All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:29
July 24, 2015, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
By the way, I just became aware of something.
A little a tweet that an amendment was proposed six weeks ago.
That would allow guns in military recruitment offices.
As you know, that amendment was killed.
You may not know who killed the amendment.
That would be John McCain killed an amendment six weeks ago to allow guns in military recruitment offices.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
One big exciting broadcast hour remains, hosted by me, your guiding light.
Rush Lindbaugh with talent on loan from God.
Telephone numbers 800 28282 and the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
The Justice Department has been asked to open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.
The New York Times reported this late yesterday.
The request by two inspectors general follows a June 29th memo to the State Department Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick Kennedy, that found that Clinton's email server held hundreds of potentially classified emails.
Now the Wall Street Journal sent out a news alert around 1230, claiming that the internal government review found that Hillary sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time at the State Department.
Now, if it just stays at four, then the usual suspects, come on, let's move on.
What do you just four emails?
Come on.
Anyone could have forgotten she sent four emails.
What is it?
You people on the right, you just want nitpick everything.
Come on, let it go.
Well, just four emails.
But there's much more to this because, ladies and gentlemen, there might be, I hasten to say might be a beginning of the fraying of the solidity of the relationship between certain elements of the drive-by media and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Details here in just a second.
Now, as to this New York Times story last night, the Politico reported that the New York Times made small but significant changes to its exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary's State Department email account late Thursday night.
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation, quote, into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as Secretary of State, close quote.
That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed.
The inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry, quote, into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account that Hillary used as Secretary of State.
So they changed Hillary mishandled sensitive to sensitive information was mishandled in connection with the account.
Snerdley, when's the last time we able to get the Times to change something they were writing about us that wasn't true?
Never.
We've never been able to get a time story change.
Because we've told them countless times, you know, you guys have this wrong.
This isn't nowhere near what I said.
And they just effectively hang up.
So what do you happen here?
Huma?
Huma Wiener sends them an all caps text telling them they got it wrong and they're gonna fix it, or else.
My guess is what the Times said, what'd we get wrong?
Send us what you think we should say.
And Huma rewrote it and sent it off to him, and they said, Yeah, it looks good to us and ran it.
Now the New York Times also changed the headline of the story.
The original headline was criminal inquiry sought in Hillary Clinton's use of email.
The changed headline read, criminal inquiry is sought into Clinton email account.
So the Times on two in two instances made changes that appear subtle, but they're major that made it look like something was happening to Hillary rather than Hillary was doing something.
This is once removed from the limbaugh theorem to explain how Obama gets away with no accountability.
The limbaugh theorem clearly, ingeniously brilliantly, I might add, explained to people how it was that Barack Obama was able to not be blamed or even associated with actual Barack Obama policies.
And this is the same thing.
I mean, you got Hillary Clinton, you have an email server, and she's sending emails, but all of a sudden the New York Times is saying, well, yeah, some emails went out from that server, but not necessarily with Hillary's awareness or knowledge or what have you.
As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, no notification, no clarification or correction regarding the changes made.
They even changed the headline in the uh in the web address in the URL.
Now, one of the reporters on the stories named Michael Schmidt, and he explained early Friday the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.
Michael Schmidt said it was a response to complaints that we got from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and so we made them.
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said in an email that Clinton always followed appropriate practices.
But that may not be enough.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Fournier is continuing to be so conflicted by Hillary and her blatant dishonesty that he's having trouble dealing with it.
Ron Fournier from Arkansas has written extensively of his deep personal respect and admiration for both Clintons, born of years, being close to them in terms of journalism, writing about them.
And he's he's just he's destroyed.
He's destroyed by a number of things.
He's destroyed by Mrs. Clinton's lack of attention to detail, her out and out lying, uh, and and he's also, I think really boils down to he's having to face the reality that this woman is nowhere near as competent or brilliant or whatever as her reputation.
And it's a serious wake-up call.
His headline, story today in National Journal, Clinton's Conspiracy of Secrecy worthy of criminal probe.
And he's not happy writing this.
Number one, here's all you need to know.
The Clinton campaign does not and cannot deny the nut of this story.
Two Obama administration inspectors general want a criminal investigation into whether her personal email system contributed to the release of classified information.
Well, we now know that it did.
They found at least four emails.
