It's a little too bitter, which means a rapper's been, well, it's either not good or it's been aged for actually too long.
But no matter, we got it fixed.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the Rush Limbaugh program, telephone number 800-282-2882.
And if you ought to send an email, it's LrushBow at EIBNet.com.
It's the fastest three hours in media, and we are into the final hour.
Peter Schweitzer, you know, has written this book called Clinton Cash.
He made this documentary-style movie about it.
And he was on Fox and Friends today.
He's going to put some of this in perspective.
This book is devastating on the Clintons.
I mean, it is, it's not ideological.
It's not left versus right, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal.
He just looked into their practices.
He just found out who's giving them money, why, where's it going, what's it for, and cataloged and has written this incredible, his second book on the Clintons in this regard, Peter Schweitzer.
He's a thinker out there at a think tank, the Hoover Institute, a little conservative enclave hidden down in the basement at Stanford, out in Palo Alto.
He's on Fox and Friends today.
And Ainsley Earhart was talking to him.
And tell us about the movie and your book, Mr. Schweitzer.
The film really walks people through very real examples of how the Clintons have basically become wealthy by peddling government influence and power.
We're not talking about Wall Street or large oil companies in the United States.
We're talking about foreign governments and foreign corporations.
That's, I think, what's so shocking about what the Clintons have done that's unprecedented with any other political figures in American history.
This is a duffer thing.
This is not the speeches.
The speeches, just the last two years of speeches, is $21 million.
The number, the amount of money the Clintons have raised combined speeches since he left the White House 2000, it's over the top.
How much?
But this is the Crime Family Foundation that Schweitzer's talking about.
That's $100 million that's been donated, ostensibly to charity, but it isn't.
It's to Mrs. Clinton and her presidency.
And Schweitzer's looked, it's how we know this.
And he says it's unprecedented with any other political figures in American history.
So Brian Killmee said, look, I watched your movie two weeks ago.
It's unbelievable how it's spelled out.
I walked away thinking, would they be this blatant about these scandals knowing that Hillary Clinton was queued up to run for president?
Why would they take any risk, let alone put this out there?
There has been a pattern of behavior with the Clintons for a long time, going back to when Bill was president, when he was governor of Arkansas.
They always play it very, very close ethically in this way, and they've gotten away with it.
When she became Secretary of State, America's chief diplomat, they basically viewed it as an opportunity to cash in.
Once she became Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees tripled.
The amounts and the quantity that they got from overseas went through the roof.
They cashed in.
There's just no other way to say it.
Yeah, he's right.
And it's exactly right on the money, no pun intended, because they're obsessed with it.
They are obsessed with it.
They want to be among the wealthiest in their circle.
And all the other things wealth provides.
But it's, in addition to that, it's what wealth says about you.
You know, wealth crackles with its own power.
Wealth in its own way is intimidating.
Wealth is the standard old F you money.
And of course, what good's that if you're never going to say F you to anybody?
And so they want to be able to do that.
All kinds of things wrapped up.
Look, before I get back to other things in the news, a couple here with Crazy Bernie, Soundbites 11 and 12.
Stephanopoulos hosted him on this week.
Said, look, as you know, the Clinton campaign has pointed out that they've gotten about 3 million more votes than you have, Crazy Bernie.
And when you look at the delegate map, Hillary Clinton only needs 90 more pledged delegates to get ahead of you and to win, and then it's over.
We need a campaign, an election coming up, which does not have two candidates who are really very, very strongly disliked.
I don't want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils.
Is that how you would describe Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, the lesser of two evils?
That's what the American people are saying.
If you look at the favorability ratings of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, both of them have very, very high unfavorables.
Oh, man, lesser of two evils?
That's a Republican line.
That's how the Republicans have to always complain about their election.
Here's Crazy Bernie now assigning Hillary Clinton to it.
That's another reason they're ticked off at him.
What are you sounding like a Republican for, Bernie?
That sounds like your average conservative whining and moaning.
Lesser of two evils.
What are you doing talking like that?
State of the Union CNN Jake Tapper talking to Crazy Bernie on Sunday morning said, You've been calling for a revolution.
Senator Sanders in Florida, are you with Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz or are you with her opponent?
Clearly, I favor her opponent.
His views are much closer to mine than is Wasserman Schultz's.
And let me also say this, in all due respect to the current chairperson, if elected president, she would not be reappointed to be chair of the DNC.
Look, you can understand why Crazy Bernie doesn't like Debbie Blabbermouth.
