All Episodes
Previous Next
March 11, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:45
March 11, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am America's real anchor man, America's truth detector and the Doctor of Democracy.
A telephone number, you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address El Rushbo at EIBNet dot com.
So, if we had the Pretty and Pink Press conference back in 1994, what was yesterday?
Ugly and Herringbone?
No, can't say ugly because people would misunderstand.
We wouldn't be talking about Mrs. Clinton, but the attitude and the atmosphere.
It was not pretty.
It certainly wasn't pretty at the UN yesterday.
Anyway, folks, telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
AP has some breaking news.
Speaking of rappers, the Associated Press is reporting that police have responded to a report of four people shot at the Miami Beach home of the rapper Lil Wayne.
Oh, you found that?
You're reading about that even?
Just Lil Wayne.
That's not the rapper that was in question at Oklahoma U.
That was a different rapper.
Anyway, okay, let's set this up.
I'm sorry there's so much distance here between the first hour and now when I talked about this.
But yesterday, the whole point, I don't want to have to reset this table, but people have noticed that the press, not all of it, but quite a lot of the drive-by media is really hammering Mrs. Clinton, even before her press conference yesterday, but especially after it, on the basis of, oh, no, this was just the 90s all over.
We don't want to go through this again.
It's amazing to read these guys, by the way, because the impression that everybody has is these reporters all love the 90s.
Oh, man, those are the solid days.
Yeah, we had Clinton, and he overcame this Republican onslaught led by Newt Gingrich.
They won the House in 94, and then Clinton made mincemeat of him in a 95 bunch of deal, and basically just ran roughshot over them.
And Clinton was loved and adored because he so easily beat the Republicans.
And they loved how he did it.
He lied.
He got away with lying to a grand jury.
He had an affair with an intern.
Any other president would have been thrown out of office.
But Clinton not only survived, he became a biggest rock star in the Democrat Party.
And so people think the media loved the 90s.
What is true is they love Bill Clinton.
But they were not enamored of Hillary and the victimization game that she constantly played.
And my point was that the press conference that we got yesterday was an exact replay.
She tried to recapture the magic of the 1994 Pretty in Pink press conference, which I say with no ego, I was responsible for.
The Pretty in Pink Press Conference took place after a Nightline episode in which I accused the Clintons of lying and made the point.
It was some sort of town hall edition of Nightline.
Everybody was in Iowa, but I was in my TV studio in New York.
And I just made the point, which you'll hear in a minute, that I don't know why we're even talking about it because why do we believe them?
And I linked Whitewater to healthcare, and that just That wasn't supposed to happen.
And since I've been talking about it, Cookie went back to our archives and got the audio.
We have two bites.
And the first one is a setup.
Both of these bites are from April 25th of 1994.
The Pretty in Pink press conference occurred on April the 22nd, I believe.
I might get that date.
a little wrong, but they happen, I mean, just right back to back.
So here is the first button.
I'm not sure what this is.
It looks like it's a, I mean, it's 20 years ago, folks.
It looks like it's a phone call.
Let's just play it.
I'll be able to tell what this is.
I wonder who she might be talking about.
I wonder who could it possibly be that she, who in the last few days has sought to link whitewater to health care?
We have a tape of that person.
You do?
Yes.
We know on this show who she's talking about?
Yeah.
We know who did it?
Yes.
Well, by all means, let's find out who did it.
So I guess that was an audience member that was shouting at me.
What had happened here was that Hillary had started complaining about some of the opponents of healthcare trying to use whitewater as a proxy for their opposition to healthcare.
She was talking about me.
And that's why I was having that little humorous back and forth with the audience member.
So I wonder who she could have been talking about.
So here it is on April.
We played the bite.
The nightline episode was April 19th of 1994.
And it was in Iowa.
It was a town hall meeting in Iowa.
And it had James Carville and Geneva Overholder.
It's a bunch of people.
I think Floyd Abrams was on this show.
I mean, it was a lot of people.
And I was the only one not there.
I was on satellite location, my TV studio in New York.
And I think Whitewater is about health care.
Whitewater is about Bosnia.
Whitewater is about crime and welfare reform.
