All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:22
January 26, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So a big red flag has been thrown up as a result of the Trump Trumpster on MSNBC today assuring everybody he will work with the Democrats and touting his ability to do so.
That's a big step in it.
I know he's doing this in the context of trying to contrast himself with Ted Cruz who says nasty.
Everybody hates Cruz, never been able to get things done, so forth.
But the last thing anybody, and I'm guaranteeing, last thing anybody supporting Trump wants is for him to work with Democrats.
He wants him to skunk them like he's talking about winning everything else he's doing in his deal making and negotiating.
It includes Democrats.
It includes beating Democrats.
It includes winning over the Democrats, not just the Iranians, and not just Putin, and not just the THICOMs.
It includes winning over the Democrats, beating the Democrats.
We'll see how this plays out.
I know he's going to say he's trying to, hey, you know, this is just in the context here.
Cruz out there can't work with anybody.
And I know, I do think I need to repeat here, I think it's fascinating here that Trump has sort of redefined what he thinks the position of presidency is is making deals.
No matter what it is, everything is a deal.
Every part of your agenda you're trying to advance happens as the result of a deal.
And there's nobody better at doing deals than he is.
And he means it from the standpoint of winning them.
And he better mean it with Democrats.
Greetings and welcome back.
El Rushbo behind the golden EIB microphone at 800-282-2882.
Now, the grand jury down in Dallas, I'm sorry, in Houston, over this Planned Parenthood thing.
Here you have the Harris County DA convene a grand jury with these two people from the, I never can remember the name of their group.
Let me grab this rule.
It's the Center for Medical Progress.
These two people, a guy and a girl from the Center for Medical Progress, go in and make secret videotapes of having lunch with or meetings otherwise with members of Planned Parenthood.
They get them on videotape and audio tape talking about chopping up dead babies and selling, in some cases, live tissue parts, dead tissue parts with selling them for profit.
They pose as potential buyers.
So a grand jury is convened in Harris County, Texas, which is Houston, for the apparent purpose of compiling and creating and presenting evidence against Planned Parenthood for what they've done.
And in the process, something goes terribly wrong, and the two people from the Center for Medical Progress end up being indicted for criminal behavior in the way they secured the videos.
And now they are subject to 20-year jail terms.
So I reached out to some trusted legal people.
And here's this is a sensible take on what happened.
And it does involve a rogue prosecutor who was able to take the circumstances on the ground and do a 180 with them.
And here's the point.
In a regular criminal investigation that is undercover, which is what the two people from the Center for Medical Progress.
What just happened?
Center for Medical Progress essentially went in undercover.
They were disguised as potential buyers.
That is key here.
In a regular criminal investigation that's undercover, the police undercover operatives, the black bag operatives, the undercover agents and their undercover informants have immunity in the criminal transactions they're negotiating.
Like if you go undercover to score a big heroin deal, you can't get prosecuted for buying heroin in the process because you're granted immunity as part of being an undercover agent, right?
Makes sense?
Well, what the prosecutor did here is essentially say journalists do not have this legal immunity to do undercover work as the cops do.
You can't just say I'm a journalist to go in there undercover and be immune from whatever criminal actions you engage in in order to entrap or ensnare your targets.
Now, this is a guess.
It's an analysis of what might have gone on.
A rogue prosecutor who knows that journalists do not have legal immunity to do undercover work as the cops would have.
So even though the journalists, the two people from the Center for Medical Progress, even though they didn't really want to buy baby parts any more than any undercover cop really wants to buy a bag of crack cocaine, you have pro-abortion activists in the DA's office.
You've got a Planned Parenthood board member in the DA's office who are taking advantage of the fact that the undercover journalists from the Center for Medical Progress do not have immunity protection, the same as an undercover officer or confidential informant would have.
And so they can be charged.
So all that has to happen is that your rogue prosecutor, working in concert with your pro-abortion activist and DA's office, get in the grand jury room and start explaining all this to the grand jury, which made up potentially your average Hillary voter, for all we know.
