All Episodes
Previous Next
May 29, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:40
May 29, 2015, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Rad on right on.
Oh yeah, Denny Haster.
Denny Haster.
Can't believe the number of people who do not simply cannot comprehend what that could be about.
Snerdley, Snerdley is wired to the Republican House.
And I asked Snurdley, what is this with Denny Hastert?
Any idea?
He said, I I don't I haven't even asked yet.
I'm afraid of what I might find out.
Anyway, greetings, welcome back, my friends.
Open Line Friday, L. Rushbow on Friday, making it count.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yeah, I'll tell you what I think it is.
I mean, I don't know specifically, but I'll tell you what I think went on here.
With Denny Haston.
It happened before he was speaker, right?
That much we know.
Or is that not right?
I think it predates his speakership, whatever was going on.
Pretty sure about it.
Telephone number 800 282-2882 if you want to be part of the final hour of Open Line Friday.
First place, I don't think Denny Hastert is running drugs for the cartel.
Or for any cartel.
I don't think that's what this.
I think.
Just based, and I I know nothing.
I'm just based on what everybody else can read, it seems to me that Denny Hastert was being blackmailed for something.
No idea what it is or what it was.
But we do know that he didn't want anybody to find out.
He wanted no part of anybody knowing.
So much so that he lied to the FBI.
He didn't even want them to know.
So he was paying off the blackmailer by withdrawing money from his own account.
The reporting requirements go back some years, but the magic number's 10 grand.
If if you deposit or withdraw, more than $10,000, theoretically, there's supposed to be a report from the bank sent to the federal government, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, IRS, they all get it.
And structuring is when people try to avoid the reporting.
And that's what Hastert was doing.
He apparently was withdrawing $9,000, $9,200, $8,900, whatever, and then take from a bunch of different banks, and then taking that money and giving it to the blackmailer.
Well it if you try to beat the structuring, you're eventually gonna get found out because the uh the banks are also required to report if something looks suspicious.
So if you've got a reporting requirement at 10 grand, and a customer is withdrawing 9,009,500 in cash, then eventually the banks just say, wait a minute, there's a pattern here, and they have to report that too.
They and they will.
They don't want any problems.
And so that's when the FBI came calling.
FBI and whoever else, Treasury, and they interviewed Hastert, and that's when he wouldn't tell them what he told him he was withdrawing the money for himself.
So the Martha Stewart aspect of this.
He he lied to the FBI, and that as much as anything else, is responsible for getting him in hot water.
But I I just I don't know what else this could be, other than trying to keep secret something that he didn't want anybody to know.
He was willing to pay the blackmailer for it.
Stuff never works, though.
You know, it always breaks down at some point.
Like this did.
But it real point here, I don't know if he'd be in so much trouble if he'd have just told the FBI what's up, but maybe what he was doing was criminal.
I don't know.
But whatever it is, he didn't, he didn't even want to in confidence tell the investigators what was going on.
And so it was it was easy at that point to find out that he was not keeping the money and spending it himself or using it himself.
I'm being handed an emergency flash note here, which I now have to quickly peruse while avoiding dead air.
The indictment seems to indicate that it had something to do with Hastritt's career as a teacher and wrestling coach in a high school in New Yorkville before he became a politician.
Hmm.
This whole story, that's the only paragraph you highlight for me.
The indictment seems to indicate that it had something to do in Hastert's career as a teacher and wrestling coach at a hascral in Yorkville before he became.
Well, okay, so there you go.
Start putting two and two together there, snurly and getting 69, right?
That's what you're thinking.
Absolutely.
Now, one clarification.
When I was in the last that's what Jermaine Greer going after Elton John and his partner David Furnish, it was not because I was wrong.
I got something a little wrong here.
It was not because Furnish was listed as wife on the kid's birth certificate.
He's listed as mother.
Elton John's partner David Furnish is listed as mother on the birth certificates, and that is what has sent Germaine Greer into a tizzy.
She was speaking at the Hay Literary Festival.
She accused Elton John and David Furnish of deconstructing motherhood, criticizing them for the fact that Furnish was listed as mother on their children's birth certificates.
She said, sometimes I think that really the problem is the concept of motherhood, which we can't give any real structure to.
Sir Elton John and his wife, David Furnish, have entered on the birth certificate.