And I'll tell you why.
Character, the issue of character was put on hold during the 1992 campaign.
Nobody cared about it because so many people were upset by the economic situation they wanted to change.
And it's now coming home to roost.
Most people think that healthcare is a good idea, but they haven't read the plan.
They're taking the president's word for it.
Now, I think if the president's word is what we're going to rely on for his policies, this is a debate in the arena of ideas, and this is the man setting the agenda.
And if people are going to base their support for the plan on whether or not they can take his word, I think it's fair to examine whether or not he keeps his word.
This is not about getting rid of the president.
This is about people who would like to stop health care in a legitimate Democratic sense, trying to compete for the minds and hearts of the American people, the basis that maybe what the president's saying isn't true.
Well, that's all it took.
Because everybody on that panel was salivating for Clinton to succeed.
I mean, this was the salad days.
This was 1994, his second year in office.
The Republicans hadn't done anything yet.
They wouldn't win the House election until November of that year.
This is April.
And there were efforts underway to undermine them with Whitewater and so forth, but nobody had linked Whitewater to health care the way I did there.
And the audience was laughing because the camera had cut to Carville, who was making reptilian faces at me as I was making those comments.
I couldn't see him, of course, because I wasn't there.
So it wasn't a distraction, but people watching it could see.
But anyway, it was this little bite.
And by the way, there's much more that happened.
That's just a sample bite.
It was just days after this that Hillary called that press conference, explain Whitewater and that they don't lie and that they were being honest.
You can trust them and people are out to get them and this kind of thing.
And I think she tried a repeat of that.
The whole point of playing this is that she stuck in this time warp of the 90s.
And this is how she sought to extract herself the same way she did.
She got rave reviews for the Pretty and Pink press conference back in 1994, and she did not get rave reviews.
AP, the Associated Press, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.
Legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled.
And they include one request that the Associated Press made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.
Now, would the AP wait five years to sue a Republican official like Dick Cheney for refusing to honor a Freedom of Information Act request?
The answer is no.
So I think what's happened here is that the AP's probably been shamed into this by the Hillary email scandal.
I mean, this is a tough one for the drive-bys to swallow.
And I still am amazed by it.
Of all the things the Clintons have done, I mean, over here is Benghazi, and the press couldn't care.
They want to cover for her on Benghazi.
They want to cover for her because they're covering for Obama.
I mean, that's the bottom line there.
So Hillary is actually being protected by the press's love and devotion for Obama.
But this email thing, this is all hers.
She owns this.
They can target her and not have to include Obama in it.
And I think what we are seeing, and again, a stark difference from the 90s, we are seeing that many in the drive-by media once again are apparently prepared to throw her overboard just as they did in 2008.
This could be, and I know some people think that this is all a ruse, that they're battle-testing Hillary and they're getting this out of the way now so that she can say she survived it and triumphed over it.
And that's a common analysis that has been made about occasions when the media has decided to be critical of the Clintons.
This is different.
This has gone on and on and on.
And the difference here is Obama.
There is a Democrat that they value more.
There's a Democrat they want to protect more.
That's Obama.
And remember how many of them just immediately abandoned her and went over to his camp in 2008.
Another word I'm starting to see in media coverage of Mrs. Clinton is this word likability and how she doesn't have it.
And so you might say, well, why did the press seem so friendly or supportive?
All these because they love Bill Clinton and this was part of the deal.
But now, you know, she's kind of on her own.
Now, they can target Hillary without taking anybody else out.
They're not going to harm Bill by nigging it happens here because he doesn't send email.
There's nothing he did.
They're not going to harm Obama if they go get Hillary.
And I know there are plenty of other things that you would think would be far more valid in terms of mistakes that she's made that should be called on.
But this is easy.
It often comes down to the easiest, the most simple explanation, something.
It's like the House Bank scandal.
I mean, there were a lot of things going on the Democrats were doing back in the late 80s and early 90s that were scandal-ridden, but the House Bank was so easy to understand.
It didn't require any explanation.
All you had to do was tell people that members of the House could go to their own bank and cash checks for money that was not in their account.
