All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
October 16, 2015, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I can't make up my mind if we're being played again, which is my instincts, or if there really is something to this.
Now, this Hillary email stuff, it just doesn't go away, but there's all kinds of new twists in the story today.
So let's get to it, folks.
It's Friday high.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Not so sunny right now.
Got some rain and thunderstorms out there, but no big deal.
We like it.
Greetings, my friends, Open Line Friday.
If you're new to the program, what that means is the only thing that changes is that pretty much whatever you want to talk about, you can talk about it.
You still have to get straight to it.
The caller clinic earlier in the week, the rules still govern every caller.
Remember, I don't know what you tell the call screener, so don't tell me what you told a call screener because nobody's going to know that.
Just tell me when it's your turn.
But other than that, whatever you want to talk about, have at it.
800-282-2882 if you ought to be on the program.
And I check email and comment on them that now and then the email address is lrushbow at eibnet.com.
Speaking of the weather, it looks like, so I don't trust anything anymore.
I'm getting so cynical.
And I'm in one of these moods today, folks, where I just, everything anybody told me isn't true today.
And I'm just so livid.
Nothing that I have counted on is going to happen today or come through.
And it's just one of these days where I'm not going to take it out on you.
I'm not going to take it out on anybody.
I'll just sit here and stay depressed and fume.
But anyway, there supposedly is this giant El Niño out there.
Well, okay, I got 10 brand new trackpads guaranteed to be delivered by 10.30 today.
And now looks like two of them might be, except don't get me, don't get me.
Don't even ask me anymore about it because that's just a tip of the iceberg.
At any rate, the weather guest people are telling us that the El Niño out there is growing and it's going to rival the El Niño of 1997, 1998.
Now, I remember that one because that was the first year I moved to Florida.
And it was a very depressing year because the El Niño that year, the winter was cold down here for here.
I mean, it never hit 75.
And even in April, it was still barely hitting 70 degrees.
It was rainy.
And that's what happened in El Niño.
The southern half of the country is colder and wetter and the northern half of the country is drier and warmer.
California gets creamed with rain, mudslides.
Remember that?
I mean, half the state was falling into the Pacific Ocean back in 1997.
Anyway, they say that's what's headed for us this year.
But can you believe it?
Can you count on anything anybody, particularly in government, says about anything?
It's sensible to doubt it all.
Now, this Hillary email story, let me just do a brief timeline of this.
Under the umbrella that how many times have we, over the course of the last 25 years, how many times have we been treated to news stories that the Clintons are precariously balanced on the edge here?
And they could go over the cliff.
This could be it.
And each and every time, not a thing happens.
I can give you one example.
I give you many of those, but one example specifically how we end up being played.
During the Monica Lewinsky episode, Bill Clinton was required to give testimony before the grand jury.
So he goes up and he gives the testimony.
The grand jurors go to the White House.
The testimony occurs in one of the rooms of the White House.
And at the end of the day, when Clinton's testimony is over, there's a leak that the prosecutors asked him something.
Ken Starr asked him something, and Clinton just lost it and went berserk.
And so the speculation began.
What was it?
What caused it?
What was the question?
What did Clinton do?
And then little leaks continued to come day by day, reinforcing that.
Then some time later, I don't know if it was days or weeks, they released the video.
And there was nothing.
There was literally nothing.
There was one question about cigars when Clinton raised his eyebrows about a half an inch.
And that was it.
And it was immediately apparent that everybody had been set up, and the purpose of the leak was to make everybody think, uh-oh, Clinton's on the verge of losing it.
This is going to be bad.
We're on the verge of getting Clinton, what have you.
And then nothing happened.
And the uptake on it was: the Clintons survive again.
Whoever was trying to destroy Clinton lied.
It made it look like the Clintons were the ones totally innocent, and the people out to get them were the mad rabid dogs.
And that happened, I can't tell you how many times over how many different events.
Now, you come to this Hillary email story and look at how this has all played out.
Go back to the first day you heard about the fact that she had a server in her basement, wherever, and that she was running a private email system because she didn't trust the government.