They're two sons that David Furnish is the mother.
Now, I'm sorry...
That'll give you an idea of how the concept of motherhood is emptied out.
It's gone, it's been deconstructed.
I'm I'm sorry, Ms. Greer, but you started this.
Where did you think this is going to end?
This is my whole point with this.
These things don't just stop and they don't just, you don't take corrective measure and it just addresses the one small area.
Let's not forget what happened here.
We all live through it.
Late 60s, early 70s was born the modern era of feminism, and it was rooted in deconstructing and ripping apart what they thought was a patriarchal society.
A patriarchal society meant that men dominated everything.
They dominated the workplace, they dominated the home.
They dominated the bedroom, they dominated the children.
They dominated the money, they dominated the family car, they dominated the country club membership, everything.
And the feminazes were ticked.
And they wanted to tear down this patriarchal society.
And they said that motherhood was the primary culprit in keeping them chained to the home.
So the modern era of feminist uh feminism feminazes began to attack conventional marriage and conventional relationships and motherhood by pointing out that this is how society kept women shackled into these old-fashioned, subservient and subordinate roles.
And they urged women to abandon all of this.
They urged women to leave the home, abandon relationships, don't get married, don't have your happiness derived from a man or a relationship.
Have your happiness derived from you exploring life and maximizing your potential as a female human being.
And motherhood was supposed to be a trap that you were to avoid.
And by the way, having lived through it, I'm telling you, a lot of women, I'm I'm what of 64 women my age bought it hook, line and sinker.
And they became militant.
They just they lapped all this stuff up, they ate it up, and they tried to put into action all the teachings of the Germaine Greer babes and the and the Betty Fridans.
And it got to the point where you couldn't even compliment one of these women on their appearance without insulting them.
It was said to be objectifying them.
Or it was not to take into account their beautiful brains or what have you.
It was it was uh typical male attitude to only see a woman's appearance and not see anything else.
So women started acting this stuff out.
They started uh expanding careers, and the mistake they made, I've always thought that the mistake the women who bought into this made was rather than actually expand horizons as women, they started copying men.
They tried to become managers and CEOs.
They wanted to be admitted into male clubs.
They wanted to be admitted to social clubs, country clubs, private clubs, you name it.
They wanted to dress like men, they wanted to have bossy attitudes like they thought men had.
They wanted to basically invade male-dominated areas and take over, kick the men out, rather than become whatever was unique to them as women.
And I thought I've always thought, you know, taking the subject seriously, I've always thought that was the big tactical mistake they made.
Why copy a bunch of men of the problem?
Why are you copying them?
And the answer I always got, we're not copying, we're taking over.
We're gonna do it better.
Men are mean, they're insensitive, they're brutes, they're competitive.
Nobody gets along when men are in charge.
We're gonna take over and change it.
Well, something happened along the way.
And tell me, if you don't know a woman to whom this happened.
A dyed-in-the-wool, young feminist in training, buys into all this and starts down the career path, and eschews as much of conventional behavior as she can.
She tries to avoid steady relationships, hookups are fine, but no steady relationships, no dependence on a man, no kids.
That hold you back on the career track.
And then you invade various male attitudes.
You get into TV news, TV sports, all these things that men control, you go there.
And then something happened that the feminazis hadn't counted on, and that was human nature.
Around the mid-30s of all of these young, hot to trot feminazes in training.
The biological time bomb started to go off, and they wanted children.
And the Feminazis got very upset about this.
The Jane Fondas and the Germain Greers and the Betty Ferdan's Gloria Steinem's, they frowned upon women wanting kids.
That was going to be a major setback to the Feminazi movement.
Kids?
You want kids?
That's a patriarchal society.
You're better than that.
You're capable of much more than that.
And so pregnancy became a disease.
And abortion became liberation.
And all these arguments that we had as a culture and society derived from the late 60s, early 70s, and all of this attack on the so-called patriarchal society and women seeking to be something they never were because they thought it had been denied them.
And that gave us cover stories like on Time Magazine, surprise shock, men and women are born different.
They didn't couldn't really believe it.
They'd bought into the whole notion of militant feminists.
So some of the women, when the biological time bomb went off, gave birth, but wanted to keep working in tribute to the feminazi leaders.