And she's lied about this.
That's coming up.
Second pull quote from Ron Fournier, when she's not blaming the media, when she's not blaming Republicans, when she's not blaming bureaucrats, when she's not blaming technology.
Clinton is destroying her credibility.
There's no classified material, She said, wrong.
Everything I did was permitted, she said.
Wrong.
People should and do trust me, she said.
Wrong and wrong.
A majority of people don't trust Clinton because a majority of people are not blindly loyal to her or on her payroll.
You're right, so most people can sift through the spin, the lies, the parsing to see the bottom line.
She secreted and deleted her email for reasons we may never know.
And she's blaming everybody, but the only person responsible for this mess, the only person who can clean it up, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And then over here, this is from Hotair.com.
This is a post.
I don't know who posted this.
It doesn't say here.
Oh, it does say here Ed Morrissey, our old buddy Ed Morrissey.
And he's chronicling F. Chuck Todd.
Who is pointing out that Hillary lost any moral high ground when she refused to turn over that server.
F. Chuck was on MSNBC earlier today, said now they just gotta hope nothing is found.
Meaning, because this isn't this inspector generally, look at the inspectors general are Obamaites, folks.
I mean, this is not the Republicans doing this.
Let me be clear about that.
Because I'll bet you a lot of people think this is the Republicans going after Hillary.
Republicans don't run the executive branch.
Obama runs the executive branch, and these inspectors general, if they're independent, supposedly independent, but they're not the Republicans.
They're both.
And they claim and they have they've asked for an investigation into potential criminal behavior and the release of classified data, and four emails have been found despite all the Hillary's lies and assurances that nothing of the sort happened.
It was just yoga.
It was just it was just carrot cake recipes and wedding invitations, seating charts and stuff like that.
There was nothing to see here.
That's what Hillary has said.
F. Chuck Todd saying, now that they better hope nothing is found here.
What they're worried about, I don't I don't think that in the case of both Ron Fournier and uh F. Chuck Todd, I don't think they're bothered by the fact that Hillary is lying or by the fact that Hillary is corrupt.
You know, they they applaud those things when liberals get away with it.
Like when Clinton lied every time he opened it.
They marveled at how well he did that.
And when it involves defeating Republicans and conservatives, it doesn't matter.
As long as that happens, these people are heroes, and that's why they're getting worried about Hillary.
They're getting worried that she may not be able to win now.
And if she can't win, she's going to become worthless to them.
They'll tolerate anything.
They'll tolerate lying, they'll tolerate corruption, whatever it is.
They'll tolerate the dog ate my server, but they will not tolerate if they think she's showing weakness.
And is telegraphing that she could be beat.
And I think that is really what's starting to settle in.
Remember, all this is happening just a few short days after this horrible series of polls in swing states that showed Hillary just doing horribly, not just in mock-up elections, but in approval numbers, respect, honesty, I mean, bottom of the barrel on all but one category.
So this is all a cumulative effect, and it's having.
And remember, my my whole theory on this is that Hillary Clinton, without this kind of massive party and media support, can't get where she's giving.
She left to herself.
She's gonna bomb out every time she tries.
Because don't forget, every time she opens her mouth, her poll numbers go.
The more she speaks, the more public appearances that she does.
I ain't no way tired.
I have miles and miles ago before I was like the more stuff like that she does.
And it is awkward joke telling and the inability to be charismatic and just natural sounding.
She's a robotic out there.
Uh without people to pump her up over that and and make her appear as a fate accompli, she can't do this on her own.
At least that's my view.
I I've always held that view.
I've all I've never have subscribed to this superwoman.
Meme that they have attached to Hillary.
And if they if they begin to think that she can't win or that she's showing weakness, well she can't survive without a whole big apparatus covering up for her by also focusing on the evil of her opponents.
So it may they may be getting to the point now, folks, where the D by her name on the ballot may not be enough.
It's just these two guys, but I'm telling you, we heard earlier this week that there is a rising level of nervousness and discontent within the bowels.
The Democrat Party leadership.
So we'll see.
But let's just go to the audio sound bites just to remember all this.
And we're gonna start where are we gonna start?
Right, March 10th, 2015.
This is Hillary at the United Nations, former Secretary of State, press conference to talk about the scandal surrounding her using a private email server, not a government server, not the government system, not the State Department system.