Remember everything you've heard about it.
Everything you've heard about it was, wow, this is a huge violation.
Holy cow, this classified diet.
Oh, my God, Mrs. Clinton.
And we started hearing the word indictment.
We started hearing the word FBI investigation, and we started hearing CUMA and Clinton and Obama and so forth.
And then there was the drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, where every day there was something new that clouded the issue and raised more doubts about Mrs. Clinton.
But nothing ever happened.
Nothing ever happened.
It just kept drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, dripping.
And everybody started guessing maybe Obama is trying to just secure death by a thousand cuts.
Maybe Obama is, this is how he's getting even.
Remember all the stories, all the explanations for all of this.
And while it's all going on, there's all kinds of people, you can't escape the talk.
People like, Rush, you think this is it?
We're going to get Hillary this time.
I mean, this is really bad.
You know, if this was Petraeus, look what they did to Petraeus Rush.
Petraeus did half of this and he was threatened with jail and so forth.
You think we're going to get Hillary?
I doubt it.
I don't think so.
I always answered.
This is the short version of the timeline, but you get the drift.
Now, let me share with you some headlines today.
The Drudge Report off of a New York Times story.
FBI fury, Obama sabotaging Hillary investigation.
Wait a minute.
I thought all this time it was Obama running the Hillary investigation, and it was Obama slowing down the Justice Department, standing in the way of this because of what an investigation might reveal about him.
I thought it was Obama in charge of the drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.
Now, the New York Times has a story saying the FBI is livid that Obama is sabotaging the Hillary investigation, which makes it look like Obama's trying to save Hillary.
Really?
Over here, all of this intense focus on what Biden's going to do.
And I talked to a bunch of people today, this morning, who really believe that all of this focus on what Biden is going to do is proof positive that Hillary is going to be indicted.
That's all you need to know, Rush.
The fact that Biden is looking at it closer and closer every day, the fact that people are pressuring Biden to do it, the fact that there are stories about Biden family wanting him to do it, stories about Biden not knowing whether he should, but he's looking at it.
You throw in the story about his dead son who said, do it, dad.
All of this.
Now Biden says, I'm going to decide in three days.
The experts I talk to say this just means one thing.
It means Biden's not going to do this if Hillary is going to hang around.
Not after the way the media is talking about her debate performance the other night, heralding it as the greatest ever.
Why should Biden get in?
But he's still looking at getting in.
Rush, I'm telling you, that means there's something going to be happening to Hillary.
Now, there is a UK Daily Mail story.
Investigation into Hillary's email server focuses on espionage act and could get her 10 years in jail.
As FBI agents say, she could be prosecuted just for failing to tell Obama about her server.
And here are the bullet points.
Federal law makes it a crime for security clearance holders to fail to tell superiors when gross negligence causes a security breach.
Check, that happened.
FBI agent tells ukdailymail.com about Hillary Clinton, quote, the secretary's superior is the president.
That's who she should have told.
That's who she didn't tell.
That's a crime.
Bullet point number three.
So unless Obama was aware of what she was doing when she was doing it, it seems there could be a legal problem for her.
And the final bullet point in the UK Daily Mail story, Obama was asked Sunday on 60 Minutes if he knew at the time that Clinton was running a homebrew email server.
He replied, no.
Oh, he did more than that.
He said it probably wasn't that big a deal, even though he thought she had made a stupid mistake.
Now, when I saw him say that, that she made a stupid mistake, that was Obama saying she did it.
We all know she did it.
That was not Obama protecting her.
The New York Times story from which the drudge headline is called FBI Fury, Obama Sabotaging Hillary Investigation, that headline is, Obama's comments on Clinton emails collide with FBI inquiry.
The New York Times apparently is not sick of this story.
These former law enforcement officials talking to the New York Times don't seem to realize that Obama has fundamentally transformed America.
And things like the FBI being nonpartisan are now quaint, outmoded concepts.
Federal agents were still cataloging the classified information from Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal email server last week when Obama went on TV and played down the matter.
Those statements angered FBI agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton's email setup had in fact put any of the nation's secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised.
Well, wait, okay, that little sentence right here in the midst of all of this headline, bruha.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges.
Well, then, what is all of this about?
I have allowed myself to be played by these people way too many times all of these years.
And this, the inconsistencies in this email story from day to day, one day, there's nothing to see here.
There's nothing to it.
It's no big deal to Obama's shielding her.
Obama's, it's totally up to Obama what he wants to do.
If he wants her to get indicted, she's going to be indicted.
If he doesn't, she won't be.
It's run the gamut.
And it's largely speculation, informed speculation, granted, but it's still speculation.
And now we hear that the FBI is investigating violation of the Espionage Act, which could send her to jail for 10 years if she's indicted and if she's convicted, and that Obama's standing in the way of that investigation.
We've reached the point where as far as the low information voters are concerned, they don't care anymore.
It's news about something and nothing ever happens.
It's a drip, drip, drip.
Someday the news is really big and damaging potentially like this.
And other days, it's just no big deal, nothing to see here.
The server was in a bathroom in Denver and nothing happened.
And Mrs. Clinton, she didn't know if anything was classified.
And she's answered every question and all this stuff.
And after a while, people glaze over because they just can't keep track of it, don't want to keep track of it.
It's a story that's been out there for months and nothing has happened.
If it's a setup, if we're being played like we always have been played, well, then they're doing it really well because this is huge story.
Obama sabotaging the Hillary investigation.
The FBI now trying to prove she violated the Espionage Act.
That's big.
That's minimum 10 years.
If she escapes all of this, what do you think the headlines are?
What do you think the narrative is?
Superwoman.
They threw everything they had at Hillary Clinton, but in the end, she bested all of them.
In the end, she outlasted all of them.
In the end, even if she had violated the law, they couldn't prove it.
They didn't have the guts to prosecute.
They couldn't do anything with it.
It's an opportunity to build this woman up as superwoman smart, particularly coming off this so-called great and brilliant debate performance.
And I've just been played one too many times.
Many too many times.
I've seen this in action before.
And over here, don't forget the name David Petraeus.
David Petraeus was charged.
He was threatened with jail for doing much less than what these allegations against Mrs. Clinton are.
Meaning, if they want to go after somebody on this basis, they can and they can do it easily and they've got the goods.
You see, that's the rub.
They've got the goods.
FBI investigation or not, they've got the goods.
She violated the law.
As I said two weeks ago, where the hell is the indictment?
What is going on here?
What is the point of this?
And it's to play us.
Honestly, how many of you got up today, saw this news, and got all excited?
Oh, man.
Oh, man.
It looks like they're really getting close.
See, that's the purpose.
Yeah, you go back.
The real news out of the Bill Clinton grand jury.
He committed perjury.
That was the real news, but they were able to diminish that because they leaked the fact that he had lost it and gone nuts with some question about Monica Lewinsky and cigars.
That didn't happen, but that's what everybody was looking for when they released the video.
They didn't notice the lies.
They didn't register.
And when it was all over, the wind went out of everybody's sails again, and they were disappointed.
I thought we were going to get him, man.
I thought he blew up.
I thought he would.
Realize we got set up and played again.
And the question is: is it happening again now with this email kaka?
A prominent student anti-rape activist at Oxford University has resigned from all the positions that she holds and is stepping back from all political campaigning after admitting to committing a rape.
Or as she termed it, non-consensual sex.
You heard right.
University anti-rape activist resigns post after confessing she raped someone.
Name is Anna Teriba.
She made the announcement in a statement released to the Oxford student at the student publication.
She said at this year's NUS Black Students Conference, I had sex with someone.
No.
The other party later informed me the sex was not consensual.
I didn't know the sex was not consensual until the person I raped told me.
Well, I added that.
She doesn't write that here, but what does this mean?
The other party later informed me that sex was non-consensual.
I think what it is is on campus, you have to get permission.
At every step, can I kiss you?
Yes, I feel like I'm getting fine.
All right, I feel like taking your bra off.
Yes, I feel like unzipping.
Yes, yes, fine.