So this required daycare centers at work, if you recall, or other mechanisms to bring the child to work, to have them taken care of at work by nanny or some state employee or what have you.
But in more cases than the feminazes ever dreamed would happen, these women, after giving birth, decided they wanted to stay home.
Oh, and that just defeated everything.
Because a young woman, motivated and inspired to be a good feminist, all of a sudden, biological time bomb goes off, give birth, and now want to stay home and raise the child.
That was considered a Huge setback for the feminist leaders.
Other women totally avoided it and got to age 40, 42, had never married, had never had a steady relationship, had never had kids, and all of a sudden began to realize they had missed so much.
Because they'd bought into everything the feminists had taught them.
They had missed out on one of the most meaningful aspects of their lives, potentially.
No relationship, no marriage, no kids.
And so they wanted kids.
So they 42, some of them thought a little old start adopting.
Single parent mothers, adopting, staying on the job, maybe, maybe quitting, going home, not getting married, raising the child, maybe adopting another one.
This leads to gay marriage.
It's all kinds of things.
All because of militant feminism deciding to upset millennia of tradition and institution.
So now comes Germaine Greer upset at Elton John and David Furnish because David Furnish lists himself as the mother on the kid's birth certificate.
Well, who's responsible for this?
Who started this whole idea that motherhood really doesn't matter?
Who started this attitude that motherhood is a prison?
Who gave us the notion that motherhood shackles women and denies them?
Motherhood, child rearing, all of that was.
Do not doubt me if you weren't alive and all of that was attacked.
It wasn't just criticized, folks.
Mothers, women who chose to stay home, conventional nuclear family, Christian women were tarred and feathered and ridiculed and laughed at and made fun of.
All because they wanted to be mothers.
I'll never forget taking phone calls from husbands and wives, where the husband worked, the mother stayed home, and they were happy they had done it that way.
They didn't earn as much because the wife wasn't working, but that's how they wanted to raise their family.
You get a call right after that from some angry woman saying the woman had been a prisoner, the patriarchal society was predictable.
So I'm telling you, David Furnish, no other man would be able to list himself as a mother on a birth certificate.
If it hadn't been for militant feminism in the late 60s and 70s.
If that hadn't happened, then none of this would.
Well, it may have, but it's likely it wouldn't have.
But when the feminists came along and demanded that motherhood be gotten rid of and rethought because it was a prison and so forth.
Well, that upset all kinds of things because kids are still nevertheless going to be born.
And I don't care who you are, you have a mother and father.
I don't care who's raising you, you all have a mother and father.
Militant feminists did their best to erase the actual mother from the equation.
All right, you don't believe me.
Here's a quote from Germaine Greer.
The compelled mother loves her child as the caged bird sings.
The song does not justify the cage, nor the love the enforcement.
So Jermaine Greer's out there portraying marriage as no as nothing different than a than a child bird, motherhood as the equivalent of a caged bird.
Folks, you know, I realize some of you weren't alive or old enough to remember what went on in the late 60s or 70s.
A number of us lived through it and were dramatically affected by it.
Men and women both, and I'm telling you, everything I told you was dead letter accurate.
I didn't mischaracterize one thing the feminazes told women or believed.
I'll tell you what, you know when this really got confusing?
And it's hard to pinpoint just where.
How about this term surrogate mother?
Do you the the surrogate mother happens to be the real mother?
But no, no, no, no, no, no, not anymore.
The surrogate mother's just the vessel.
The real mother is who ends up with the baby.
Well, that's cockeyed.
It's it's just BS.
And don't, don't you know you you might think it sounds a little harsh, but I'm telling you, do not doubt me on the militant feminism of the modern era.
There's all kinds of different eras of feminism.
The suffrage movement, um, with that banned, you know, back in upstate New York when it happened.
But this modern era, this this was this this modern era feminism, like much of liberalism, is rooted in anger and rage and victimhood.
And the anger and rage was at the dominant culture.
And so it was just one of many attacks and assaults on a dominant culture which was really making for a great country, a great America.
Not to say it was perfect, but I don't think anybody can say and maintain that what's going on now, especially for children, is better than it was back then.
We got more children, have no idea who their dads are today.
We got some children who have no idea who their mothers are, some kids don't know who their real parents are ever, and nor nor will they ever.