The House Bank, you know, if Congressman Smorgasboard had 25 bucks in his checking account and walked in with a check for $1,000, they'd cash it.
You couldn't do that.
Your bank would not do that for you.
But the House Bank was doing it for House members.
And nobody had to explain what the controversy was, and nobody had to explain what the scandal was.
It was easy.
So's this.
Mrs. Clinton has a server in her house where she's shielding all of her work email from the country and from everybody, including the president, and it's against the law.
And it's easily understood.
So it doesn't take a lot of press effort to explain this.
And for those that do want to get her out of the way, say for Elizabeth Warren, this is made to order, and it's why they're engaging in it.
Okay, you got to kick a brief obscene profit timeout, my friends.
Much more your phone calls on tap here and other things as well when we get back.
So do not go away.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
John in Kensington, Connecticut.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, good afternoon.
You know, I was thinking this isn't a throwback to the 90s.
This is a throwback to the 70s.
When I heard Hillary say, you know, she was releasing 55,000 emails.
It reminded me of Nixon sitting with behind him thousands of black three-punch hole binders and he's saying, I'm releasing all this information.
And then when they opened the binders, there was only like one page in each.
And then she said, I'm not giving up the server.
It's like Nixon not wanting to give up checkers, his dog.
Well, and if you want to go there, it'd be like Nixon.
Say, okay, look, I have 24 hours of tapes here.
And there's 18 minutes of it that's blank, but you can rely on my judgment.
There's nothing in those 18 minutes missing that you need to hear.
So I'll give you the 23 hours and 55 or 44 minutes, whatever it is of tapes, the 18 minutes that we don't have.
Don't worry.
Trust me, there's nothing there that's any use to you.
That would be the analogy.
Her voice sounded like Nixon's voice with the checker speech when she said, I'm not giving up the server that had her private emails about her mother's funeral and her daughter's dress.
Well, I can see it.
And, you know, she was involved in the Watergate investigation, got thrown off by the lawyer heading up the Watergate investigation against Nick.
She was thrown off of it because of her mean-spirited, uncontrollable, partisan nature.
The State Department is now saying, by the way, and of course, no, sir, but the State Department's saying it's going to take months to go through Hillary's emails.
The election's going to be over by the time they go through these things and release whatever they found because it's paper.
She printed out 30,000 some-odd emails.
There's no way the keywords, no way to search anything.
They're going to have to re-scan them and then subject them to OCR, which is not flawless.
You always end up with typotype errors when you optical character recognize.
What an absolute mess.
She's not giving up the server.
She is not giving up digital electronic copies.
She had them printed out.
And so now some poor schlub.
Can you imagine?
And that was all done on purpose.
Now, Hillary wanted to deny Nixon counsel.
That's why she was thrown.
She wanted to deny him a lawyer.
And she hid her work on that committee, too.
She was doing things that were not assigned and that nobody knew.
Ken in Springfield, Illinois.
Glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's great to be able to talk to you.
This is my first time through, been trying many times, but it's great to talk to you.
And I want to thank you for all that you do for the conservative movement.
Well, thank you, sir.
I appreciate that.
Well, my thinking is: if I now, at this point, Hillary, of course, is a private citizen.
And if I were holding a server in my home as a private citizen that had sensitive federal documents on it, would the FBI not be at my door today wanting to seize that server?
You would think that would be a natural concern that you might have, yes.
Yeah, that does come down to this interesting question.
And I don't know that I haven't followed this.
I mean, it's every dotted I and cross T, but has it been discovered, has it even been discussed who owns this server?
Is it hers or is it the State Department pay for it and put it in her house?
Does anybody know?
Well, it seems to me that she has made the comment it's a personal server, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she paid for it, I suppose.
So that's a good question.
I don't know who actually paid for the server.
It would certainly make an even stronger case that if taxpayer dollars were used to pay for it, that we would certainly be able to acquire the server.
Well, I'll guarantee you this: Clinton dollars didn't pay for it.
It might have been the Salton the Brunei or something like that that did, but Clinton dollars didn't.
Clinton dollars don't buy anything.
Yeah, it's you know, it's just interesting to me that, you know, we see people who happen to hack into government systems, and of course, every computer in their house is, you know, confiscated.