Debbie Blabbermouth, you know, it's a little late to be piping up about this now.
I have to tell you, though, he should have piped up about this months ago.
He should have figured out what was happening when they're scheduling debates on Saturday night.
Nobody's going to watch him.
It's all part of the Hillary coronation.
He should have piped up then.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz has been acting as though this whole thing's rigged for Hillary from the get-go.
So he's made it plain that if he's elected president, he's ahead of the party and she is gone.
Now, this next, one more bite, one more might upset the Oprah.
Kokie Roberts on this week on the roundtable.
And George Stephanopoulos says to Donna Brazil, hey, Donna, it seems like that President Obama is almost itching to be Hillary Clinton's communications director.
What do you think about that?
Not only President Obama, but the Vice President Elizabeth Warren, there's so many quote-unquote undeclared Democrats who are ready to get out here and litigate this conversation with Donald Trump.
She has to really focus like a laser beam on these millennials.
She has to work on independents, have to work on white males.
At the end of the day, it's white women.
The problem is white women will determine this election.
Whoo, she interrupted Donna Brazil to make the point here.
Donna Brazil was all set to say at the end of the day, she's and Koki Roberts interrupt.
It's white women.
White women.
White women will determine this election.
Yeah, I know.
Debbie Blabbermouth, well, she ought to be unpopular.
This is not, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz is not.
She's not a likable person either.
My God.
Look, I'm going to rein it in, but you guys know exactly what I am talking about.
This is no way.
There is just alimony would look good.
Anyway, Van Jones, the resident communist in the Democrat Party and over at CNN, he said that he'd rather have Rince Priebus running the DNC than have Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz running it.
And Crazy Bernie saying the same thing.
Okay, there's an NBC News Wall Street Journal poll in addition to this ABC Washington Post poll.
Now, the ABC Washington Post poll has Trump up too, 46 to 44.
The thing is, you have to read like 20 paragraphs to find it in their story.
I mean, they bury it.
They actually, in their story of the Washington Post, talk about how this upcoming election is going to be one of negatives.
They try to focus on the disapproval numbers that both Hillary and Trump have rather than report Trump has assumed the lead in their poll.
It's there, but they don't headline it and they don't trump it.
You have to go get it.
But there's another one out, and that's the NBC News Wall Street Journal poll.
Now, Hillary still leads in that poll, but her lead has shrunken to three points down from double digits.
It wasn't that long ago that every person in politics, Republican or Democrat, a consultant, strategist, you name it, you'll remember this.
Everybody was saying Trump was going to lose in the biggest landslide in the history of landslides.
And it wasn't that long ago that people were still talking that way.
Some Republicans still are, in fact.
But it's not playing out that way.
Hillary is down something like 16 points, aggregate average in these polls since March.
And Trump is up dramatically.
It's the trend line that you look at here.
Hillary Clinton's advances, NBC News.
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Trump has narrowed to just three points, resulting in a dead heat general election contest with more than five months to go.
Clinton leads Trump 4643 among registered voters, a difference that is within the margin of error.
In April, Clinton held an 11-point advantage over Trump, 50 to 39, and had led him consistently by double digits since December.
And look at every other poll.
Hillary is trending the wrong way.
And it's because the more people see her, and this is true not just in this campaign season, it's true of her career.
The more she's seen and heard, the more her numbers drop.
And consequently, conversely, the less that she is seen and the less she speaks in public, the higher her number goes.
It's just true.
You can attach whatever meaning to it you want.
I think it's rather obvious, but I'm not going to just leave it up to you.
It happens to be true.
Hillary Clinton's numbers headed the wrong way.
Now, in addition, remember there are two exit poll questions.
2000, let me see, 2012.
Yeah.
In the 2012 exit polls, there were two questions that I saw in the first wave that told me.
No, one was 2000 of the first Obama, 2008, 2012.
Two questions, two different campaigns.
When I saw the exit polls in 08, McCain versus Obama.
No, no, no, no, I'm wrong.
It's both in 2012.
It's both questions, 2000, two of them.
2012 exit poll question found that 60 some odd of the people still blamed george bush for the economy this is after four years of obama four years of phony stimulus bills to rebuild roads and bridges that never happened and obamacare and four years of us highlighting obama's economic policies and trying to explain that the plunging u.s economy was due to obama but
Four years later, voters in the exit poll still blame Bush.
So I had to examine that, and I did.
And I found out that people just were unable to forget the crash of 2008 with TARP and all that.
And they blamed Bush.
