All Episodes
Previous Next
May 25, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:22
May 25, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And I'm going to tell you something else here, folks.
I think on this whole whatever you call it the Great Recession, the housing crisis, and Trump, if they're Trump in there.
I have a suspicion that a bunch of Democrats are going to be hearing things for the first time, and they're not going to know how to deal with it.
Such is the safety of the cocoon that has been built by them for them.
Greetings, welcome back.
L. Rushbow, Rush Limbaugh here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address Lrushbo at EIB net.com.
I can't, I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but there are numerous ones that we've pointed out in just in recent months, where you'll be watching a cable news show, and some subject like the housing crisis will come up, or something where it's automatically assumed it's George W. Bush's fault,
that the left and the media have successfully woven deep tentacles of deceit throughout it so that everybody thinks, including Democrats, everybody thinks that whatever it is we're talking about is directly attributable to Bush.
And all of a sudden, somebody comes and says, No, no, no, no, no, no, that's Bill Clinton, the starting point, but that's Bill Clinton.
You can see these Democrats get quizzical looks on their faces, and their instinct is that's crazy.
But they they don't quite know what to do with it because they've never heard that version of the story.
It happens, it happens to CNN anchors all the time.
It happens to a lot of drive-by newsing, like Chris Cuomo will hear a version of a story that he's just gobbledygook to him.
He doesn't get it.
And I think this housing bubble thing, the subprime mortgage crisis is a classic.
Now, I'll explain what I mean here in just a second, but first Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton are out there ripping Trump because he admits that he wants the market to go low so he can buy in and turn a profit as the market rebounds.
He says, Who doesn't?
And they're trying to portray Trump as a heartless, mean guy that doesn't care about people suffering and doesn't care about people hurting.
The problem with that is you know, this is a classic.
They make this allegation because it's the same allegation they make about every Republican or every conservative, heartless, cold, mean spirited.
They don't even wait for a Republican to open his mouth.
They just level the charge.
Because nobody ever calls them on it.
And so they're doing it now.
They get a soundbite from Trump in 2006 where he's waiting for the bubble to crash and profit from it.
And they say, aha!
Aha!
See, mean-spirited, cold-hearted, cruel, doesn't care about suffering, and they launch with the attack.
What they fail to do is listen to what Trump is saying on the campaign trail.
And I will guarantee you that everybody supporting Donald Trump is convinced he cares about them.
Everybody supporting Donald Trump is convinced he's looking out for them.
Everybody supporting Donald Trump is convinced that finally their concerns are going to be addressed and dealt with.
That's why Trump has the support that he does.
And so, but here comes Hillary Clinton, here comes Elizabeth Warren and whoever else they throw out there, making the generic charge that Trump, because he's a Republican and a businessman, has no heart, has no soul, has no compassion,
that it isn't going to work because the exact reason Trump has support is because the people supporting him think that he has all of that and more because they think he's looking out for them, that he finally there is somebody representing their interests when they don't think they've had anybody representing their interests in years.
So the charge that the Democrats usually get away with making is going to backfire.
They are again, it it boils down to they are not used to a Republican firing back at them and doing two things, defending himself and then obliterating them in the process.
They're used to getting away with the charge.
The charge becomes proof.
The charge becomes fact, the allegation.
Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, they sit there and take it and move on.
Every other Republican has no response to it.
Trump hears it, fires back, and in the process insults them.
So the third reply is what they're up to, and they're not, they've never been there.
They've never had to get into this with the third reply.
Some of their spokespeople have, like Lanny Davis, but Hillary hasn't.
So they end up, they end up befuddled, and they all they've got are these playbook textbook allegations.
Republicans equal racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Republicans equal cold-hearted, mean-spirited, cruel, heartless, whatever.
And they say it about every Republican without concern for whether it's true or not.
They never listen to what Republicans say.
In Trump, they've got somebody who has support precisely because he is all of that.
So here's Elizabeth Warren, and she's out there ripping into Trump along with Hillary for the usual reasons.
And she could feel if if the candidate were any of the other Republicans in the field, except maybe for Cruz, but water under the bridge now.