Yet here's a situation where we know a server holds potentially confidential information on it, and it's just sitting there and it's not going to be turned over.
Well, I'll tell you what, the FBI seized David Petraeus' emails.
So I mean, your instincts are right.
The FBI seized his, and it is a felony to hold federal government documents.
And when you leave the state, there's a whole form.
Andy McCarthy sent it to me today.
And it's, I didn't have a chance to go through all of it, but it clearly spells out the felonious violations if you do not comply with Title 18 and Title 50 requirements in this form of turning over property that's not yours when you leave the State Department.
Right.
And all.
So, I mean, there's all kinds of, you would think, exposure here.
The FBI still in Benghazi.
This is Tony, Washington, D.C. Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Russ, love your show, and it's really an honor to speak with you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for what you're doing for our country.
I have two things.
One is a question.
I need you to explain a little bit more about it, and then I have an idea for you that I'd like to share with you.
But the question is: if the AP gets Hillary's emails and if there's stuff on Benghazi in there, how would it not expose Obama?
It depends on what's in it.
And it depends on whether AP decided to make public what they found.
Well, if they get the emails, wouldn't then Trey Gowdy committees, those who are investigating, also have them, and would they be as predisposed as to not expose Obama?
I have, in all candor, I don't, I don't, look, I'm being dead wrong about this, but I don't think that what AP is doing has any commonality with Trey Gowdy's committee.
Now, are you asking if AP can get them, why can't Trey Gowdy?
Yeah, or, you know, or anybody that's investigating it.
Because the AP, the mainstream would never expose Obama.
No, that's true.
They will shield Obama.
And they have been shielding Obama on Benghazi.
That's what the video was responsible for.
It's all about.
Well, in the case of Trey Gowdy's committee, there's this thing called separation of powers.
And the White House will go to as great a length as they can to tell Congress to pound sand.
What?
You think you're entitled to our emails?
Screw you, buddy.
Go to court.
Go to court, however long that takes.
AP, other media outlets, it's a different legal proceeding with different legal aspects to it.
So your ultimate question is: if they discover something in these emails that negatively impacts Obama, we're never going to hear about it.
Is that your fear?
Well, I'm just, yeah, I guess why would they want them if, I mean, they're going to expose Hillary, but wouldn't it also expose Obama?
Maybe.
But the AP is not even asking for Benghazi-era emails.
Benghazi is not even mentioned in the AP's lawsuit.
Oh, okay.
All they're trying to get is the emails that Hillary is refusing to release.
They're not asking for everything.
Hillary only gave up half of her emails.
She's keeping the other half on her server, claiming that about yoga and her daughter's wedding.
That yoga bit.
I'm sorry, folks.
I'm sorry.
I just, why everybody isn't busting a gut over that, I don't understand.
Are we actually to believe this woman goes yoga-ing?
That's just me.
But well, I don't.
So even you're saying they're not going to even get to those Benghazi emails, so she's probably protected.
Look, here's, let me read to you from the AP story on this.
This is on their own lawsuit.
It says here, the FOIA Freedom of Information Act requests in lawsuits, seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.
No mention of Benghazi, which means that even if there are Benghazi emails in the treasure trove that they're seeking, they're not going to be provided because they're not seeking them.
AP is not even asking to see them.
So they would be withheld.
If AP wins the suit, they would be withheld from what's released.
Because in an FOIA request, you get what you request, nothing more.
And if they're not requesting anything to do with Benghazi, then they're not going to get anything related to Benghazi.
And would you like to hear my idea for you as well?
Oh, by all means.
I'm open to the ideas.
I am wondering if you have ever thought about taking the success you've had with the Rush Revere series and the success that you've had with the 2F by T endeavor and thought of maybe including in 2F by T a Liberty lemonade.
Liberty lemonade.
Liberty.
That's snurdly like.
That's an interesting creative.
See now, but if we do that, here you come with your own lawyers, probably reported on by AP wanting royalties.
That's the danger proposing ideas to big-time celebrities like me.
If I happen to go do that now, I've got 20 million people who can line up and say, I stole it from you and join you in a class action.