Every step of the way, you have to get consent.
You do!
You do!
And apparently, things got out of hand, out of control, and there were a couple of steps where no consent took place.
It was so hot and bothered that these partners, you know, you didn't get my consent for the last two or three steps.
Oh, no, you mean I raped you?
Yeah.
So the anti-rape activist, because she failed to get consent, has engaged in quasi-rape and has had to quit.
See what I mean?
You just can't depend on anybody anymore, folks.
What?
Oh, yeah, yeah, I got it done.
Snerdley just asked me if I finished the essay I was asked to write for National Review 60th anniversary issue.
You know, I could play this.
I could do this the way that Clinton set us up.
You know what I could do?
I could say, folks, I did.
I spent a lot of time.
I agonized over this last night.
I tried to look for a hook.
I found a hook.
And I ended up writing something I love, but it is so explosive.
I don't know that they're actually going to run it.
I could say that.
I could make that up.
I could just totally promote it this way.
Make it out to be something that's something you just can't wait to see based on, I'm not even sure they'll run it.
It's so explosive.
The thing is, I am not sure they're going to run it, but I don't know if it's explosive, but I'm anyway.
We'll find out soon enough.
I want to go back to this anti-rape activist because she issued many statements here, and she admits to raping someone.
And it looks like nothing is going to happen to her because she admitted it, because she admitted she's a fallen liberal and a fallen activist.
Seems like that is punishment enough.
Now, here is her statement in total.
This is Anna Tariba, University of Oxford.
At this year's Black Students' Conference, I had sex with someone.
The other party later informed me that the sex was not consensual.
Does that not sound just funny?
I had sex with someone, and then later they told me it was non-consensual.
Wouldn't you kind of know that?
Anyway, I failed to properly establish consent before every act.
I apologize sincerely and profoundly for my actions.
I should have taken sufficient steps to ensure that everything I did was consensual.
I should have been more attentive to the person's body language.
In failing to clarify that the person consented to our entire encounter, I have caused serious, irreparable harm.
In a separate incident in my first year of university, I was alerted to my inappropriate behavior whilst drunk in a club, where I had touched somebody in a sexual manner without their consent.
I'm detecting a pattern here, and this woman ends up as the anti-rape activist.
In a separate incident, I'm not making any, these are her words.
In a separate incident in my first year of university, I was alerted to my inappropriate behavior whilst drunk in a club, where I had touched somebody in a sexual manner without their consent.
Therefore, this is not an isolated incident.
I apologize sincerely and profoundly for my actions.
With these incidents, I have rightly lost the trust of those who I organize with and fully intend to work to ensure that I both put my politics into practice in my personal relations and prove to them that I am committed to transformation.
As such, it would be wrong of me to accept platforms and access spaces until I have done so.
So the woman admits to two rapes.
Well, two acts of unconsensual sex.
Not isolated incidents.
She has lost the trust of those she organizes with.
And she intends to work to ensure that she puts her politics into practice in her personal relations and to prove to people that she's committed to transformation.
This is looney tunes kind of stuff, but you know what?
It passes for standard, ordinary, everyday behavior on some college campuses today.
And this is what it says.
After, this is from the website I think here is a daily caller.
Anna Tariba, whose statement I just read to you, Anna Tariba appears to have sterling credentials as an activist.
She edited the journal No Heterox, which means no heterosexuals anywhere permitted.
She targeted at Oxford's queer and trans communities.
What is that?
She was targeted at.
Oh, oh.
People were aiming at her, I guess.
She was a member of the Black Students Committee for the UK's National Union of Students.
She worked as a racial equality officer at Oxford.
Recently, she has helped lead a campaign to tear down a campus statue of Cecil Rhodes, whose estate funds the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship.
She once moved another student to tears by attacking an Arabian Nights-themed party as racist.
And she once wrote an editorial decrying the endemic problem of rape culture on our campus.
I don't know how this woman got admitted to the university, much less put in charge of anything.
She's just a standard old leftist lesbian community activist who has been mainstreamed and redefined as what is normal.
Anyway, social media lit up with the news.
People were very distressed over this in both ways, distressed that she had to resign, distressed that this had happened, distressed that she did this.
And then somebody concluded, you know, basically this woman's getting away with sexual assault because she has the right kind of activist credentials, which is the one sane comment that somebody posted here at the end of this story.
Joe Montana, a former quarterback, San Francisco Fortiners, has weighed in on the Tom Brady deflate gate situation.
You know, Tom Brady grew up analyzing Joe Montana.
Joe Montana's one word, by the way.
In sports, Joe Montana is unique.
He's the greatest ever, Joe Montana.
Always say it is one word.
And Joe Montana the other day said he does think that Tom Brady's a cheater.
And he thinks that's great.
Joe Montana thinks it's great.
Joe Montana was on an interview with Andrew Ciciliano with the NFL.
By the way, do you all know who Andrew Ciciliano?
You probably don't.
You ever watched the Red Zone on the NFL Red Zone?
Andrew Ceciliano is the voice.
This guy talks nonstop for seven straight hours.
I have yet to hear a stutter.
He is ad-libbing and reacting to everything they put on the screen.
He doesn't do game play-by-play because the local networks provide that.
But he does all of the commentary guiding the viewer to what game they're carrying, what's happening in games you're not seeing, what just happened in the game you're watching that you might not have noticed.
The guy just is, I've never seen anybody that's able to do this six or seven straight hours.
May take a 10-minute break during halftime or at some point, but, you know, in the late games, it's incredible.
Anyway, he was the guy that interviewed Joe Montana on the NFL network.
And Joe Montana said that cheating is part of the NFL, part of football.
And finding any edge is what makes players and teams great.
The quote from Joe Montana is, they always say, if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying.
Well, they're trying hard, the Patriots.
And I love it.
Montana said in the past that a quarterback can tell when he picks up a football if it's underinflated.
But Joe Montana also said that deflate gave us no big deal.
You know, everybody does everything they can to get a little bit of an edge.
I mean, back when it wasn't illegal, but it was illegal, like our guys used to spray, and everybody did, we used to spray silicone on the jerseys.
Offensive linemen sprayed silicone on the jerseys so the defensive linemen couldn't hold them.
Everybody did it.
If you're not cheating, you're not trying.
Joe Montana.
Defending Tom Brady and the Patriots on NFL Network.
Back here.
And welcome to Open Line Friday.
Rush Limbaugh doing what I was born to do into our 28th busy broadcast year.
By the way, in the next hour, the drive-by media is just beside itself.
The figures on which candidates have received the most amount of money in donations is out.
And the drive-by media is livid at Trump over this.
And it's the entirely wrong take.
They are missing everything important about these numbers.
Who's donating to who and how much money?
And the Republicans especially are missing the point here.
I'll be pointing this out in the monologue segment the next hour, but in the meantime, always try to get a phone call in or two in the first hour, Open Line Friday.
And so Mary Joe in Grand Rapids, it's great to have you with us.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I'm calling about the presidential Democratic candidates, and I am Democrat candidates.
And they are constantly speaking about a life of equality and diversity.
But ultimately, they are living a life of elitism.
As I watched those five candidates up on the stage, all over 60, white, one female.
And I compared that to the Republican candidates who are numerous candidates under 60.
Indian, Cuban, an Italian female.
The difference is staggering.
And if people would just stop and think.
But the problem is that those who follow the Democrats are exactly that.
They're followers.
They're told not to question.
Well, they react to what they hear.
They react to the Democrats preach a good game of diversity and fairness and equality and all that.
And the people eat it up.
I think they mean it.
And they also believe it when they are told Republicans are racist, sexist, big, and homophobe.
Yet, as you say, when you look at the Republican debate field, you see practically an element of every possibility in this country, ethnically.
You're right.
You have Cuban and Canadian ethnicity.
You have African American.
You have white rich.
You have white poor.
You have white middle class.
You have African American middle class.
It covers the gamut.
There's all kinds of diversity.
And yet the reality of what people see is overshadowed by years and years and years of the Democrats in the media accusing the Republicans of not being diverse and hating everybody who isn't white.