But if she could be confident that all of the hypocrisy that she's engaged in in her life will never be mentioned.
And if it is, the media won't give it any attention, and therefore nobody really hears it.
So Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, every liberal Democrat under the sun is used to getting away with defamatory allegations.
But with Trump, it's going to be reacted to.
And Elizabeth Warren is a huge hypocrite when it comes to the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis.
This is a story from 2012, June the second.
When she's not looking out for the little guy being taken advantage of by predatory lenders, Elizabeth Warren is making high interest short-term loans to family members and flipping homes for a profit.
That's the revelation in a story published today by the Boston Herald, which identifies nine instances when Elizabeth Warren made a quick profit, either buying and reselling homes, or loaning money to family members to flip homes in the late 1990s.
For instance, in 1993, Pocahontas purchased a foreclosed home in Oklahoma City for 61 big ones.
She resold that home a year and a half later for 95,000 big ones.
In several more cases, Pocahontas provided loans so that her brother could buy homes and flip them.
In 2000, she reportedly gave her brother a loan with 9.5% interest so he could buy a home for 35 grand.
He sold that home three months later for a 10% profit.
Flipping homes was a profitable investment for the Warren family, which made as much as 383% on a five-month transaction.
The average gain in the Warren home flipper family seems, the average gain seems to have been closer to 40%.
There was nothing illegal about what they were doing, but it was singled out by progressives connected to the Obama administration as one of the irresponsible practices that led directly to the financial crisis.
And there in lies the route to my next point.
So here you have Elizabeth Warren engaging in the home flipping by buying low, selling high, taking advantage of it, the same thing they're accusing Donald Trump being a bad guy for doing.
She did it.
It will be thrown back in her face if she keeps this up.
Trump will do it himself.
And he won't wait for an event.
He'll do a Twitter thing on it.
He'll have a whole Twitter thread about it at some point.
And then we find out that Obama was out ridiculing this kind of behavior as it's filthy profiteering.
And is one of the things that led to the housing crisis, the financial crisis.
And no, it's not.
What led to the housing crisis is Bill Clinton and people like Barney Frank and the Attorney General of the Time Janet Reno, who were demanding that banks lend money to people that had no hope of ever paying it back.
The Democrats were trying to capitalize on a home for every American.
I hate if that was even the phrase.
A home for every American, like affordable health care for all Americans, as Nancy Pelosi said.
A home has always been the symbol of the American dream.
And of course, not everybody can afford a home.
Well, that's just not right.
And that's just not going to stand.
So how are we going to do it?
Well, we're gonna we're gonna make people who can't afford loans, we're gonna give them loans.
And we're gonna find other ways for people to pay that money back.
But we're gonna have people in homes, and we Democrats, we're gonna get the credit for every American having that wants one being in a home.
Because we care, because we're compassionate, because we don't like the concept of winners and losers.
We don't think it's right, some people have big homes, others have small homes.
We don't think it's right some people have homes, other people don't.
And don't forget in half baked Moon Bay, California, they tried to suspend homework on the premise that not everybody had a home.
It wasn't fair to assign homework because some kids don't have homes and therefore they can't do work at home, so it's not fair.
But the whole thing was brought Jimmy Carter actually concocted the original scheme and then it went dormant for a while.
Clinton revived it, much as Obama and Eric Holder revived the Fast and Furious, which by the way is coming back.
There have been some documents apparently hidden that are coming back to life on Fast and Furious.
That's resurfaced even more on that later.
Well, your average Democrat has never heard this version of the story.
Your average Democrat thinks that the subprime mortgage crisis is owed to one thing.
Evil, greedy bankers.
This is what your average Democrat, including elected Democrats believe.
They believe that on their own, bankers, because they're reprobates and scum and forever wanting to profiteer on the backs of the poor and the insolvent.
They found a way to trick people into taking out mortgages.
They honestly believe this, folks.
This is what they're on television saying throughout this crisis.
The banks tricked people.
Obama even has said it.
That the banks tricked people, unsuspecting low-income who only wanted to live the American dream.
It's so dirty.
And they just wanted a home.
And the banks lent them money.
And they knew they'd never be able to pay it back.
And why did the banks do this?
Because the banks wanted the homes.
The banks couldn't wait to foreclose on these poor people and take the property away and call it their own without having to actually invest in it in the first place.
And this is what your average Democrat, your average reader at Media Matters, your average reader at any Democrat blog, this is what they think, folks.
This is what the mayor of Philadelphia no doubt believes.
This is what they all believe at CNN, that the subprime mortgage crisis originated with evil, cheating, thieving bankers.
That's why they hate them So much.
Among many other reasons.
And besides, that's just what corporate people do.
The Democrats would have you believe that all corporations either want to kill their customers or screw them.
Right.
Take a look at how they talk about big pharma and about big box retail, about big oil, are not corporations either killing their customers with foul water, dirty air, poisoned water, or screwing their customers with high prices or what have you.
Along come the bankers lending money, tricking innocent old middle-class Americans into buying a home they can't afford.
And then shortly it gets foreclosed on, and people end up homeless.
And it's just horrible.
The bankers don't care.
And at that point, Obama and the boys get to come in and claim that they save the day, rescuing this and that and the other thing, by punishing the bankers and all this other stuff that never really happened.
The banks underwrite the Democrat Party.
But what really happened was in the 90s, Bill Clinton ordered these loans to be made.
And Janet Reno, who was the attorney general at the time, threatened these banks with investigations, open-ended investigations into whatever they might be doing if they didn't comply.
And so they did.
Just like they were all called into a room during the financial crisis and told they were going to take loans or subsidies or buyouts or whatever, 25 billion dollars, even the even the banks didn't need it.
This was TARP.
So that's what led to the subprime mortgage.
It was a it was a disaster brought to you by the United States government as presided over by Bill Clinton at the time.
It's inarguable.
This is what happened.
Your average Democrat doesn't know it.
They have bought Hook Line and Sinker, a total different story, including elected Democrats.
So my point is that when somebody informed on this stuff appears with them on TV during this campaign and tells the truth about this, you're gonna have Democrats react like the mayor of Philadelphia did the other night in CNN, got this empty look on his face, nutter is his name.
He got this empty look on his face.
He had no idea what he was hearing.
He looked quizzically at who was saying this, uh I've I've not heard this before.
He didn't reject it at a hand, he was just stunned.
He'd never heard this.
And this happens a lot as I watch certain cable news net, particularly CNN, it's amazing what the people at work there don't know.
If it's not, if if if whatever event we're talking about, or policy you name it, if it is not something that is part of the leftist narrative, that's they don't know it.
Because they don't take the time to read things other than the stuff that they're familiar with.
That's why they don't know what conservatism really is, and they don't know what who conservatives really are, what they believe in.
They just have never exposed themselves to it because it's not worth the trouble.
And it's that way on many other things.
I predict that the Trump campaign is going to actually cause this kind of elucidation to occur more and more as more and more left and a lot of the liberal hypocrisy is going to be exposed in ways nobody else has done it either.
All that's going to happen in the next few months.
Okay, let's head back to the phones.
We have time squeeze one in here.
We'll go to uh Meridian, Connecticut.
This is Pat.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Thanks, Russ.
Uh, it's an honor and privilege, first time calling.
Thank you, sir.
I have a I have a theory on the election coming up.
Um maybe you can poke some holes into it, or maybe think it's good or not.
Um, I happen to believe that uh he said the information about Hillary is going to trickle through, and I I think Obama's gonna throw her under the bus.
I think he has great stain for the Clintons, and uh she's gonna be taken out of some place in shackles at some point.
I believe that he uh he thinks the the Republicans and the conservatives hate Trump anyways, and he's brought the country as far left as it can come.
He doesn't want her getting any credit for it, and uh, and I think he's gonna throw her under the bus and uh she'll be taken out of some meeting in handcuffs at some point.
What do you think of that theory?
Well, uh the handcuffed business and the frog march.
I don't know about that.
But if he throws her under the bus, what's what's plan B?
That means she's not the nominee, so take your theory.
What happens then?
Well, like I said, he doesn't care if Trump's president or not.
He thinks the rest of the conservatives hate him anyway, and nothing will get done.