And you start explaining what really went on here.
Here we have this great organization, Planned Parenthood, that's trying to plan families and trying to protect women from the terrible, almost fatal disease of pregnancy.
And here come these rogue agents, disguised as journalists, but they don't have immunity.
And they're the ones who've engaged in criminal activity.
And the prosecutor can present whatever case she wants in there.
And you can have these grand jurors.
This is outrageous.
You mean they did all that?
They placed and true.
We think they the ones ought to go to jail.
Not the Planned Parenthood people.
We think they're the ones ought to go to jail.
Prosecutor smiles.
Comes, I got an indictment, but it's for the Center for Medical Progress.
And everybody's going, what?
So it could be something entirely different, but this is a theory that makes complete total sense to me because it is, in fact, rooted in legal truth.
A couple of more Trump sound bites here before we get to the Democrat side of things.
As you know, Donald Trump is saying he may not show up at the Fox debate tomorrow night.
Here he is last night on CNN talking about it.
Wolf Blitzer said, Donald, you and Megan Kelly have had issues, and she's one of the moderators of Thursday's debate.
Are you going to be there?
Are you going to show up at the Fox debate?
I don't like her.
I might be the best thing that ever happened to her.
Whoever even heard of her before the last debate, but I thought she was very unfair in the last debate.
I'm not a fan of Megan Kelly.
If I think I'm going to be treated unfairly, I do something else.
But I don't think she can treat me fairly, actually.
I think she's very biased, and I don't think she can treat me fairly.
But that doesn't mean I don't do the debate.
I don't think she can treat me fairly, and I'm not a big fan of hers.
Maybe I know too much about her.
Okay, now, did you know how many times he said, I'm not a big fan?
I don't like her.
She doesn't like me.
That was the whole bite.
He kept repeating that.
My contention is that's when he's thinking of what he next wants to say, and this case didn't come up with anything.
So he kept repeating what his point was.
Now, I let me see a show of hands in there.
I got three people here that could have been on the Texas grand jury for all I know.
How many of you think Trump is going to show up at the debate on Fox?
All three think he's going to show up.
Exactly.
Exactly right.
This is called hyping the audience.
This is called creating an even larger audience than Fox got when they handed 25 million or 24 million, whatever it was.
There's no question he's going to show up.
Well, there might be a question.
But he wasn't finished knocking Megan Kelly.
Good morning, America, today.
George Stephanopoulos, well-known Democrat Party hack, says, seems like Fox News might be taunting you a little bit, suggesting you're showing fear.
You're a little bit afraid to show up because of Megan Kelly.
You might be afraid of her.
You're afraid of the questions that she might ask you.
No, I have no fear.
I don't think she's a good professional.
She's very biased against me.
I don't think she's a very talented person.
I don't think she's a good reporter.
I love doing the debates.
I just do think they should get competent reporters.
They shouldn't use somebody like her.
She's not very good at what she does.
I will tell you that.
We should assume he'll be there Thursday night.
Well, you can probably make that assumption, but I'm thinking about it.
He's holding out the possibility he won't show.
come on, and have it written and said that he chickened out because Megyn Kelly...
See, he issued a demand.
He told Fox, you get her out of there.
She doesn't like me.
She hates me.
She's not very talented.
I saw enough blood last time.
I don't want to see any more.
Get her out of there.
I'm not showing up.
I don't want to do the debate.
Well, he didn't say the blood.
I just threw that in there.
And Fox said, well, she don't get to pick the journalists.
You don't get to pick the journalists.
Screw this.
And Trump says, okay, well, I'm not going to show up.
I might not show up.
I might, I might not.
All the while continuing to insult her.
This just hypes it.
This just hypes it.
And in fact, everybody knows what's going to happen.
She can't back down.
She's got to ask what everybody would consider to be a tough question.
He has to be prepared to deal with it.
However, see, I told you she hates me.
I told you I knew I shouldn't have come here.
I knew it.
But I wanted to be true to my commitments.
But look at that.
She doesn't like me.
You can tell by the very first question she asked me.
She prefers somebody else up here.
Anyway, I can just see it happening.
Both of them have to stay in character.
Not an insult.
Don't misunderstand.
Here's F. Chuck Todd weighing in on this on the Today Show today.
He was talking to Mount Wower.
Mount Wauer said Donald Trump threatening to pull out of the Fox news debate because Megan Kelly is going to be there.
Does he do anything with that strategy other than make her a bigger superstar?
I think it does.
Look, I think he's working the ref a little bit.
And already, if he gets a question he doesn't like, he can just chalk it up to that.
So I think he's just setting the expectation.
So he's working the ref a little bit.
He's trying to get fair questions, easy questions, and so forth.
And if he doesn't, he can just say, see, see, she doesn't like me.
See, I told you she's biased.
See, I told you they had it in for me, but I showed up.
Or what have you.
The super secret endorser has been announced.
And it's not Jeff Sessions.
It's Jerry Falwell Jr., who everybody thought it was going to be when it was Sarah Palin.
Ended up being Sarah Palin.
The first name that got floated around was Jerry Falwell Jr.
Okay, a brief obscene profit timeout here on the fastest three hours in media, and then we will be right back.
Okay, before we get to the sound bites from whatever this was last night that the Democrats put on, I'm going to go back to the phones because I just realized it's been a while since we've had a call or two.
And believe me, those of you on the phones are far more important to me than Hillary Clinton at Crazy Bernie.
So we'll go back to the phones.
Tom in Downingtown, Pennsylvania.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Great to talk to you.
I think I first caught you.
Were you on an 88 in the Virginia Beach by any chance?
Wow, 1988 means you are a lifer.
Virginia Beach.
I was just on vacation, and when you came on in Philadelphia, I heard you after that.
You see, everybody remembers where they were when they first heard that.
That's true.
Well, here's what my point.
If you went to the auto mechanic to get your class fetched, and he said, I can fix it, but it's going to take a while.
You wouldn't say, okay, I'll be back in a while.
You would ask him what he meant by that.
And the word conservatism, I think that question has to be asked of that also.
And when I hear people saying Trump's not conservative, I say in my mind he is.
I mean, traditional conservative used to mean balanced budgets, staying out of foreign wars, limiting immigration, and promoting American manufacturing.
These poor guys in Mount Rushmore are going to be a little bit more.
Hang on just a little bit.
Wait just a second here, Tom.
You are making – see, he's proving my point.
Listen to his definition of conservatism.
Now, I don't care what you think of it, but it's probably not yours.
Not universally.
This is my point.
I think when I say that the Republican establishment is overestimating the conservatives, and they're overestimating the single-minded, monolithic definition of what they think a conservative is.
A guy like Tom here does not fit the definition of the drive-bys, nor of our Republican establishment.
They think pro-life, pro-life, pro-life, and small government.
That's what they think conservatives are.
And Tom here has just made it plain that he's a much more broad-minded, broad-based conservative than what many in the Republican Party would consider a conservative to be.
And that you are supporting Trump.
Is that right?
I mean, you know, in terms of him making the deals for the subject of today, suppose he, I mean, I think that this way he operates.
Suppose he backs down on the wall.
But catcher, watch Sal D-Verify, eliminate sanctuary cities, and, you know, and just in general, put more border guards and things like that.
That'd be better than we had now.
Do you follow me?
He says things to get the deal.
Wait a minute.
Wait, wait, wait, hold it.
I need to make sure I heard you on that.
You're saying that Trump could back down on the wall and back down on sanctuary cities and his supporters would understand it?
No, I'm not saying back down.
I'm saying if he, as a tactic, gave in on the wall, or could simply couldn't get the wall built, but got Roxanne, D. Verify, and eliminated sanctuary cities.
I think that would be a win.
Don't you?
Well, I'm not analyzing it that way.
I'm analyzing your thinking.
I'm listening to you, and I'm analyzing your thinking on this.
So you are already, the way I hear you, and I could be wrong.
Don't be afraid to tell me I'm wrong.
I know it's rare, but it could be.
You're already making excuses for Trump not following through on what you think he said he's going to do.
No, I think he will do it, but if he doesn't, I'm saying as a when people negotiate to get things, it's just like a pro-athlete.
He asked for $20 million.
Wait a minute again.
Are you saying Trump is negotiating with the voters?
No, I'm saying he's a realist and he's not a dictator when he gets elected president.
And if he's setting high expectations, but if he doesn't get them, it's just like Tom, wait a minute.
Mr. Bardy said, chase perfection, catch excellence.
Tom, the wall is the top five reasons.
Stopping, sending them back.
They got to go.
They got to go.
Build a wall.
Of course.
We're going to build a wall.
Mexico's going to pay.
If that doesn't happen, you're telling me that Trump supporters are going to be cool with it as long as he sets up some other system to deal with it?
The wall is a tactic to stop immigration or put a hold on it or limit it.
If he limits, if he accomplishes that some other way, no other politician has been able to do it since Eisenhower.
But, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's not just the wall.
Mexico is going to pay for it.
That's not something he just said opening day and forgot it.
It has been front and center.
Said it as recently as last week.
Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
Of course, Mexico.
Crowd stands up, standing ovation, cheers wildly.
And you are.
You are setting up potential justifications for Trump either being unable to deliver or just not trying, one way or the other.
You've got it set up so that you're not going to feel lied to.
You're not going to feel used or any of that.
I mean, you've raised a couple points here that I have been, I think are crucial about this.
After, if Trump wins, if he gets elected, there's a lot of stuff.
He had better do something.
I mean, this is, he's laid out a very specific set of things he's going to do that only he can do.
And then nobody's going to stop him from doing.
Anyway, your other thing that you said, and this is not related, but you started off your call by when you go into an auto mechanic and you ask, when's the thing going to be done?
My car going to be done.
And if they give you a vague answer, like, well, it'll be a while.
You don't want to hear in a while.
You want to hear a specific time frame.
And I just, my reaction, you have just identified a pet peeve of mine.
I hate it.
Somebody says, okay, I'll meet you at so-and-so.
When are you going to be there?
Soon.
No, no, no.
What is soon?
Tell me when you're going to be there.
It'll be soon.
What's soon to you?
Soon could be two hours to you.
I want to know what it is.
Now, if you think Trump is playing games like that by not specifying various things to leave some leeway and latitude, then you are already constructing excuses for him not coming through.
Okay, we're back.
El Rushbo with half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Here we go to the Democrat.
They called it a town hall last night on CNN.
It was moderated by Andrew Kumo and I think some others maybe.
And they did it one candidate at a time.
They started out with Crazy Bernie, who promised to raise everybody's taxes and make Medicare free to everybody.
I listened to these guys talk about how they're going to raise tax.
I mentioned this once before, and I know it's a rhetorical thing, but there's a serious point of it.
Why even collect taxes?
Why even worry about it other than to control people?
Because the collection of taxes and raising revenue is irrelevant to the way you spend money.
They're spending money we don't have already.
So what is the big deal about raising taxes?
Why even worry about the deficit?
They don't make any pretense of worrying about the deficit.
We're $20 trillion in debt.
You listen to these people talk, and there's no end to this.
They're going to spend it.
They're going to raise taxes.
94 million Americans not working.
They can't pay the taxes.
The people still working don't earn enough money to pay any significant increases in taxes.
And yet here's crazy Bernie going on and on about it, as though we're never in debt.
We have no deficit, and the rich are not paying anything in taxes.
And nobody is.
And it's about time we raised everybody's taxes to a responsible level and then give away more free stuff.
Juxtaposed against $20 trillion of national debt, $8 trillion of it with Obama, $7 trillion, $8 trillion of it created in the last seven years.
The whole idea of raising revenue to run the government is meaningless when you compare it to the way these people want to spend it and do spend it.
Anyway, Bernie was first, then Martin O'Malley, and then Hillary brought up the rear.
And they had audience members asking questions, and it looks like many of the questions were written in advance and handed to people who were selected to stand up and ask them.
Here is audience member Elena Dietz, who is leaning towards Sanders.
She says, Secretary Clinton, earlier this month, Vice President Joe Biden said you were a newcomer to the issue of income inequality while praising Senator Sanders for his authentic voice on the issue.
How do we know that you will keep this issue a top priority?
Now, forgive me, but I just don't believe your average Democrat voter thinks that way nor speaks that way.
I think what happened here is the Democrat Party decided the issues it wanted addressed, put them in the form of questions from a compliant, willing audience of Democrat voters, made to look like these are actual concerns of Democrat voters.
I'm not saying they don't care about income inequality, but nobody's going to run.
Last week, Joe Biden said this about Bernie and you and this.
This is too perfect.
There's too many foils in this crowd.
Too many fall guys have been set up for Hillary to knock over.
And they just happen to be the two guys being touted as potential replacements for her if she ends up indicted or behind bars.
So anyway, here's the question again.
Secretary Clinton, earlier this month, Vice President Joe Biden, this is the kind of question that Chuck Todd would ask you on Meet the Press.
Secretary Clinton, earlier this month, Vice President Biden said that you were a newcomer to the issue of income inequality while praising Senator Sanders for his authentic voice on the issue.
How do we know that you will keep income inequality a top priority?
I have a 40-year record of going after inequality.
And not only economic inequality, racial inequality, sexist inequality, homophobic inequality, the kinds of things that go after people to put them down and push them back.
What?
I have a really long history of taking on all kinds of inequality.
And when I went to Beijing in 1995 and said human rights were women's rights and women's rights were human rights, that was a statement about inequality, economic inequality, education inequality, cultural inequality, every kind of inequality you can imagine.
Okay, you see what I mean?
That answer was just lying in wait, just waiting to be spoken.
There's nothing ad-lib about that answer.
Now, she talks about how she'd been doing all this stuff here for 40 years.
That's a hell of a record, by the way, of failure.
40 years, and they're still complaining about it all.
And these people, they were still complaining about the state of the country, even after seven years of them and Obama running it last night.
This is the thing that continually amazes me.
It's the limb theorem all over the place.
It's like this country's been on autopilot from George W. Bush ever since 2001.
They haven't been able to stop anything.
And finally, finally, we're going to stop it.
Mrs. Clinton detailing everything that's gone wrong, including the last seven years, never once mentioning that they have been running the show the whole time.
But we went back.
Mrs. Clinton here talks about her 40-year record, racial inequality, homophobic inequality, how she'd been fighting homophobic inequality for 40 years.
That would mean that Mrs. Clinton has a record of being pro-gay marriage, right?
Well, well, well, well.
As we went back to the groove yard of forgotten soundbites here, we found November 20th, 2002, PMS NBC, a special hardball college tour with Hillary Clinton at the University of Albany.
Chris Matthews, back when he was sane, well, relatively speaking, was interviewing Hillary Clinton during the QA.
Now, this goes by fast, but it's an eight-second soundbite.
So turn up your radios here.
Give me a while to do that.
Three, two.
I'll give you a, here's Matthew's question: Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?
You'll hear him ask the question, and here's her answer: Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?
No.
No.
Okay.
Hey, folks, that's just like 14 years ago.
But she said she's been always for it.
She did last night.
In addition to this thing, she said she'd always been in the camp supporting gay marriage, just like Obama wants you to believe.
But none of these people were for gay marriage until, what, three, four years ago?
None of them, every damn one of them, when they were running for office prior to 2012, were opposed to gay marriage, including Mrs. Clinton.
The next question came from a millennial audience member, Taylor Gipple, Iowa native leaning for Bernie Sanders.
Question: Mrs. Clinton, it feels like there's a lot of young people like me who are very passionate supporters of Bernie Sanders, and I just don't see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you.
In fact, I've heard from quite a few people my age that they think you're dishonest.
But I'd like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm is there.
So the question, Mrs. Clinton, I'm a millennial.
A lot of my friends love Bernie Sanders.
They think you're a liar, but I don't care about that.
I want you to tell me why they're so enthusiastic for Bernie.
The guy just told her that his friends think that she is dishonest.
But he doesn't ask about that.
He wants to know what she thinks about why there's more enthusiasm for crazy Bernie.
I've been around a long time.
People have thrown all kinds of things at me.
And, you know, I can't keep up with it.
I just keep going forward.
They fall by the wayside.
They come up with these outlandish things.
They make these charges.
I just keep going forward because there's nothing to it.
They throw all this stuff at me.
And I'm still standing.
You have to say to yourself, why are they throwing all of that?
Well, I'll tell you why.
Because I've been on the front lines of change and progress since I was your age.
Yeah, well, this kid doesn't think you have much to show for it.
That's the point.
And that's the whole reaction.
I've been doing this and I've been doing that.
I've been leading this.
I've been fighting for that.
And yet you're still complaining about all of it.
As though nothing's gotten done.
There's still inequality out there.
There's still bigotry out there.
There's still racism out there.
There's still sexism out there.
There's still unfairness out there.
There's still mean-spiritedness out there.
There's still extremism out there.
There's still Republicans out there.
She's been fighting it her whole life.
So here you're a millennial.
You're basically standing up asking your grandmother.
And Hillary's answer, I don't know that that's what millennials want.
This sounds like a parent or grandparent lecturing you, yelling at you, telling you, hey, look, bud, I've been fighting in the trenches while you were just a whipper snapper eating Cheerios with your Snickers bar.
I've been out there fighting for real change my whole thyroid problem.
Cough, I mean life.
That's Mrs. Clinton's answer.
Grab the hook.
And now brief timeout, my friends.
Sorry, roll on, right?
I'm sorry.
I couldn't help it.
You know, not only was Hillary anti-gay marriage, she was anti-gay gay marriage as recently as 2008 during that campaign, folks.
Anti-gay marriage.
She was also pro-Iraq war.
She voted for the Iraq War.
Now, poor crazy Bernie has tried to make that point.
Crazy Bernie just does not make it forcefully enough.
Crazy Bernie knows.
I mean, he doesn't want to be the kind of guy that dies by virtue of suicide with two gunshots in his head.
So he's playing it very close to the vest.
Here is Ellen in Rochester, Washington.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
Hi.
I was thinking about how politicians say that they're going to do something before they're elected into office and they never follow through with it.
Right.
And so Mike Huckabee stuck up for the county clerk who went and signed the marriage license and kind of rallied behind the woman, I believe her name was Kim Davis.
Jim Davis, correct?
And so the whole thing with Planned Parenthood, excuse me, the politicians who say that they're going to shut down Planned Parenthood when they become president, I would like to see some action prior to to ensure that what they're saying...
Well, see, this is another somewhat glaring example.
How many, Mr. Snirdley, you follow this kind of minutiae.
How many defund Planned Parenthood votes have there been?
One.
How many have there been talked about?
How many times have we heard there's going to we're going to defund this?
We're going to take care of it.
You elect me.
If we get the Senate, if we get the House or whatever, it's talked about a lot, but all the time it doesn't happen.
And this is just to chalk up another reason why people are worn out on promises and assurances from the establishment.
But this case, this grand jury, and what happened here, if this is right, if this prosecutor decided to go after these two videomakers because they didn't have immunity like other undercover cops do, and therefore they committed crimes, and we're going to go after them instead of planned.
This is going to be fascinating to watch how this shakes out.
Anyway, got to take a break here, folks, because we're about out of it.
Darn it, folks.
I just realized I didn't get to a story that I had here on the stack of non-political news.
New York City is on the verge of allowing public urination so the people who now do it will not be penalized.
They'd rather not tell them no.
▲
Export Selection