I'm giving it to you.
And now you have it on the radio.
I know.
I get that, and I appreciate it.
It's a great idea.
It really is.
And I'm flattered that you're thinking in that regard.
I really am.
Now, on the Benghazi emails, Trey Gowdy says there's a three-month gap in the Hillary emails around the time of Benghazi.
He's been very clear.
Everybody with an open mind knows that something happened at Benghazi that they are still covering up.
And they are not going to release them.
And the AP is not even asking for them, so they won't get them.
And I think the regime here is employing a run-out-the-clock strategy on this.
Yeah, I know.
If I were Hollywood, I'd say, you know, we've been thinking about liberty lemonade for years here.
We haven't acted.
I could have cut you off at the past, but I'm an honest guy.
That's how they do it in Hollywood.
Whenever somebody poses an idea, they say, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We've been thinking about that for years.
Look at this documentation.
And then they go immediately make it up.
Anyway, I've got to take a break.
Joni, I appreciate the call.
Thanks much.
We will be back after this.
Do not go away.
Here's Ron in Benton County, Indiana.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Mega Bitto there, Rush Limbaugh.
Longtime listener.
The only thing I just don't understand is she's such pain.
She's got so much baggage with her.
I mean, every time you turn around, it'll be another scandal, another controversy of some kind.
I mean, this is, and they never, nothing ever sticks to them.
I can't believe the DMC is really going to run her.
I really can't.
I'm more along the lines of you that I believe that she's doing that at the end of it.
She's not going to run because I just don't know how she can carry the weight of all this.
Well, I don't know if she's going to, she's supposedly announcing in a matter of weeks.
Well, if you've seen her yesterday, looked at her real close, her eye expression, the way she just looked, she looked like a deer in the headlights.
And Lord knows I've run on enough deer out here in Indiana.
I know what they look like when they're like that.
And I just, I can't see the DMC wasting that kind of time and money.
I can actually see them, you know, really hanging her up for the end, just like they did with Obama the first time.
They don't have anybody else.
I know.
That's what I'm saying.
And, you know, any Republican that wants to sit there and make his line.
We'll just lay it out there.
There's only three planks that we need to be going for now in America right now.
And three planks on either side of the coin goes, it goes like this, bro.
The first thing is flat tax or consumption tax on everything but food and medication.
The second thing is term limits on these guys down here.
So if you're going to have two terms for your county sheriff and then two terms for United States president, everything else is exempt.
That's bull.
We need term limits there.
That'd be the biggest factor of all of it.
The third thing is just like they did in England not too long ago, that loser play calls.
You won't take frivolous lawsuits into court if you think you're going to lose money.
I'll tell you that right now.
But those three things should be the plank of the Republican or conservative platform right there.
I think that was the Harold Stassen agenda.
Well, it should be the first three things they did when the last term and these two guys got voted in there.
The first thing they should have come down there and done is right away held it up and made them vote on it.
All three of them.
At least they brought it up.
Hey, we brought up the flat consumption tax.
I don't hear anybody talking about those things.
We're not anywhere near there yet.
We're so far away from that.
I mean, that's all those are great things, but so much has to happen before we even get there.
That's a good illustration of just how we've got mountains of stuff to do just to stop the direction we're headed in before we even change direction.
Reverse some of this crap that's dealing with the flat tax isn't going to fix Obamacare and immigration amnesty and all that other stuff.
That's got to be dealt with.
Before this other stuff comes up.
Sadly, true.
I mean, those are all valid points and would make a huge difference, but there are things that okay.
There's a drive-by caller that didn't want to go in the air ask snurdly to ask me if my opinion is that does Bill really want Hillary to win?
How do I know?
I think he does.
I think, you know, I don't have time to tell you right now all the reasons why.
But one, it would lock her there.
Number two, it'd get him back in there as faux president.
Yeah, it would increase their take to the foundation.
Well, that's it, my friends.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence in the can.
No more time left for today, but we will be back tomorrow and do it all over again, revved and ready and prepped.
Whatever happens between now and then.
Thanks so much for being with us today, folks.
I always appreciate that.
And we'll do it tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection