All Episodes
Previous Next
June 10, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
June 10, 2016, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Buck Sexton here today in for Rush Limbaugh on the EIB.
Thank you very much for joining.
It's Open Line Friday, of course, so 800-282-2882 is that number.
Light him up, as I'm fond of saying.
We'd love to have a chat with you about any number of topics, things I'll be hitting, some things that you'll want to hit here on the air with me.
Let's do it.
And I know it's Open Line Friday, but you could never go wrong starting with a little chat about our dear friend Hillary Clinton.
Latest is that she has received a number of endorsements.
I guess this is from the last 24 hours or so, including from Barack Obama, Barack Obama, of course, and from Elizabeth Warren.
And there's some speculation about Warren even as a VP candidate.
Oh, my.
The two ladies teaming up, president and vice president.
That would be, well, I'll leave it up to you.
I'll leave it for you to fill in the blank about what it would be like.
Donald Trump is going around referring to her as to, of course, Warren as Pocahontas.
This is now his, the same way that he has crooked Hillary.
He has dubbed her Pocahontas and continues to publicly refer to her that way.
So we now have a president who straight up gives nicknames to, if not opponents on the other ticket, certainly political opponents.
Well, no, on the other ticket too.
Hillary and then Pocahontas.
Well, Crooked Hillary is that really a nickname, I guess.
It's just sort of an expansion on the Hillary name, expansion on the Hillary brand.
But speaking of the Hillary brand, she's having a tough time with a few things.
Oh, I know.
You feel very sorry for her.
It's so rough.
She's so likable.
By a 60% to 27% margin, according to Fox News, Fox News poll of likely voters, they think that she's lying about how her emails were handled.
And by a 57 to 32% margin, voters say that the U.S. national security was placed at risk because of Clinton's mishandling of national security information.
That is not a good thing, especially when your biggest resume line has to do with being Secretary of State, which is in fact a national security-related job.
Sure, she's the chief diplomat of the United States government, but there's also a lot of national security that comes across and comes into play with the Secretary of State.
So if she can't figure out what classified is, or maybe more to the point, she can't protect classified.
She's incapable of understanding the gravity of the task that had been handed to her by the Obama administration when she was made Secretary of State.
That's kind of a tough case for her to make, isn't it?
That she did a great job protecting the information entrusted to you when you are a cabinet official who deals with national security.
Short of being a defector or like going over and joining some opposing regime, that's very high on the list of requisites.
You really have to keep national security secrets secret and protect it.
It's important.
But then again, there's sort of a Clinton legacy here of throwing that one out, too.
You had Sandy Bergler, which I actually do say by accident sometimes, Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents in his socks.
Many of you will recall that.
And you ask yourself, why did that happen exactly?
What would push a former national security advisor to stuff classified documents in his socks?
This is somebody who was sitting in the White House.
Most sensitive national security discussions possible happening with him.
He was a part of them.
And then later on, he's like, I'm going to go take this stuff with me.
So the Clintons have a long and storied history, really, when you add it all up of deciding that what's classified doesn't really count or it isn't for real.
Here's the problem with that, though.
One, you've got reports coming out now that some of the Clinton emails dealt with drone strikes.
This is from the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.
The headline of the Walt Street Journal, emails in Clinton probe dealt with planned drone strikes, planned drone strikes, and some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington use a less secure communication system.
So they were using the low side here as opposed to the high side, classified information email.
They were using low side, open email, right?
Sort of normal over the internet email to possibly talk about drone strikes, which you'd think would be rather sensitive stuff.
This is the sort of thing that high side, or this is the sort of thing that secure email systems are generally designed to handle.
So the fact that Clinton may have been having those sorts of discussions via unsecure email is on its own very troubling.
Although I don't think she, I don't know how troubled she is by it.
It's tough to tell, you know, because in an autocracy, one of the things that you can always count on is that the people in charge make sure that the law doesn't apply to them and they're powerful enough, they are secure enough in their ability to subvert the law that doesn't really, it doesn't really matter what they do, right?
That's in a true autocracy.
I'm not saying we're there in this country, but I do think the Clinton machine has already proven in the past that the law doesn't really apply.
And I mean, the best example, the most obvious example is Bill, you know, of course, very famously lying under oath.
I mean, it wasn't a lie.
It was a discussion.
It was a discourse over the meaning of the word is.
But he lied under oath.
There were no charges brought.
Lying under oath, not a good idea for most people.
If you tried that, you would most likely be prosecuted.
It depends, I guess, on whether it was material to the case or not.
But Bill got away with breaking the law in the past.
No question about it, no discussion.
He did it.
The whole country knows he did it.
And yet nothing really happened.
And, well, I shouldn't say nothing happened.
He was impeached.
He was disbarred.
Notice how you will never hear the media refer to Bill Clinton as disgraced former President Bill Clinton.
That addition of the word disgraced in front of somebody's name is a very subjective but very important identifier, right?
Some people are the disgraced former such-and-such.
Other people are, I mean, just like really popular, just going across the country, just kissing babies and raising money and saying hi to ladies.
That's what Bill does.
He's supposed to be a sort of secret weapon for the campaign going around there now, despite all the stuff in the past.
But you have a couple of things.
The revelations about the emails perhaps containing discussions of drone strikes, which I don't know what's going to, you know, where they're drawing on it.
If that's the sort of thing you can talk about over open email, what really can't you talk about?
There's also been some speculation in other press pieces earlier in the week.
There are reports out there that there could have been names contained in Clinton emails that should never make it into open emails, names that might be covered under federal law that says that there are certain people who work for certain three-letter agencies and such, that you can't blow their cover.
You can't out them.
And if in fact she had those names in her emails, you would think that there would have to be a prosecution, especially given the Obama administration and even before that, what happened during the Bush administration with these sorts of things.
The very sort of zealous and severe attitude taken towards this sort of thing.
People were really fired up about the notion of anybody having their cover blown.
And yet here we are now, the possibility that this was in Clinton's open emails.
It just keeps getting worse and worse.
And oh, we have the White House, by the way, for the first time, actually admitting that this is a criminal probe, which we've all known all along.
The FBI doesn't do security reviews.
You don't assign 150 FBI agents to, you know, it's not like they're a home security unit and they want to see if you're typing in the code, if the fire department gets notified.
They don't do security reviews.
That's not something that falls into their portfolio.
They do investigative work about possible criminal wrongdoing.
That's really their bread and butter.
They don't spend a lot of time checking out to see whether Hillary, whether Hillary was, in fact, in the midst of a security procedure that was no big deal, but they just want to check it out.
Security review.
That's not how it works at all.
So it is a criminal investigation.
And I'm starting to wonder, I think I even said on this show earlier in the week that I give it a 1% chance that she's prosecuted because you have Attorney General Lynch would have to sign off on it.
And I just don't see, I don't see that ever happening, or at least I still think it's very unlikely, no matter really what comes out of the review.
But if there are some leaks from that FBI investigation, all the Warren and Obama endorsements in the world aren't going to matter if everybody knows that Clinton blatantly violated federal law.
And oh, by the way, I still think that the biggest risk for her is not even her class, the way that she handled classified information.
I think the biggest risk is, in fact, corruption, meaning that somewhere in the emails that she deleted, there's somebody demanding a favor in response to either paying for a bill speech in one of Bill's speeches.
They're a bargain, like $500,000 a pop, sometimes $800,000.
It's great.
Sometimes I'll give you the special right.
They recognized, I think, all along, and this is why they set up the private server in the first place, that it was Clinton Foundation business, that if it ever made its way, and by foundation business, I just mean Clinton business, that the Clinton machine's money-making efforts, if it ever found its way into official State Department email, it would become a part of the permanent record.
It would be accessible via FOIA, and then no way of hiding it.
And the American people would be able to very easily access Hillary Clinton's very special way of doing business while a Secretary of State, a cabinet-level official, one of the most sensitive and important jobs in the U.S. government.
All this still going on.
We're going to find out more about what Clinton was doing with this.
I think there will be some very interesting moments coming forward here with the FBI investigation.
But here's what we know, or I should say here's what's been confirmed.
We've known this for a long time.
Yes, it is a criminal investigation.
And yes, there was stuff talked about in open email that shouldn't have been.
And yes, there was classified in her email over a thousand documents.
I don't know what the total number is right now.
A few dozen of the mark top secret.
And the American people have caught on to the fact that she has been lying about this all along.
Will it matter?
And Warren as a VP, is that just planning for the general?
Or is that more of an insurance policy in case Hillary all of a sudden, for quote, health reasons, decides she will not continue on running or something?
I don't know, however she decides to step down.
If this server thing gets out of control, it looks like it might.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh today, 800-282-2882.
It's Open Line Friday.
I'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB.
Open Line Friday continues 800-282-2882.
You can tell me your thoughts at facebook.com slash Buck Sexton.
You can also download my show at theblaze.com slash Buck Sexton.
Good times.
Oh, there's a little more Hillary.
We're not off the Hillary topic just yet.
Hillary also.
Well, no, this is.
No, we can say this is Hillary.
It's a little broader than that, too.
There are some newly released State Department emails from that political group, Citizens United.
You know, the one that Democrats hate because of that Supreme Court case that's referred to by the shorthand, Citizens United?
That Supreme Court case that was about whether you could make a movie within a certain period of an election.
I think there are eight Hillary movies that are coming out before the election.
So this is something that does matter to people.
People do see movies about candidates and such.
