All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
April 23, 2015, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Man, oh man, how interesting is this.
I tell you what, folks, such is the state of American journalism today, that when the old standbys, the drive-by media report factually accurate and true stories about a ranking Democrat,
people on our side immediately concoct conspiracy theories to explain it rather than just accept it for what it is.
It just can't be what it is.
But I don't care where you go to the Washington Post, you go to the New York Times, you go to Ron Fournier, you go to Reuters, and I am telling you they are slitting Mrs. Clinton's political throat.
They are going for the carotid artery.
On this, in fact, some are even resorting to calling the Clinton Family Foundation the Clinton Crime Family Foundation in order to illustrate exactly what's going on.
Other people are starting to discuss the possibility of RICO trials and the organizing the organized crime statute.
Go after somebody with a RICO.
And again, such is the state of American journalism that when all of this is happening, Washington Post, New York Times, Reuters Ron Fournier, when we're getting true and accurate and no holds barred stories on Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton and their phony fraudulent foundation.
People on our side are suspicious.
There has to be something that we don't see to explain this because it can't be what it is.
There has to be more to it.
And I have been collecting theories all day long.
I think it's I think it's fascinating.
I I just I am I'm I'm blown away by it.
Anyway, greetings 800-2828-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
Great to have you here Thursday already, fast as three hours in media.
Some of the theories that I am hearing, well, you know, they're just trying to get this out of the way so that it'll be smooth sailing after Mrs. Clinton and her husband withstand this.
They're in fact throwing the kitchen sink out there.
And if Mrs. Clinton can survive this, then it's smooth sailing, and we in the media can say that we've done our job, that we didn't show any favoritism or bias.
Others are saying, no, no, no, no.
They want her gone.
They have never wanted Mrs. Clinton.
They've supported her because she seemed like the uh presumptive nominee.
And if it comes down to Mrs. Clinton and a Republican, it's no contest.
And so even if they have to swallow hard, they're gonna sport her.
But now there's a chance to get rid of her.
What they really have never wanted her in the first place goes the theory.
What they really want is the Folka Huntis.
Elizabeth Warren, they really want her in the drive-by media.
And so this is the first step toward forcing Mrs. Clinton out.
Uh there are other theories that uh that I have heard mandated about that are variations on those two themes.
But everybody has a theory.
Nobody is taking the news stories at face value and saying, wow, they're really going after Hillary.
Such is the state of American journalism, nobody believes it.
Nobody, everything there, everybody thinks there has to be an ulterior motive.
Okay, let's just get started in case some of this is Greek to you, you don't know what I'm talking about.
I don't mean it's all Greeks there, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, just sit tight.
Oh, let's let's add something else to this.
While the story of the Clintons and their foundation and selling influence and enabling the sale of uranium to the Ruskies.
While the story was breaking, and everybody, I'm talking about cable news everywhere was totally devoted to it all of a sudden, we were treated to a news story.
Two Al-Qaeda hostages accidentally killed in a U.S. strike.
Obama today offered an emotional apology for the accidental killing of two hostages held by Al Qaeda, one of them American in a U.S. government counterterrorism operation in January.
So you see, we had a drone attack against some terrorists in January.
Two Americans were killed.
They announce it today, right in the middle of the heat of the reporting of the fraud going on at the Clinton family foundation.
So that's another theory.
That the White House is trying to save Hillary by deflecting the coverage by Obama going out, taking responsibility and apologizing for the death of two Americans that we now learn happened in January.
They're just announcing it today.
So the conspiracy theories are alive and they're on fire.
Here is what we're talking about.
Let's uh first one, Michael Walsh.
This is from uh PJ Media.com.
And his theory is that the media is begging Hillary to get out of the race before they really have to hurt her.
His theory that all of these stories about the foundation and the fraud and the selling of influence while she was Secretary of State can be explained by the media saying, look at this is a tip of the iceberg, Bill and Hillary, and we don't want to report what else we've got.
If you don't get out and get out now, we're gonna have no choice, and we're gonna really have to hurt you.
It's really damaging what we've got.
We've tried to hold this out as long as we can.
We've held back, we've tried to cover other things, but it we've reached critical mass, and we can't cover this stuff up anymore.
We can't keep it secret.
So we've here's here's here's the first here's the first dump.
And if if you stay in, oh my God, we can't promise this could end up destroying you.
And we really don't want to destroy.
That's his theory.
The media sending a message, get out now while we can still help you.
You get out now, and we will make sure there are no more stories.
Hillary Clinton's family charities are re-filing at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and they said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.
The foundation, its listed donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks.
Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton vulnerable to undue influence.
Her campaign team calls these claims absurd conspiracy theories.
The errors made by the charities, the Clinton charities, generally take the form of underreporting or over-reporting by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances, omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue.
When is the last time, and I know it's happened, but when is the last time you have heard of two people becoming ridiculously fabulously wealthy via a charity.
Most charities are set up to do good for the so-palls and beneficiaries.
Catherine, we had a table of Marine Corps law enforcement uh foundation ball at the Waldorfist area.
They have a 99% pass-through.
Every dollar donated, 99 cents gets to the children of Marines Killed in Action.
It's a charity that sets up college scholarships for the kids of Marines Killed in Action, sometimes other servicemen.
Last night was their annual big ball, 20th anniversary last night.
Some charities have a 78% pass through, some charities 80%.
Leukemia lymphomas around 95%, 96%.
The Clinton Foundation, it looks like all the money coming in goes to Bill and Hillary.
Honest to God, it does look that the lion's share of what comes in goes to them.
And the donations take the form of payments for speeches or policy directed.
It's incredible.
And the media is reporting all of this.
This is the kind of stuff the media used to cover up, and when it leaked out, blame Republicans for being focused on things that don't matter.
That's why people on our side don't quite know what to do with this.
They've never seen this kind of bloodletting before.
The drive-by media aimed at any Democrat, much less Clinton Snerdley walked in here today, practically unable to speak.
He was so blown away by what he's reading here.
He can't believe he's never seen this kind of throat slitting by the drive-by media aimed at any Democrat.
He can't recall it.
Now we could probably, if we think back, we could probably think of examples of this.
But the point is, this is so I mean it is so destructive.
And if the darlings of the party.
So went back and actually looked, you know, the first story on this about the Clinton Family Foundation and it's it being a slush fund.
It started in August of 2013.
If the truth be known, the New York Times actually led the way on all of this.
They had a very long and detailed article, the Clinton Family Slush Fund Foundation way back in August of 2013.
It was called Unease at Clinton Foundation over finances and ambitions.
And we spoke about it at length when it came out in August of 2013.
But like everybody else back then, we didn't expect it to go any further than that.
It was just a one-time story, get it out of the way, clear the decks, as one of the theories today goes, clears the decks, uh media says we covered it, Hillary remains unscathed and marches on to the campaign.
Another way of looking at this, too.
Uh you might say, but Rush, if you're a student of this program, especially you would say, but Rush but Rush.
You've always told us that in news stories like this, if it doesn't reach the low information voter, if it doesn't reach TMZ, if it doesn't reach Yahoo News, if it doesn't reach any of the news sources that the low information crowd uh sees, it isn't gonna matter.
Nobody's gonna know about it.
And you would be right, except in this case, I don't think the low information crowd is the audience.
I have always said, ladies and gentlemen, that one of the big problems with the drive-by media is they do not connect with their audience.
And the reason is you and I are not their audience.
When you get right down to brass tax, I mean, how can CNN still be on the air with no audience?
How can MSNBC have been on the air with no audience?
I mean, the old days, they're gone, kaput.
Something else is tried, but they stay.
And they double down on what they're doing that's losing audience.
Now they're losing audience in the general population, the general public, but just as is the case with this story, the audience is other journalists.
The audience is the establishment of both parties inside the beltway, all the way up and down the New York, Washington, Boston corridor.
This news is not intended yet for the low information voter.
If it were intended for the low information voter, it'd be cast and written, crafted in a different way.
This is specifically.
This stuff is being written, reported, positioned for other journalists.
This is to get everybody in the drive-by media up to speed on what the theme of the day is, what the narrative of, as we've heard, with the narrative of the what what the what the what the narrative, the template, what it is.
And because it's in so many places, the point is being drilled home that it's serious.
So the fact that it might not trickle down, as they say, to the low information voter does not discount this.
So you could arguably say if Michael Walsh at PJ Media is right, and that the media is begging Hillary to get out, and the only reason they would do that, by the way, is if they had somebody else they like either as much or more.
And they do.
Elizabeth Warren.
They would much prefer Elizabeth Warren to Hillary.
Some of them might even prefer Martin O'Malley to uh to Hillary.
Remember I made a joke, the Clinton campaign spokesman for the 2016 race this time, no surprises.
That's up in smoke.
I'm telling you, go back to 2008, and now this year, and there is somebody, there is somebody that does not want this woman to be president on the Democrat side of the aisle.
It's either somebody or a series of somebody's, but this was supposed to be smooth sailing again, right?
We were back here at a coronation too.
This was gonna be hers.
It was her turn.
It was her time.
This was ultimate payback.
Payback one was going to be 2008, but lo and behold, a better option presented himself.
Barack Hussein, also known as the one.
The theory went, there's a lot of sympathy.
People feeling bad.
The party had promised Hillary, and then they pulled a rug out for money.
So 2016, the Republicans are a non factor.
The party's in a little bit of disarray.
Ideal time.
Get Hillary in there, get her out of the way, get her elected, get her president, pay her off.
Somebody doesn't want that to happen.
You sit tight.
The details of this are juicy, my friends.
And I'd be interested in your theories, too.
On because I know, I know that those of you who are up to speed on it, and those of you who are about to learn, will not just sit there and accept this at face value.
You will not say, well, the Times came across some information about the foundation and are reporting it.
You will not say that.
You will have your own theory to explain it.
Because this kind of reporting on Democrats just does not happen.
I'll tell you something else.
If you have you have three phones, you don't ever have to worry about running out of battery.
I mean, it's not even a factor.
You don't even think about it.
Yes, to rebob, greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I'm just telling these guys, I just got confirmation that I'm going to be receiving one and maybe two Apple watches tomorrow.
And I don't even care.
If it were, if it were iPhones, when it's three weeks before an iPhone release, I am pounding the pavement.
I'm shaking the bushes.
I'm doing, I'm I order, I try to get at least 15 of them with the hope of getting one on launch day.
In this case, I haven't lifted a finger to get a watch.
And here I've just been learned just now, just during the break, that I've got two coming.
And no, snurtly, they're not the gold things.
These are the cheap models.
But see, that's the thing.
Doesn't matter, cheap or expensive, they're all the same in terms of the consumer electronics.
You know, Apple, speaking of which, I have to mention this.
I I don't understand this marketing at all.
They have been saying for the last month that you cannot walk into a store and buy a watch on what their supposed launch day was, which was tomorrow.
You just can't do it.
They haven't made enough.
They're not making a lot, they're waiting to see what people want rather than make a lot of every type and model and combo so they don't eat up a lot of capital creating inventory.
So they're basically, after the initial run of three million, they're building them to order, which is why it's taking so long for people to get theirs.
And they have said you can't walk into a store and get one, you have to order them online.
And last night, you know what they did?
They announced an up higher end elite snobbish boutiques.
You can walk in tomorrow and buy a watch.
In London, in Milan, in Tokyo, in uh in Los Angeles, and there's one other place.
After all of these weeks of telling their customer base, sorry, you have to order online.
There will not be any stock anywhere in Apple stores on the launch day.
Except now at these little kiosks in these high end boutiques.
It is clear to me now.