And during the QA, remember this was a horrible appearance.
They had to cut this thing short by like a half hour because she was doing so bad.
And they remember they had this at the UN because they figured it was the UN press corps, which would not be nearly as up to speed on all this as a domestic news press corps when they were shocking shockingly uh they misjudged that.
The UN press corps was up to snuff.
So this uh this reporter unidentified, so were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own email server and using your personal address to email, say with the president?
I did not email any um classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well aware uh of the uh classification uh requirements and uh did not uh send classified material.
Uh we didn't edit any of that.
I mean, that's just Nat that's Hillary speaker.
I did not email any um uh and but she did.
And two IGs want the details.
They found four so far.
Um here's a little bit more what she claimed.
We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department.
At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails.
Emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends, yoga, as well as yoga routines, and medications, the other things you typically find in inboxes.
We know that's none of that's true.
Take a break quickly back after this, don't you?
Back to the phones because it is open line Friday, Atlanta, hotlanta.
This is Russ.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Mr. Lindball, it's a great honor, sir.
Thank you very much, sir.
You know, the other day uh everyone acted like they were shocked when Donald Trump said he would run independently if the Republicans did not cooperate with it.
Why would he do the why would he do that this early?
I think I know why he did it and it's brilliant.
See, everybody thinks that if he goes independent that it'll be another lost caveau, and then Hillary will win.
So now that we know he'll do that, and he's got the money to do it.
We have to select him.
I think he's got this thing.
I think he's already won.
I I think if if he doesn't do something stupid, he's got this.
What do you think?
Well, I don't think you can say that yet.
I mean you can say it.
I I d I think it's way too mature.
There's way too much left to happen that nobody can even imagine.
That that believe me, there are things that nobody will predict that nobody can imagine are gonna happen between now and the end of the primary process.
Now, you know, this is a this is a dual-edged sword for Trump.
Because on the one hand, what would the caps say that he was wearing yesterday?
Working to make America great again.
I mean, that's why he's doing this.
He's doing this to save America, make it make America great again.
He's got to know that if he goes third party, the people who are not making the country great again are gonna win.
They're gonna keep winning.
It doesn't matter if it's Hillary or if it's Martin O'Malley versus if it's Bernie, well, it's not gonna be Bernie Sanders.
Just the fact that they want to keep the export impact import bank, that tells you right there it's not gonna be Bernie Sanders.
They're not gonna let Bernie Sanders anywhere near a Democrat nomination.
Secretary Biden, whoever, but whoever it is, if if if Trump runs as a third party, he's got to know that that's the end of the effort to make America great.
Unless, unless, there's a caveat, unless he somehow really believes that he's gonna be the first third party candidate to win.
Since who?
Since ever?
Since you can't remember the last third-party candidate to win, can you?
Time flying by here, the fastest three hours in media, El Rushbo behind this.
The golden EIB microphone.
Happy to have you with us.
You know, Mr. Sterley just remind me, you know, I'm dying to hear your explanation of what all this went on with Apple and the stock price after their uh their their quarterly earnings call, and I'm glad you're I totally forgotten.
This is two days in a row, I forgot to explain this, promise this.
Let me set this up for you.
This is, folks, uh I know you all know that I'm I'm an Apple fanboy, but that's not why I'm doing this.
This is a very, very teachable moment about a lot of things.
And in order for you to understand this, I need to draw an analogy first.
There are on Wall Street at various investment uh companies, banks, and houses, there are analysts.
And most that I want you to think of the analysts as American journalists.
These analysts are considered experts, but they're not in the businesses that they analyze.
They work at uh JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, uh Citicorp, you name it.
I mean, they work at financial houses, and they are supposedly experts in the areas they follow.
Think of them as journalists reporting on Republicans.
If you if you understand that just going in, that's the overall umbrella under which all this is happening.
Now, Apple is the most profitable American corporation in history, and especially since the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus were introduced last September, almost a year ago, they have sold a record number of iPhones in every quarter compared to year over year.
Quarter, uh, second quarter, and I'm using calendar quarters because uh Apple has a different schedule on their fiscal year.
Their first quarter is actually the fourth quarter in the calendar years, but I'm gonna use calendar year quarters here.
Year over year, Apple has just blown away their iPhone sales.