I mean, it's an absolute nightmare out there.
And yet all we hear about is we've got to do this for the children and that for the children.
Everything's for the children.
Well, it sounds good when you say it, but the actions some people have taken, supposedly in service of for the children, has been not the best.
It's had negative deleterious consequences like you can't imagine.
And nobody wants to talk about it either.
But I just did.
No, no, no, no, no.
I just think it's rich that here comes a woman who was instrumental in blowing up the institution of motherhood, now upset that gay men are listing themselves as mothers on birth certificates.
I mean, it's not Elton John's fault.
He didn't open these doors, but when they were opened, he and his buddy walked right through them.
They want kids.
Feminazis made it possible.
I just think it's rich.
I mean, these people were the original attack dogs on motherhood.
Now they're all upset that motherhood's been lost as a as an exclusive feature of womanhood.
Shane in Buffalo, New York.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB-No, I've not forgotten the FIFA guides coming right up.
Hi, Shane, how are you?
Hey, Rush.
I want to talk about Rand Paul.
Um he was in the news a few days ago talking about how Republicans were responsible for the creation of ISIS, and I just started thinking about all the other ridiculous things that Rand Paul has done in the past that no one really talks about.
Rand Paul met with Al Sharpton to discuss criminal justice reform.
He wants to restore voting rights to convicted Stalins.
He attacks Republicans on Cuba, basically takes Obama's foreign policy stance on Cuba.
And I just don't understand how this could possibly be a good thing to happen in the Republican debates.
Well, let me let me see if I can let me see if I can help you understand.
Yeah.
Uh Rand Paul, uh, I met here at the EIB Southern Command Complex a little over a year ago.
He came by and he spent about an hour here.
And he was clearly, he was unannounced, but it was clear he was he was seeking higher office, uh presidency, and he already had his uh game plan formulated.
He already knew what he was going to do, and he shared with me some of it, and I didn't announce any of this at the time because he hadn't officially announced, and uh he didn't come by here for me to make it public, but but now it's no big deal because he's out there executing the plan, so I can tell you.
He told me, the first thing he told me was that Rush, the Republican Party cannot win the presidency without votes from Democrats and independents and moderates.
Oh, God.
He said he said there aren't enough Republicans that we can only turn out our own voters and win.
Yeah.
And then he started telling me how he was going to get these non-Republican votes.
He was going to uh reach out to the African American community, and he was gonna reach out to the Hispanic community, and he's gonna reach out to college students.
And he's done all of it.
I mean, everything he told me he was gonna do.
He went to Berkeley, he's he's done it.
And and what you've just described is is part of his game plan that he described to me.
Not not specifically blaming uh Bush for ISIS.
He didn't talk about ISIS with me.
I don't remember what he said if anything about foreign policy.
Uh ISIS didn't exist when he came by.
Right.
So I I d that's something I I I can't explain, other than to put it in what I do know about his belief that he's got to get votes from elsewhere, in addition to Republican votes.
That his belief.
By the way, he's not the only Republican that thinks that.
He's not the only Republican that thinks that we can't win with just our own votes.
Yeah, but he never gets attacked for it.
No one ever calls him out for it.
For some reason I feel like he just oh that's just Rand Paul.
It's like with Ron Paul, oh, that's just Ron Paul, you know, they just kinda like.
Let me tell you something libertarian bunch, it's a very active vocal bunch.
And you go after their guys and they come after you.
I just don't think I don't see how it could be positive for the Republican Party to have MSNBC and CNN playing in the debates, Rand Paul attacking the GOP, which they're gonna do just like they did with Ron Paul over and over and over again.
Yeah, I I hear you.
But hey, it's the lay of the land.
He is a Republican.
Let me ask you this.
Yeah.
We've gotten to point now where the the Fox News Republican debate.
Fox don't know what to do.
They can't get all these people on the stage.
They can't have a debate with all these candidates.
So what they've done, correct me if I'm if I'm wrong.
I think you've got to be in the top ten percent of polling.
Yep, top ten.
Top ten.
Well, that's gonna ace out Carly Fiorina, and she needs to be in these debates.
She is just ripping Hillary a new one every day.
Carly Fiorina needs to be in I don't even think Ted Cruz is gonna qualify.
Well, I think Cruz will get in.