I disagree.
Now that one I have to take take issue with you.
Once again, you know, I was the first to predict that Barack Hussein O would not leave Washington, would stay in Washington to protect what he considers to be his gains in transforming this country.
And then I saw a story, it was it was uh some months later, indicating he was going to do that.
I can't remember.
There's another story out today that actually has a picture of the house he has rented.
He's going to be staying in town, ostensibly, so the daughters can finish their education at the elite private school uninterrupted.
You know whose house he's rented?
Joe Lockhart, the former spokesman for Clinton.
Remember, he's involved with the uh Bill Burkett stuff and the Bush National Guard, Joe Lockhart, his wife works at uh name is Gray or Gay or something.
She's some fashion magazine.
He just took a job as communications VP at the NFL.
So you got to go to New York.
This is a home that costs like five million dollars, and he's going to be renting it for a couple of years.
Well, Lockhart packed the family up to go to New York.
So he's he cares about who does what next.
I knew it was going to happen.
I'm always prepared.
I checked the email during the break.
Bunch of doubting Thomas says, you know, you say that Clinton was responsible for the subprime mortgage, but you never offer any proof.
You just say it and you expect everybody to believe it.
You know, and your mind-numbed audience believes everything, but I don't.
You're not fooling me.
Twenty-eight years you would figure that even the left would know.
I don't make it up.
But let me share with you from the New York Times, September 30th, 1999.
And Coco, I want you to go get this.
I want you to bullet point this, or I want you to pull quote this or box it, or whatever you do up there at rushlimbaugh.com for this segment.
September 30, 1999, New York Times from the article.
Fannie May eases credit to aid mortgage lending.
That's the headline.
Here's the details.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people, and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth and profits.
Well, the banks make loans, but who underwrites them is Fannie Mae.
The banks do it, but Fannie Mae underwrites them and so forth.
What this story is saying is that Clinton was pressuring the underwriters of all of these mortgages, Fannie Mae, to make more loans available to the poor.
Exactly what I told you he was doing.
But the other side of that is Fannie Mae has stockholders, and they weren't crazy about it because it made no business sense to do this.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50% of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate income borrowers.
How much plainer do you people need it?
September 30, 1999, New York Times.
In July, Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed, that's the Clinton administration, proposed that by the year 2001, 50%, that's half Of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's portfolio, i.e., underwritten mortgages be made up of loans to low and moderate income.
This was the beginning of it.
Well, actually, 97 was, but don't doubt me on this stuff.
This is what happened.
Last year it says here, which would have been 1998, 44% of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from moderate and low income.
It was expanding.
The pressure was on Janet Reno was out demanding these banks, you lend the money, or we're going to investigate you for whatever we can find.
And then finally, from the New York Times, the change in policy also comes at the same time that housing and urban development is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by the banks to determine the creditworthiness of credit applicants.
So the sum total of this is housing and urban development via Freddie Mae, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, demanding the banks loan more and more money to people that couldn't pay it back.
And then housing and urban development was investigating the banks for racial discrimination.
This is how they made it all happen.
George W. Bush was governor of Texas.
George W. Bush had nothing to do with any of this.
In fact, the truth of the matter is, George W. Bush and the...
The inspectors generally investigators tried to shut this down, and Barney Frank told the investigators to go pound sand.
We even played the audio soundbite of a number of those hearings.
The Bush administration tried to bring some sanity to this.
The fact is, even while I find it amazing that here we are in 2016, and we're still trying to get the truth of this out there.
But see, this is my point.
This is what's going to happen in this campaign.
The Democrats think that they've already won this story by painting Republicans as the evil, heartless, cold, mean whatever.
And the truth is going to come out.
And the more Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas keeps talking, and the more Hillary Clinton keeps talking, Hillary Clinton of Whitewater fame, she wants to go out there and try to accuse Trump of profiteering.
The woman that made a hundred thousand dollars on a ten thousand dollar cattle investment.
They are going to pay a price for all of the cover the media has given them their entire careers.
They're going to pay a price because this stuff's going to get exposed because the media can't help itself.
It's going to cover Trump.
Now, in somewhat related, uh NBC Nightly News last night, the two lead stories were on the TSA and VA problems.
Transportation uh, whatever it is, authority in the VA.
And they detailed the problems, and it was pretty bad.
I mean, it really, really, really spelled out how badly these two units are operating.
But not once in the entire NBC Nightly News newscast was the phrase Obama administration uttered.
So whoever watches the NBC Nightly News had no clue.
They were not told that the TSA and the VA are part of the regime.
They were not told they're part of the Obama administration.
Therefore, Limbaugh theorem, wide open, once again, Obama's ability to totally escape all accountability and responsibility for the bad things happening during his presidency.
Everybody else gets blamed.
Obama gets portrayed as the guy trying to fix it.
Obama gets portrayed as the guy who's being sabotaged and screwed with.
Here's a great president, our first African American president.
He's trying to get health care for everybody, and he's trying to get jobs for everybody, and he's trying to do everything, and he's got people at the TSA and the VA undermining him every day.
It's a scandal.
It's a scal-never ever does he get blamed.
Limbaugh theorem on full display here.
Well, that's another thing that's going to end in this campaign, I predict.
I mean, you see the evidence of it as the campaign's unfolding even now.
Here's uh here's Bob and Vale, Oregon as we head back to the phones.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
Good to talk to you.
But uh, you stole my thunder, astute man that you are.
That's what I was going to bring up, Mrs. Clinton's attack on Mr. Trump.
Here we have Mrs. Whitewater complaining about real estate profiteering.
Oh, yeah.
I'm sorry.
I did is that what you I didn't, I I didn't check the the board up there before I started.
That's okay.
That's okay.
I'm glad to uh glad to send you a little bit of a chance to do that.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I feel bad uh stomping all over your point, because it's a great point.
Uh I I wish you'd been the one to make it.
Ah, well, uh again, uh uh I yield to your uh your uh superior sharpness, so anyway, thank you very much.
Well, you're you're welcome.
He's actually it is true.
I mean, forget whitewater.
Is a woman twenty-one million dollars in two years making speeches, wants to talk about somebody gaming the system.
I don't know.
I just I want to go back uh because it's been about an hour and uh a half since I first addressed this.
Because this bears repeating, because I didn't get a chance to have the last caller, previous caller, with his theory that Obama is gonna just sabotage Hillary at some point in his campaign because he doesn't want her anywhere near his agenda, anywhere near the White House, doesn't care if Trump is a nominee because Obama's satisfied with how far left he's taken the country.
This is the caller's theory.
And so he'll do whatever it takes to take Hillary out without caring who the next president is.
And of course, I on that latter point disagreed.
He does care who the next president is, and he's going to make sure that whoever it is doesn't uh unwind any of his agenda.
It's one of the reasons to stay.
I this business about staying in town for the girls in their school and so forth.
Yeah, maybe.
But just as important as protecting the agenda.
Look at that's all these people care about.
This is their lives.
This is everything.
Obama's poured his whole life into transforming this country and cutting it down to size, whatever he thinks needs to happen to it.
And he's just not going to leave town and act like George Bush.
I guarantee he's not going to leave town and never say another word about what happens.
Somebody tries to unravel Obamacare, you damn well know he's gonna be on NBC Nightly News whining about it, and he's gonna have his media buddies all helping him out, and whatever else it is.
But about Hillary Clinton and this email scandal, the point needs to be made again.
Just just like the NBC Nightly News last night, two stories, TSA and the VA, and how horrible things are, and how just incompetent and how just unmanageable.
But not one mention of Obama, not one mention of the Obama administration.
Nothing is tied to him.
And I think that's the way he wants it.
Now, with this Hillary Clinton, this Inspector General report, where she has been directly contradicted.
Her entire procedure on this has been to say that it's just a security review.
There isn't any investigation here.
Nobody's done anything wrong.
They're just looking into various aspects of this.
It's just a security.
If you well, the inspector general comes out.
No, no, no, no, no.
There are rules, and she violated them.
They tried to soft-sell it by saying a sort of Colin Powell, so did Condoleezza Rice when they were Secretary of State, but they're not running for president right now.
The rules that she violated are derived from the law.
The natural conclusion is she broke the law.
It is my theory, my contention.
Obama does not want to be seen as the one who takes her out.
The Limbaugh theorem again.
He doesn't want to have his name attached to any of these failures or things that go wrong.
I don't pretend to understand the dynamics between the Obamas and the Clintons, but apparently it's not cool.
And this drip drip drip, this IG report, this is a big deal.
And even the Democrats that have been on TV this morning admit it's a big deal because it keeps the story alive, it not going away, and the aspects of it that are alive are that she did things wrong and is now not telling the truth about it.
Her campaign is being overshadowed by never-ending scandal.
It ain't going to be long before Democrats are going to start asking, how long can we expect this scandal to go on and can you get elected president from one?
But I think by letting this IG report be released, by having the investigation take place.
This is the drip drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip that I noticed months ago.
And I think it's coming from Obama and from the White House.
And I've there have to be some people enjoying watching her twist in the wind.
This is not insignificant stuff, folks.
I gotta take a break here.
We uh time is just racing by, so we'll take a break and be back and continue after.
Do you remember Hillary Clinton's first press conference on this whole email thing?
Remember where it took place?
It took place in the UN.
That's exactly right.
You know why it took place in the UN?
She assumed that the international press corps, including American reporters at the UN, would not be anywhere near up to speed on the details of this email story at the State Department.
So that's why she did it.
And she ended up cutting the press conference short because they were up to speed.
And the questions were getting too close to home.
And she thanked everybody and walked out.
Now here is what she said that was March of 2015, her first press conference about the emails.
Now, measure this.
Compare this to what the Inspector General report today has said.
Quote, she said she would answer all the questions about her emails.
Quote, first, the laws and regulations in effect when I was Secretary of State, allowed me to use my email for work.
That is undisputed.
Close, quote.
No, it wasn't undisputed.
If it were, the IG report wouldn't say what it says.
The Hill.com has even more detail on this.
In late 2014, Hillary gave the State Department roughly 30,000 emails from her personal machine, another batch containing another 30,000, which she said were purely personal, was deleted, as the stuff having to do with Chelsea's wedding and uh tennis lessons from the tennis pro and uh yoga and all that, remember.
She deleted those, because that had nothing to do with anything.
She told us.
Critics of Mrs. Clinton have questioned that move, getting rid of those 30,000 emails, and the chief litigant in the open records lawsuit has said that he hopes to get those deleted messages.
That they're still there somewhere.
The stack of approximately 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton did turn over, the 30,000 emails equal 55,000 pages.
The inspector general said in his report that that stack of 55,000 pages was incomplete.
He pointed to multiple emails that inspectors found through other means.
They didn't just accept the 30,000 she gave.
They went and found others elsewhere.
That's how they know what she gave was incomplete.
So she didn't tell the truth about that.
Only five of the 26 current and former Clinton aides responded to questionnaires sent by the inspector general, and Clinton herself turned down a request to be interviewed.
Only five of her staff, like Huma Danger didn't testify, and Cheryl Mills didn't testify, uh, didn't answer questions.
In addition to Clinton, four close staffers conducted extensive use of personal email accounts.
It wasn't just her, her staff was doing the same thing because her staff was undoubtedly helping her raise money from these foreign sources that she wanted to protect from Freedom of Information Act requests or from any other prying eyes.
And that is sourced the inspector general.
Four close staffers also used extensively personal email accounts.
And those four AIDS emails added up to 72,000 pages of messages.
And they, in the process, also violated State Department record keeping policy.
So these are huge violations, and people have refused to answer questions about it, which don't doubt me on this, is seen by investigators as the equivalent of taking the Fifth Amendment.
New York Times story as Donald Trump pushes conspiracy theories, right wing media gets its wished by uh Jonathan Martin, used to be politico.
We like Jonathan Martin here.
He's always been fair guy.
Of course, I'm mentioned in this, mentioned in everything.
We have the audio soundbites coming up of CNN, uh, not allowing any guests to talk about Bill Clinton and the 90s and sex and women.
Talked about this, I want you to hear it, and other things.
All coming up here.
▲
Export Selection