Yet when you look at the Democrats, all you see is white.
All you see is aged, seasoned citizens in most cases.
You don't see any minorities, ethnic or otherwise.
And you can't say Hillary's a minority because women, she's not, there's no way she can be tagged as a minority.
She had five people up there, four men, one woman, all white, all over 60, not exactly diverse.
But you want to hear the piece de résistance on this?
I am not making this up.
The Washington Post watched the same debate you and I did.
They saw Bernie Sanders, aged white guy.
They saw Lincoln Chafee, dumb, close to aging white guy.
They saw Hillary Clinton, aging, obviously, white woman.
They saw Jim Webb.
And in Jim Webb, you kind of say, what's he doing here?
But still you saw a upper middle class, almost aging white guy.
And then Bernie Sanders, an obvious, seasoned citizen and bitter and angry white guy.
The Washington Post saw all of that too, and it didn't register.
The Washington Post wrote a story going after CNN for not having diversity in the moderators.
No, I'm not making this up.
Washington Post went after CNN in an article on Wednesday titled, Where Were CNN's Black and Latino Moderators All Night?
The Washington Post accused CNN of talking a big game about equality and inclusion, but broadcasting just the opposite.
So when the Washington Post saw the same debate you and I did, they missed the fact that every Democrat was old and white.
And instead they focused on CNN and they saw Dana Bash and they saw Anderson Cooper.
Hell, CNN had more diversity than the Democrat candidates had.
They had a woman.
They had a gay, homosexual.
Besides Anderson, there was Anderson Cooper and Dana Bash and who did they have somebody else that was moderating or was this those two?
Seems there were three people asking.
Oh, there was an Hispanic guy.
There was an Hispanic guy asking Hispanic-related questions.
Oh, yeah, Don Lemon, a black guy, he got in.
Well, he got to read a question off Twitter or Facebook or something.
At least he got some FaceTime.
It's exactly right.
So the Washington Post, Don Lemon, black guy, Anderson Cooper, and then Dana Bash, white and an Hispanic guy and homosexual in that group.
And they accuse CNN of not being diverse, and they miss entirely the Democrats on the stage.
You've got to be trying to get that story.
I mean, how do you ridiculous?
But they go after CNN and give every Democrat on that stage a pass.
Mary Joe, I appreciate the call.
This is Tom in Baltimore.
You're next.
Great to have you on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hi there.
It's great to be on the show again.
I taught you as a rush baby, and I just wanted to say what an honor it is as a rush baby to be here.
Thank you very much, sir.
I appreciate that.
But so my point here is this.
After watching the Republican debate, I saw that, and many of them did have good conservative points to make, but overall, there was a lot of infighting and a lot of areas where they were not presenting themselves as conservative.
There were many that stayed conservative the whole debate, but overall were not unified.
They did not present themselves as an ideologically pure conservative party.
But if you compare the Republican debate to the Democrat debate, they all presented themselves as supporters of big government, reduction in individual freedom, redistribution of wealth.
They all presented themselves as that.
And in that way, I feel like the Democrat Party is very ideologically pure and unified.
And they use that power to their advantage when they're trying to create legislation.
Well, there's no question.
Look, this cuts both ways.
I mean, you can say the Democrats are in lockstep, and they are.
On the Republican side, you could say they're not monolithic.
There's all kinds of different points of view welcome in the Republican Party, i.e.
the big tent that we are not exclusionary of people.
But that doesn't seem to persuade anybody.
It doesn't seem to say to people, you know, the Republican Party is pretty good.
They allow all kinds of different ways of thinking.
That doesn't seem to work.
The Republican Party is actively trying to suppress conservatives, Tom.
And the Democrats are indeed unified on the fact that you and I are not qualified to lead our lives.
They must do that for us.
Yeah, the drive-by media is shocked at how much money Donald Trump has raised.
They're shocked at how much money has been donated to Donald Trump because Trump's out there bragging about he's not taking any.
And they're trying to discredit Trump on that basis, and they're missing the point yet again.
▲
Export Selection