If he doesn't get in, I'm not gonna watch 'cause, you know, I'm a big Cruz fan, but I just think it's you know, it's it's ridiculous to have ten people on a stage anyway.
But it leads to that at least the the question I have for you is does do you think I don't want to lead you, I'm I don't want to put my words in your mouth.
Yeah.
But but I mean, just yesterday, who who who announced yesterday?
Pataki.
And the day before that we've got Lindsay Grahamnesty's announcement.
And we've got uh Oh yeah, K six waiting in the wings.
It's beginning is it beginning to look like Barnum and Bailey to you?
It's just a joke.
I mean, attacky who I mean uh does he r I don't understand, I guess it's probably just an ego thing.
Do they really have that big of an ego that they think that they could actually with where they're polling, come back and win the Republican nomination?
I mean, who is excited about George Pataki or Lindsay Graham?
Nobody is excited about them.
Not only about two or three people that are excited about.
And I get it, but you don't know if you're gonna be excited by 'em uh like a a year from now.
That's the point.
You don't know that.
Yeah.
It's sending a tingle up your leg right now.
Yeah.
Well, but what do you think it means?
Why are all these people announcing?
Why are all these uh fringe and obscure Republicans getting in this?
I think it's I think it's an ego thing, and it's just a way to um get their name out so they can sell books.
Okay, so you don't think that you don't think a majority of them actually are doing this to win.
I I I really don't know.
I mean, maybe they have that big of an ego, but uh I mean they are politicians, but I mean it could be just they want to sell books, you know.
Well, yeah, or get a you know, an official position at Fox as commentary or analyst or what have you.
I mean, how many guys don't want to be on Fox with all the blondes they got there?
But then you've got you've got how about this?
How about this?
That since there doesn't seem to be anybody in all of these Republicans with a lock on this that these guys could see it's wide open.
Well, if if nothing nothing else, I think it's good that Lindsay Graham's in, because I think he'll take votes away from Jud Bush, and I think that the problem that the conservatives really have is that we've got so many conservatives running, you're gonna split the votes so much that's the right thing.
Well, see that's the thing.
I think I think these guys getting in that you mentioned are there to protect Jeb Bush, not take votes from him.
Well, I think they're closer to Bush.
I mean, I certainly wouldn't put George Pataki in the Ted Cruz.
Yeah, but if they eventually get some support, they throw it to him before they get out.
Possibly.
You know, I mean I don't know how it's gonna turn out, but I do think that conservatives need to pick one candidate, go for that candidate.
If they don't do it, they'll be taking it.
Okay, well, how do you do that?
I mean, I on paper, yeah, because previous campaigns, the conservatives have eaten each other up, spit each other out, and it's how we ended up with Romney and McCain and whoever else.
And and it so how do you do how how do you decide without a campaign?
How do you decide which of these conservatives gets to be the guy?
Well, for me, I just go down the list and I have a priority of work.
No, no.
How do you get them to go along?
If that's going to work, they have to go along.
Yeah, I see what you're saying.
They're gonna have to just they're gonna have to start attacking each other.
You know, I mean, they're trying to just go after Hillary Clinton, and I guess that's smart for now.
But eventually they're gonna have to start going after each other.
Someone's gonna have to say, hey, Rand Paul.
Why why don't you use Al Sharp then to discuss criminal justice issues?
I know.
Why don't you go after Obama?
What's the point going after George W. Bush?
But he thinks he's gonna get votes that way.
That's why he's doing it.
But look, let's take your idea.
You've got let's say pick a number here that's fairly clear.
You got 15 conservatives that want to be the Republican nominee, and you just said we need to pick one and not destroy all of them at the pick one.
Okay, so let's go get all 15 in a room.
Not a debate, not an official, you just get them in a 15 room, and somebody with power like me.
Okay, one of you guys is gonna be our is gonna be our representative.
One of you guys is gonna be the only conservative in the debates running against Bush and Lindsay Gramnesty and whoever else.
And in this room, we're gonna decide today who it is.
And when we finish, the 14 of you who aren't do not trash the guy who is.
Was that is that even possible?
It would never happen.
So you can wring your hands and lament the fact that it's gonna be all these conservatives eating each other up, but there's no other way around it.
Because I don't know how you'd get them all in a room and convince 14 of them to quit and then unify behind one.
