newspaper or what have you.
But they know they've blown that, and now I don't even think they care.
So the people at work there go in every day knowing, or they tell them that they are so good and so specialized that they're just way above average people.
Average people can't possibly understand what they do at CNN.
No, instead, we have to aim higher.
We have to aim for the elites, and that's who we do the news for, and we own them.
And that's their attitude about it.
Meanwhile, Fox is the exact opposite.
You watch Fox, and you you cannot mistake who their audience is.
You cannot mistake who they're aiming, their programming, their news, whatever it is.
You cannot mistake who they're aiming it for.
You gotta take a quick time out here, folks.
It's all about connecting with the audience.
CNN doesn't.
They connect with their audience.
You can put their audience in a thimble in relationship to the size of the country.
It's that small.
Back after this.
What do you mean?
Do I think that the regime has been holding stuff on Senator Menendez?
What do you think the odds are?
Menendez is out there ripping the regime on Iran and ripping the regime on Cuba, and then he gets indicted.
What are the odds they're holding information on Menendez?
I don't have any doubt about it.
Can't prove it, of course.
Looks like Hillary's moving things back.
▲
Export Selection