This watch is an entirely different thing for these people.
This is not a gadget.
They are entering the fashion world.
They are entering high fashion, and that's what this is.
It's an entirely different thing.
It's got electronic, consumer electronic guts.
One way of putting it, they're they're their celebrity designer Johnny Ive.
It's almost like he's tired of being Johnny Ive and now wants to be Johnny Versace.
Well, Oscar didn't.
Well, pick one is still alive, but he wants to.
Obviously, what's happening here?
And they might run the risk here of really alienating their loyal customer base.
I don't know how much that would hurt.
Because the loyalty is so deep.
No, the Clinton stuff just bores me no matter what.
We'll get back to it.
Hang in there.
I knew this is going to happen.
I knew it, so I'm gonna grab a call.
Jeff, Iowa City, Iowa, your first today.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
Uh getting right to the point.
Elizabeth Warren, I just don't see has any sort of charisma like Obama did.
I think there's gotta be another reason that the media is doing this to Hillary.
You're having a hard time with it.
Why are you having a hard time?
Because there's always sort of a rug that's pulled underneath you.
Every time we think that the liberal media is going one way, then they completely flip it around.
I was sitting here on hold, and the thing that I thought of was Do you think it's possible that uh since the Republicans are pulling back on going after Hillary full force, that they're going to put this up in such a way that it looks like the media is getting down on Hillary, so the Republicans will come back and argue, and then they'll say the poor woman is getting beat up.
Like there's gotta be a rope-dope somewhere.
See, this is my this is my this is my point.
I I that you're that's a first.
That all of this is aimed at rope-doping the Republicans.
You see, folks, Jeff, I cannot thank you enough.
I cannot tell you how helpful your call is.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
We have been so tra we're like mice gerbils running around the wheel.
It never stops.
We're so convinced everything the media does is designed to negatively impact the Republicans.
It's a rope of dope, whatever it is, it's designed to expose the Republicans as buffoons, mean-spirited extremists, sexist bigots, racist homophobes, you name it.
My mind had not gone in that direction on this.
I'll tell where my mind is going.
Who knows what's in Hillary's emails?
Because all of this is in those emails.
Why do you think she had a private email server to keep it from everybody else?
She wanted her own server, not the State Department server, because sh and Bill, there's no doubt they are outselling access to a future presidency, is what they are doing here.
They are selling access, they are making commitments, policy commitments in exchange for huge money that they are converting to personal use.
These people have been obsessed.
Do not doubt me on this.
I know many of you were not alive or old enough to pay attention back in the in the early 90s with the Whitewater scandal.
Everybody misunderstands what that was all about.
That was the Clintons just trying to get rich by cutting corners, which is what they thought everybody who got rich did.
Getting rich did not involve hard work and long preparation and expertise.
It involved networking and contacts and who did you know, and what could they do for you?
What favors could they do in exchange for what you could return or give them back?
Whitewater was a get rich quick scheme.
The Clintons have never had any money individually, and they were obsessed by that.
In politics, they're running around people who have more money than they can shake a stick at.
They didn't have anything.
That's what Mrs. Clinton talks about being broke when they left the White House.
I'm sure in her mind they were compared to the people they run with.
The people they run with own three private jets, own islands.
Make a phone call, and there's a bevy of women waiting in the living room when you arrive where you're going to your private island.
You think Bill Clinton wouldn't like to have something like that himself?
They're salivating over this stuff.
So this is this is no question that they've been salivating for the longest time about becoming filthy, filthy rich.
And she has been selling.
They have both been, they set up that family foundation as a means of collecting big money from foreign entities.
And the New York Times story today is all about one of the most egregious and outrageous sales of influence that Mrs. Clinton has made.
It involves uranium.
I'll get to it in just a second.
I should have gotten that out of the way in the first segment, but I wanted to focus on the media angle.
If you if you're still frustrated and wondering specifically what I'm talking about, I'm sorry, but stick with me.
I'll get to it here in just a second.
I really think that when these things start to happen, you always have to look at who benefits.
And the question who benefits from Mrs. Clinton swirling.
Forget Republicans.
I don't think this has a thing to do with the Republicans yet.
But I totally understand those of you who do.
People on our side have PTSD, shell shock.
And using my old phrase, intelligence guided by experience.
In the past, the media has existed for one reason, destroy us.
The Democrat Party has existed for one reason, destroy us.
And I have warned you, I have guided you.
I have trained you to look at news in such a way as to see the angle in it that destroys us.
And many of you were doing that in this case.
And I do not blame you, but I don't think that's what's happening here yet.
I think the regime is behind these leagues.
I think the regime, Valerie Jarrett, they know what's on that server of Hillary's.
They knew what she was doing, just like they withheld what they knew about Petraeus until it was time to deal with him.
There's no love lost between these two.
Make no mistake about it.
And I think in the pit of his stomach, the last thing Obama wants is the Clintons back in the White House toying around with his agenda.
And maybe trying to tweak it, change it, get rid of it, whatever, for them to take credit for whatever comes next.
Because believe me, both Obama and the Clintons are obsessed with getting credit for what they do.
And the last thing Obama wants, he doesn't even worried about the Republicans right now.
Obama thinks the Republicans may not even exist.
He's got the Republicans in the palm of his hand.
He doesn't have to worry about them.
The Republicans call him every day, say, what can we do?
What can we do?
How can we help?
So he's not worried about them.
But he damn well doesn't want these Clinton, this Clinton pair coming in and unraveling his agenda.
And he doesn't trust them.
And he likes Elizabeth Warren a lot more.
Probably can control her a lot more because she might even think that she owes him more than the Clintons for whatever her political fortunes in the future might hold.
And in the dark horse out there is this O'Malley guy.
Do not discount this guy.
And I'll tell you something else, it's not a dark horse, but this Blasio guy, de Blasio, purposely distancing himself from Hillary.
That you know you do not know how mad she is about that.
She's seething mad about this.
Yeah, I was in New York last night.
They're scuttle, but this guy wants to run for the presidency.
DeBlasio.
So anyway, if there's any leaking going on here, and I'm not predicting it, I don't know.
I am prepared to take this on face value.
I am prepared to accept the notion, by the way, just so you know.
You might think I'm naive.
And you might think that I'm letting my hopefulness get in the way of uh objectivity here.
But I really think it's entirely possible that Michael Walsh is right here, that the media is going for the throat here in an effort to save the Clintons, essentially.
Look, because his his theory again is that they are begging Hillary to get out before they have no choice but then to totally destroy the Clintons.
Meaning they know even more about what's gone on with all of this stuff, The foundation, the whatever that we just have the tip of the iceberg, and they're saying, okay, please, Bill and Hillary, we love you.
Please get out of this now before we're going to have no choice and report the rest of what we know.
And then you're cooked.
Mulley Ron Fournier today.
I mean, this is in deep pain over this.
He's loved the Clinton since the 80s in Arkansas.
So I it could well be nothing more than that.
It could be Elizabeth Warren, uh, could be a number of things.
Again, I look, I don't mean to be repetitive.
I'm just fascinated by how A plus B can never equal C in our minds when it involved the media.
That there's some unspoken conspiracy theory to explain this that we haven't yet figured out.
Um the New York Times story.
This, this and the Reuters story, well, the Washington Post, too.
They're they're equally as devastating.
The New York Times article, 4,037 words.
Now, the average op-ed column in a newspaper is 750 words, just to give you something to compare it.
88 paragraphs.
It is one of the most amazing articles I have ever read in the New York Times.
It is one of the most unexpected articles I have ever read in the New York Times.
It in 4,337.
Actually, it doesn't require all those words to do this.
It exposes the Clintons as the most shameless influence peddlers in the history of the world to the point of treason, folks.
To the point of criminality.
It's unprecedented for the New York Times to go after any Democrat like in my lifetime or memory.