And what are you gonna do?
Draw straws, or you're gonna say, who among the fifteen of us has the best chance of winning?
Well, that's gonna break down in the first five minutes because they all think they have the best chance.
They all have the ego big enough to make them want to get into this in the first place.
So I know it's frustrating to uh to look at this, uh, because you you don't want to see a repeat of previous years where a bunch of really, really great conservative candidates end up eating each other alive out of the race.
But the establishment does want that.
That's exactly what the establishment wants.
So that the only guy left standing is their Northeastern moderate liberal, whoever it is year to year.
Quick timeout, back with the FIFA guy after this.
You know, folks, running for president about why these guys are all doing it.
Running for president might be almost as profitable as starting a family charity.
You look at it that way.
You know, I'm just watching uh Fox during the break here.
I don't know what they're talking about, but one of the guests, the the graphic description at the bottom of the screen refers to this guest as a personal finance expert.
And so, what is that?
What is a personal finance expert?
What do you have to know to be a person?
I'm thinking could I could be one?
So here comes a client.
I'm personal finance expert.
Here comes some client, and the client gives me their data, and I look at it and say, you don't have enough money.
Does that make me a personal finance expert?
Okay, here we go.
Live on CNN this afternoon, the international soccer president re-elected for a fifth term Sep Blatter.
We have a portion of his acceptance speech.
This was in Zurich.
I take the responsibility to bring back FIFA.
We do it, we do it.
And I'm convinced we can do it.
The devil sinking, it was in meditation.
I am a faithful man.
And I said, No.
Go to Allah or whoever is this extraordinary, whatever it is, spit it in the vote that we believe, we believe.
They will help us to bring back this FIFA where we shall be.
And I tell you, and I promise you, in the end of my term, I will give this FIFA to my successor in a very, very strong, strong position.
Robius FIFA and the good FIFA.
They have to work together.
You will ask me what what H is not an H. The H is no problem.
Always told you.
You have uh people they are 50, they look old.
Sorry, sorry.
Sorry, I I didn't know that we have so many 50 years old people here.
Definitely not.
But uh ladies and gentlemen, you know, I told you at the beginning or when we started for uh this uh election.
I like you.
I like my job, and I like to be with you.
I'm not perfect, nobody's perfect.
No more but we will do a good job together, I'm sure.
So uh I thank you so much.
I thank you for the trust and confidence.
Trust and confidence together we go.
Let's go, FIFA.
Let's go FIFA.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you for it.
There you have his name is uh again is Seth Bladder, and Wolf Blitzer could not believe what he had just seen.
What a piece of work that guy is.
Uh I guess that's typical of his behavior.
Does he not realize what's going on right now with all these charges of accusation among so many of his top leaders right below him at FIFA?
Oh, what do you expect him to do?
Wolf, he's not mentioned in the indictments.
What's he supposed to do?
Quit?
Commit suicide?
What's he supposed to do?
Go up and praise Obama, beg for forgiveness?
What's he supposed to do?
He's untainted by it.
And that's it's it's clear that he's acting that way.
I just think the whole thing is hilarious.
And then there's this this guy, the soccer dad who brought down FIFA, Chuck Blazer.
Get this.
He went from suburban New York kid soccer coach to flying on private jets.
Listen to this one apartment in Trump Tower for himself, a second next door for his cats, more luxury apartments in Florida and the Bahamas, credit card charges totaling 26 million dollars, another 20 million dollars in his pocket, a private meeting with Vladimir Putin,
nights at one of the best tables in the fable Manhattan night spot he lands, feasts at such fine restaurants as Campanola and Dutch, Chuck Blazer billed all of it to FIFA, and he gained 400 pounds in the process.
He got the 450 pounds, he got caught, he's the informant.
How do you rack up 26 million dollars of credit charges?
And well, it's just beyond most people's comprehension.
What color is that card?
Platinum, black.
What color is that?
Is that card?
What are six million?
I know it was over years.
Wolf Blitzer ever called Hillary Clinton a piece of work.
Man, what a piece of work she is.
Man, what a piece of work old Bill Clinton is.
Like you call a FIFA guy.
What if Denny Hastard is the victim in this, snurdly?
What if Denny Haster is the victim being extorted?
▲
Export Selection