He was president, and they blamed Bush for that, and they still did.
And Obama was getting a total pass, which is why Clinton at the Democrat convention in 2012 went out there and said there was nobody, no former president, including him, who could have done anywhere near as Obama did.
Not as much good.
And then the second question that I saw that led me to believe it was over in the exit polls was the empathy question.
The question cares about people like me.
Obama, 81, Romney, 19.
I saw that, and I threw the exit poll in the air, and I said, forget it, I don't even need to watch the returns.
I'm going to watch them now, but I don't need to watch them to find out what's going to happen, because that question right there, given the electorate and feelings and all this stuff, told me.
And it turned out to be true.
So that's a long way of leading up to the fact that the drive-bys are relying on this again.
Amen.
Hillary's in deep doo-doo.
Nothing's going the way it was planned to go for the Democrats.
She was supposed to be coordinated by now.
Trump was supposed to have embarrassed himself out of the race by now.
It was supposed to be over.
So the drive-by is doing whatever they can do to comfort themselves that no matter how bad Hillary gets, she's still going to win.
And they're doing it on the empathy question.
And the assignment went to Chris Salizza, our old buddy.
We like Chris Saliza.
He's the Washington Post.
His piece: Donald Trump isn't empathetic.
Is that a problem?
As the nation turns its eyes to the general election, writes Mr. Salizza, I have one question that continues to nag at me as I think about the possibility of Trump in the White House.
Can he be empathetic, like at all?
And does he need to be?
You see, the race to be president is unlike other races for elected office.
No one turns to a senator or a member of Congress or a governor when there's a mass shooting or when a tornado devastates a community, but they do turn to a president.
A president is expected to do many things in office, but perhaps the most important is to be both a cheerleader and a shoulder to cry on when moments of great joy and great sadness affect the entire Bobby politic.
For all of Trump's successes to date, and there have been many, Donald Trump has consistently struggled on questions tied to empathy.
Asked which candidate, quote, better understands the problems of people like you, 47% chose Clinton, 36% named Trump.
On the question of who better represents your personal values, 48% chose Clinton, 37% went with Trump.
Two-thirds of voters in the CBS New York Times national poll released last week said Trump did not share their values.
Seven in 10 said he did not have the right temperament to be president.
So you see, there is a desire to hold on to this fact that people hate Trump, don't think he's a feeling guy, doesn't think he can relate to them, cannot be their father, cannot be their parent, and so forth.
I would one thing I would disagree with Mr. Saliza on, and I think governors are looked to.
I mean, look at Governor Christie after Hurricane Sandy.
So I think, but all that aside, I thought the problem with Trump, if I'm going to read these guys right, I thought the problem with Trump was that he could develop into a cult of personality.
He could become a strong man, so loved and adored that he'd get away with all kinds of tyranny.
But now, now it turns out, could be a person nobody would ever like, nobody would ever relate to.
I think they're missing the, I think they're totally missing this bond that Trump has with his supporters, this connection.
I think you try to tell me that Hillary Clinton is a more empathetic figure?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have the slightest idea how people really live.
The only thing she knows is that she wants no part of it.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Back to the phones.
This is Weston in Philadelphia.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Glad you waited.
Hi.
Rush, how are you doing?
Good.
Thanks.
I've been hitting some golf balls in the driving range while I waited, so it wasn't so bad.
Listen, you know, I was thinking of poor Duke Cunningham.
If only he had given some speeches while he was accepting bribes, because really that's all this is, is accepting bribes.
And, you know, you were mentioning the left is upset with corporate America.
Well, listen, I'm a strident right-winger, and I'm upset with them also.
I understand sort of that they have to do it, you know, with the transgendered bathrooms and the gay marriage and whatnot.
You see corporate America bowing to the government, going along with the left because they are fearful.
Fearful, yeah, they are fearful, but they also know, and I've written Trump about this, a line that he should use: the biggest player in business today, and that's everywhere.
That's state, local, and federal.
The biggest player is the government.
Exactly right.
And everybody knows that they have to play ball with these people.
And, you know, my disappointment with the corporate folks, and you've mentioned this before.
Wait just one second.
Wait just one second.
Don't make these guys out to be victims.
These quarters.
No.
These guys are.
They're not all, oh my God, the government's going to do this if I don't.
They're taking the aggressive role.
They're forcing this cronyism.
Many of them are.
Yeah, because they're doing fantastically well.
That's why I'm saying I'm disappointed with them.
I mean, they're lining their pockets.
But it used to be that the elite, the wealthy, the people.
They are winning in the marketplace without having to innovate.
That's the problem.
They are winning because of their association with the government when their competitors don't have it.
They don't have to innovate.
All they have to do is the government punish their competitors with regulations or what have you.
It's CD.
I agree with you, 100%.
Well, that's exactly right.
And it used to be that the people that the Carnegies and the Rockefellers, I'm not saying that they were totally seeds.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
You know, speaking of this cronyism, our last caller was right on the money about it.
The Democrats have their own reasons to despise the banks and so forth.
They think they're in bed with Republicans and they hate capitalism.
You know, leftists hate capitalism.
They despise it.
And Hillary Clinton sidling up to all these banks and taking all his money and owing the banks and being related and bad associated with it.
It just rubs them the wrong way.
But on our side, this crony, whatever you want to call it, capitalism, or I prefer crony socialism.
The way it manifests itself is this.
You've got a guy like Obama who's a statist.
He doesn't want to own these companies.
He just wants to be the boss.
He doesn't want to own the means of production.
He just wants to control it all.
So it's not really communism, socialism, more like fascism in that regard.
Well, then you have a CEO who realizes that rather than fight it, you say, okay, I've got a guy here who wants to be, you know, the boss.
So the path of least resistance for me is to have a relationship with him.
So you are the CEO of the XYZ Electric Company, and you decide that you're going to sit, you're going to be Obama's best buddy, so he will leave your company alone.
Rather than oppose him, which is what people used to do when big socialists came along, everybody in business, for the most part, stood up and joined hands and stopped these people, opposed them, and tried to keep them from being elected.
Doesn't happen anymore.
Now the easiest, least resistance route is to get in bed with them.
And in the case, let's take, how many of you were surprised some years ago when Walmart came out in favor of Obama's minimum wage proposal increase?
People say, Walmart, for crying out Walmart?
I mean, Sam Walmart is returning over to scroll.
Sam Walton, this is crazy.
Walmart, no unions, right-wing company.
Oh, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
How about this?
How about Walmart can say to themselves, you know, we can afford if they mandate another buck or two hour minimum wage.
We can absorb that.
We can figure out a way to hire a few.
We'll support it.
But our competitors may not be able to go along with it.
And so Walmart doesn't have to lower a single price.
They can just rely on the fact their competitors can't compete with this new government regulation or whatever.
That may be another best example, but it results in companies profiting because of their close relationship with the head of state and all of his bureaucrats that lead these agencies, EPA, D-O-J, you name it, HHS, T-S-A.
You got a company that's in bed paying to be there, hands-off.
Competitors, not so much.
And so you don't have to innovate at all to beat your competitors.
You just have to have that relationship with Obama.
And that's why people on the right despise angry.
It's the other thing.
It's always been incorrect to say that big business is pro-Republican.
As is evidenced here by these Clinton speeches.
Let me tell you something.
Wall Street props up the Democrat Party and has for a long time.
And most tech CEOs are huge leftists.
The idea that they support the Republican Party is a myth.
That's the funny thing.
All these leftists, these Bernie people out there thinking Democrat Party's anti-big business, anti-corporation.
They're in bed like you can't believe.
They just lie about it.
You know, they rip into these big, and some of them who aren't in bed, they do try to harm them, big pharma, big oil, big whatever.
But it's in the interest.
I read a piece by David Boaz, who used to be at the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank.
He may still be there.
I don't remember where this was.
But his piece, his article was fascinating.
He said, many of the militant gay political agenda types hate capitalism.
They hate Republicans.
hate conservatism and yet it is the free market economy which has allowed being gay to prosper He said, go to any socialist country, go to any communist, go to any totalitarian country and take a look at how gays are treated versus how they are treated in the United States in a capitalist economy where they can now get married, they can own business wide out in the open.
You can't do that in Cuba.
You can't do it in Saudi Arabia.
You can't do it in Venezuela.
You can't do it in China.
You can't do it anywhere.
And I thought it's an interesting observation because it's right on the, and yet they hate it.
They vote against it.
They donate to Democrats, the socialists' equivalent here in this country.
Anyway, here's John at Yorba Linda, California.
John, what's shaken?
Hey, Rush, how are you doing today?
Good, fine, thank you.
Excellent.
It's got to be one of the closest things of being able to speak with one of our country's founding fathers.
Oh, wow, wow, wow.
Thank you so much.
In fact, I've got to tell you, I've got two daughters who aren't even married yet, and I've already got two sets of your books here just waiting for the corporate.
Holy smokes.
That's great.
Thank you so much.
Hey, listen, I've got a thought as to how Obama can both preserve his legacy and extricate the party from its commitment to what has to be considered a fundamentally flawed candidate.
All he's got to do is just let the DOJ indict Hillary.
You think Obama's worried about that?
Well, worried about which.
Well, I know he's worried about his legacy.
He's worried that Hillary could blow it.
I think he knows that Hillary is going to blow it.
I mean, I think anybody with the brain knows this isn't going to go well.
And I think what he can't tolerate is having her lose to Trump.
You just can't do that.
Okay, let me ask you a question.
The trend line right now, and by the trend has been, Trump has been trending up since day one.
People won't admit it, but Trump has been trending since he got in, right?
He may have leveled off a couple of times, but he's been trending up since he got in.
Hillary has not.
Hillary, ever since Crazy Bernie got serious, has been trending steady or trending down.
What are the odds?
In your experience, is there some magic that's going to happen that changes dynamic?
And all of a sudden, out of the blue, Hillary is going to become loved, adored, charismatic, influential, and is going to create all of this energy, which so far she hasn't been able to muster in two presidential elections.
What are those like that?
Yeah.
No, I think absolutely not.
In fact, I think the more we see of her, the more we see what she's really like.
And I think we could just expect the trend to just keep going away to accelerate in the direction it's already going.
So you think that Obama is going to eventually see this and what?
Let the DOJ have at her?
Yeah, because just think now, okay, so he opens up his library and he'll have a big section dedicated to where he had the most transparent administration in the history of the planet because he even let a presidential candidate get indicted.
And you look at a lot of the biggest spots on his record.
I mean, we've got Fast and Furious and all that, but some of the significant ones are you've got Benghazi and you've got the emails.
And so just think of how many then people will focus on those and he'll think, you know, the last thing they think about will be the thing that matters.
Okay, so in your theory, Obama sends a signal over there to Loretta Lynch and says, okay, drop the hammer.
They indict Hillary, and then what?
We got Biden?
Well, I don't know.
He might let Crazy Bernie take his run.
I mean, he's looking at the poll numbers.
You know, he doesn't have to be crazy about what Bernie stands for, but I think he'll do less damage than Hillary.
I don't think we need to put anybody new in there.
Plus, you know, there's talk of the people at the FBI.
I know.
I'm not so convinced of that.
The scuttlebutt is that Biden is waiting and wants it.
You know, if that happens, you know, we were thinking similar things on the Republican side.
If the Republicans actually took it away from Trump, that it'd be held to pay.
Well, if they indict Hillary, that leaves Crazy Bernie.
If they take it away from Crazy Bernie, do you know what his people are going to do?
And if they give it to Biden, who has not gotten a single vote, has not been in a single primary, if they can, do you know what his people will do?
Donald Trump will win in a landslide with 80%.
That's what they have to be calculating there.
Crazy birdie.
Whoa.
I have to run.
John, I appreciate the call.
Back after this.
Okay, today's lesson or illustration into cultural evolution involves a player for the New York Giants named Genoris Jenkins.
Jenoris Jenkins granted an interview.
I think he's a defensive back.
I'm not certain.
Doesn't matter.
He granted an interview last week with Paul Schwartz in the New York Post.
And it was revealed in this interview that Jenoris Jenkins has five children with four women, none of whom is his wife.
And it was observed to Jenoris Jenkins, well, those women can't be happy about that.
I mean, you've got five children, four women, and not one of them is your wife.
He said, no, no, no.
They're not upset.
When they were going out with me, they understood, okay, I'm a football player.
I'm going to have multiple women.
That just comes with dating the football player, and they knew it.
There you have it.
Cultural evolution 2016, the National Football League.
Nah, five kids, four women.
The women knew going in that he's a football player.
He's going to have a lot of women.
They take what they can get.
It's kind of like dating a rock star, except in those cases, you never know who the father is.
Well, not never, but I mean, it's oftentimes, not till later.
Now I shot an 80.
Yes, I had a good round yesterday.
It was kind of like I was hitting a no-hitter.
Nobody told me.
The scorecard was another cart.
So I did well.
I was creaming the ball again.
Can't wait to get back out there.
Anyway, that's it, folks.
We're out of busy broadcast time for today, but we're back here in 21 hours, revved up and ready to go again, depending on what happens.
Well, not depending.
We will be with whatever happens between now and then.