I mean, it's not even close.
They have re and the same thing with profit, and the same thing with average selling price.
No matter the metric, in the last 12 months, Apple has just blown everything away.
And yet, after The most recent quarter.
The stock price, after the report, the stock price plummeted 9% in after hours trading within two or three hours, and everybody's scratching their heads.
What in the world do they have to do here?
Now, without getting too deep in the weeds, there is a thing called sequential decline that is a factor here, and I'm gonna take a little time to explain it.
If you go last year, the same quarter that just ended in June.
Apple sold 35 million iPhone units, mostly the iPhone 5S, the 5C, doesn't matter what kind.
This year they sold 47.
They sold 12 million, 13 million more.
However, the rate of decline, the number of iPhones sold in the previous quarter, compared to the number of iPhones sold in the current quarter, there was a huge decline.
Even though year over year they were way up.
The percentage of decline this year was greater.
So this leaves these analysts who go into this prejudiced.
Asking, has Apple peaked?
Have they sold as many iPhones as they can?
Is there any growth?
Well, that's what they only care about growth because that's what leads to the stock stock price increasing.
And if they get the slightest hint that Apple's peaked and they're in any growth, and if there's problems in other areas, and maybe iPhones doing well.
So I actually think one of things that explains this is the fact that the entire financial industry, well, not in 90% of the financial industry thinks the Apple Watch is a flop.
And Apple last September said they're not going to announce sales figures for the watch, because they don't want the competitors to know.
So they're going to put it in the category on their balance sheet called other, and they stick into that.
They're not announcing how many they've sold, and that leaves it wide open for the naysayers to say that it's a flop.
But that's not what's going on.
That's really not what's going on.
Well, here's what's going on.
Every quarter, like Apple reports, the actual results, and then they issue, because they're required to, what's called guidance for the next quarter, three months from now, and they they tell these analysts and the street how many phones they expect to sell, how many iPods, and all this, and what the total dollars are, and they give guidance.
We expect our gross sales to be 49 to 51 billion.
We expect our profit to be between seven and nine billion, whatever it is, and we expect average sale price to be blah, blah, blah, blah.
So those are Apple's, that is Apple's guidance.
On the other side of that, you have the analysts and their expectations.
And it's the analysts' expectations that guide this.
And this is where this just breaks down for anybody with common sense.
So you have just an analyst.
You never heard of the guy unless you deal with him.
Apple issues its guidance, and this guy says, Well, you know, that's awfully conservative.
You know, Apple's shooting low because they want to be able to say they did better than that.
But we actually think they're going to sell 60 million iPhones.
I'm making up numbers here to illustrate the point.
So Apple issues guidance that they're going to sell 50 million.
The analysts says, no, we expect them to sell 60.
Quarter ends, Apple reports they sold 55 million phones.
I'm making it up, but this is close to what happened.
So they exceeded their own guidance, but the analysts over here say that Apple missed.
Missed what?
Because the analysts, the consensus of analysts, expected Apple to sell 60 million, and they didn't.
That is why the stock price plummeted.
It's how absurd this is, but it's the way Wall Street works.
Apple issues guidance and they beat their guidance.
They do better than what they tell the street they're going to do, which every company tries to do, by the way.
They try to always beat their guidance, but not by much because the SEC governs us.
They can't lie too much about it.
I mean, they can't say we're going to sell 10 million and report selling 50.
If they did that, somebody would go to jail.
So they've got it, they've got to shoot close and it's got to be reasonable.
The analysts can predict anything, it doesn't matter.
So if Apple projects they're going to sell 50, 50 million phones, the analysts say no we expect 60, and Apple comes in selling 55 million.
Analysts at Apple blew it.
Rotten quarter did not meet expectation.
Who's freaking expectations?
The analysts.
And that's why it's that simple.
That's how crazy and convoluted this is.
Apple exceeds every record in this last quarter.
Money, average sale price, volume, you name it.
They blew every previous record out of the water.
But over here, because a bunch of analysts who are not in their business expected them to sell two million more phones than they did.
Because they didn't sell the two million phantom phones the analysts' consensus predicted.
The stock price plummeted 9%.
I know it doesn't make any sense.
That's why if you if you play the stock market, this is look, there's some prejudice and bias against Apple, just like there's prejudice and bias against everything, and there's all kinds of support for Apple too.
all evens out.