There may be one that I've forgotten, but none as prominent as are the Clintons.
And I'll tell you something else about this New York Times story.
Because it's from the New York Times, it completely destroys Hillary's claims that these charges are all just from the vast right-wing conspiracy.
You know, Hillary is out there saying, yeah, well, those Republicans, that's all they've got to talk about is me, you know.
That's all they're doing.
He's talking, it's just, it's just more the vast right-wing conspiracy.
We were prepared for it, you know.
We were the Republicans haven't said 5% of what is in this story in the New York Times.
And the New York Times, unless the Schultzbergers have been kidnapped and brainwashed, are not part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Last time I looked, that little pinch was every much the lib that any other rest of them in the drive-by media are.
Let me take a brief timeout.
Details next.
Don't go away.
The New York Times story is by Joe Becker and Mike McIntyre, and here's how it begins.
The headline in Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir Putin's latest coup.
Russian nuclear energy conquers the world.
The article, January 2013, detailed how the Russian Atomic Energy Agency had taken over a Canadian company with uranium mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
The deal made Russia one of the world's largest uranium producers and brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the U.S. Now, since uranium is considered a strategic asset with implications for national security.
The deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies.
And among the agencies that signed off on this was the State Department then headed by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control Of uranium one in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013.
A flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.
The chairman of Uranium One used his family foundation to make four donations to the Clintons, totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
Mrs. Clinton failed to follow through on most of her disclosure promises.
This is just one example.
In fact, she had even promised that the Clinton Crime Family Foundation would stop taking foreign money when she was Secretary of State, but it didn't.
Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in this Canadian company, Uranium 1, Mr. Clinton, after the foundation got 2.35 million, Bill Clinton got $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting stock in the Canadian uranium company, Uranium One.
At the time, both the Russian uranium agency and the U.S. government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control, CED, giving away control of the company's assets to the Russians.
These promises have been repeatedly broken.
The New York Times examination of the Uranium One deal, this is the Canadian company, is based on dozens of interviews as well as a review of public records and security filings in Canada, Russia, and the U.S. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweitzer, a former fellow at the Right the Hoover.
They've made a deal.
The New York Times is one of the papers that has made a deal with Schweitzer, this evil-hated Republican from Hoover.
They made a deal exclusive with him, as did the Washington Post, some others, to exclusively report excerpts from his book, and this is one of them.
Schweitzer, by the way, has said his next book is going to be going after Jeb Bush.
by the way, just a little sidelight.
Going to go after the Jeb Bush family finances the same way the Clintons have been pursued.
Mr. Schweitzer provided a preview of material in the book to the New York Times, which scrutinized his information and then built upon it with its own reportings.
The Times is confirming what Schweitzer reports in his book and saying we found even more.
So you'd have to say here that the New York Times has joined the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons if they're sidling deals up here with Schweitzer.
I'm being facetious, of course.
Then the Times lists donors, part of the uranium deal to the Clinton Foundation and the amounts.
Frank Justra, 31.3 million and a pledge for 100 million more.
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Here's the bottom line.
Money was given to Bill and Hillary Clinton, passing through the Clinton Foundation that enabled Russia to pursue their goal of controlling the uranium market in the world.
Putin, again, just to remind you, has publicly stated that he wants to control that market.
If he could, he'd corner it.
Mrs. Clinton has enabled it.
All for the opportunity to be personally financially enriched.
This is just one of the stories that's out today.
Reuters has another one and the Washington Post with yet another one.
Neither of those organizations are the vast right-wing conspiracy either.
By the way, there is a constitutional prohibition.
What Mrs. Clinton is doing, it's called government payola, foreign government payola, and there is a specific clause in the Constitution found at the Federalist.com website that actually bans Hillary Clinton's foreign government payola.
It literally is a violation of law.
What's it?
It's not on the edges.
It is a flat out constitutional violation.
So sit tight.
Lots more straight ahead.
▲
Export Selection