You're going to get in the stock market.
This is the kind of stuff that you have to learn and how to deal with.
Now the reason the 9% happened, the 9% drop, that all that I think, I don't even think that was uh an expression of bad faith in Apple.
I think it was people taking profits.
That stock has gone through the roof the last year.
And so the analysts are talking the price down.
What a great time to take your profit and rebuy it.
That's how you play it, but it still is maddening.
It still is if if if you have a if you have an emotional connection to the company, any company, and these analysts have the ability to do this to it.
That's why they're like journalists in the way they affect the Republican Party and uh and Republican candidates.
But that's basically what happened.
Because the question is, how can a company beat every record it's ever set last quarter, last year, and the stock price go down nine percent?
How does this happen?
That's what I have just explained to you.
And it's because a bunch of experts on Wall Street expect this is real, expected them to sell two million more iPhones than they did.
And I'm telling you, don't doubt me on this.
The real reason is is sort of simmering beneath the surface.
Well, it's actually not beneath the surface, it's kind of it's breached the surface now.
There's all kinds of people out there in the financial business who have convinced themselves the Apple watch is a flop.
And that everything's being done here to protect the CEO from being connected to a flop, Tim Cook, since it's his first brand new product since the death of Steve Jobs.
Folks, this is raw capitalism, by the way.
This is not unfettered, but what's going on is raw, and it's bloody.
The competition, it is bloody, and it is just cutthroat.
And when you get into it, you have to know this.
There's no crying in the stock market.
It just is what it is, and you learn to deal with it as it is.
We will be back.
By the way, folks, one more thing on this whole Apple business.
The real irony of all this is okay.
So Apple projects they're gonna sell, you know, making up numbers here, uh, 55 million phones, and the analysts project that they're gonna sell 60.
And Apple comes in and say sells 57.
And the analysts, up, Apple missed it.
Oh my God, they're not doing nobody missed anything except the analysts.
The analysts are the ones that are wrong.
The analysts predict 60.
Apple didn't predict 60, they predicted 55.
They beat their own prediction.
The analysts are the ones that's wrong.
That's what drives everybody crazy about this.
What is this?
I've just been handed a note.
McConnell, a fast-track bill to defund planned parenthood.
Whoa!
Just as formerly nicotine-stained fingers by holding the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell started a fast tack, fast track process today on legislation to strip planned parenthood of federal funding In the wake of two controversial videos showing, well, just earlier today, Ted Cruz said that Mitch McConnell wasn't going to do this.
Something must have changed.
I wonder what.
Graham in Gainesville, Florida.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program today.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
It's great to talk to you.
I was just wondering if you think that this potential DOJ investigation into Hillary's uh server just could be the Obama administration's opening salvo and putting the kibosh on her campaign.
I don't have any idea.
And I wondered about this too.
I mean, after all of this mileage on this, after all of this, all of a sudden we get this out of the blue over to transit thing that a couple of inspectors general want an investigation.
So we have to assume that these guys have been looking into this for a while.
But whatever Obama's role in this, I know why you're asking, because this all happening in the executive branch, and if he didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't be, I'm sure you think.
Right, right.
So I don't I don't know.
I uh it I don't know why Obama wouldn't want Hillary.
I don't know why he would want her.
I I uh this that that that I don't have enough information yet to really be safe predicting that, even suggesting, but I will admit to you that it kind of hit me as it's because I thought everybody was in C A CYA mode on this.
At the regime, at the State Department.
But look, folks, I think there is a truism here that has been kept from a lot of people.
The Democrat Party and the media have a major, major task each and every day, and that is myth making.
They have to manufacture myths and magic about their policies.
And I think they have to do the same thing about many of their people.
Kennedy's uh Ted Kennedy was a reprobate, but look what they were able to do with image making and so forth.
I just wonder how really popular Hillary Clinton.
Look at 2008.
It was supposed to be her coronation, and they threw her overboard for the first person that came along that they thought might be able to beat her, Barack Obama.
I think it's there's trouble in paradise there, and there has been for a while.
And another exciting busy broadcast week in the can.
Folks, been great being with you uh every day here, and we'll be back here on Monday, revved up and ready to kick it back in here again.
▲
Export Selection