And it's the Democrats' position that, of course, Citizens United is all about, it's like some sort of a cabal, a union between Halliburton and the Koch brothers.
And what else do they just sort of hate with, oh, and Dick Cheney to destroy government with big money, when in reality, Citizens United was about whether you could make a movie before an election about a candidate or something you don't like.
So the network news can have newsrooms full of people who are in the tank for one candidate running story after story.
That's free press.
That's First Amendment.
But if you want to make a documentary about how a candidate is a liar, is terrible, whatever, no, no, no.
They wanted the, you know, they wanted the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, to be able to say, oh, you can't do that.
And during the arguments over that case, by the way, it was raised.
Well, if you can ban a movie, can't you ban a book?
And then the government's position was, yeah, you know, I guess we could, I guess we could ban.
I guess we could ban a book.
So yeah, that's the First Amendment doesn't really count to the left.
Or really what it is, is they want to make sure that the legacy media institutions continue to have a tremendous amount of sway and influence on these things, and they want that advantage.
Okay, but back to the new, that was a little bit of a digression.
Back to the new stuff.
There was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.
This just came out in some emails.
After a couple of years of trying to litigate this in court and get access to these emails, these internal emails have been released.
They show that a major donor to the Clinton Foundation was put on a sensitive, a sensitive national security and intelligence board, advisory board, even though he had no experience whatsoever in national security, none.
What did he have experience doing?
He was a high-frequency trader.
So he's a guy.
He was a Wall Street guy.
Wall Street.
I mean, it's terrible.
I mean, clearly, you know, it's just the Wall Street guys, they're taking over everything.
They won't control the banks.
Now they won't control the nukes.
Bernie's saying this.
So, yeah, he was a Wall Street guy, and he decided that he would join this ISAB, International Security Advisory Board, I think it was, something like that.
One of these government boards where they had nuclear scientists and people of some, I don't know, august national security background in one form or another on there to advise the executive branch, the president of the White House about national security matters.
And there was all this concern because they're like, who the heck is this guy?
Where did he come from?
There's this guy sitting around who's a Wall Street trader who's a bundler, raised a lot of money for Hillary, raised a lot of money for Obama, and they figured, let's just put him on the International Security Advisory Board for a while.
He did end up resigning, by the way.
But see, this is the sort of thing that you could expect.
I just want to make sure we're all clear.
This is a reminder of what is to come if Hillary Clinton becomes ex-president of the United States.
You're just going to have people who have, in one way or another, bought their way into very important government positions.
In some cases, it seems for no reason other than the ego trip that comes along with it, right?
Like, well, I raised a lot of money for Hillary, so I figured, you know, Under Secretary of Defense sounds like fun.
You know, go around the world.
Boom, bang, boom.
You know, why not?
I'd like to work on the Pentagon.
I raised a lot of money for you, Hillary.
And that will happen.
That will be a thing that is commonplace, I think, in the next administration.
That's what you always have to remember.
We think of the sort of Clinton machine as Bill, Hillary, and their top aides.
There's an army of people who are planning on joining the Clinton administration in some capacity.
Their future dream job rests on whether Hillary Clinton can manage to defeat Donald Trump and Gary Johnson, of course, third-party candidate.
I mean, he's, you know, he's got like percentage points that are going to him so far.
It's just, I don't know what would happen, you know, with my libertarian friends, I always tell them it's a nice intellectual exercise, but do they really want their, do they really want a libertarian charge?
They want Gary Johnson in charge.
It's much more fun to sort of stand on the sidelines and get to Monday morning quarterback everything.
You know, be like, well, if only a libertarian was running the show, then everything would be better.
And we would legalize marijuana.
Take that and put it in your pipe and smoke it.
Not actually marijuana.
Sorry.
I just meant the phraseology there got connected.
You know what I'm saying?
But yeah, so there's that happening.
Hillary got this guy, or this guy got on the board with Hillary, the ISAB board, and then he had to resign because donors, if you're talking about a Clinton administration, expertise, patriotism, knowledge, service to country, how much does that really matter when compared with the guy who knows how to shake the money tree and make sure that there's plenty of cash flowing around for the Clinton Foundation, right?
Or the Clinton campaign, I should say.
That's the stuff that really gets the Clintons excited.
800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
We'll take some calls.
Stay with me.
Indeed, Buck Sexton here at the helm of the EIB.
You know how we party.
Open line Friday.
That's how we do things.
Let's take some calls.
800-282-2882.
Nathan in Lynchburg, Virginia.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
You're speaking to Buck.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, Buck.
How are you doing?
Good, good.
Hey, I have a message to all the Republicans out there, whether you be a voter, whether you be a congressman or a senator.
We have spoken.
I am the voice of the people.
I am one of the people, and I listen to what my people are saying.
And I can tell you right now, we have spoken.
We have chosen Donald Trump.
Is he our God?
No.
Is he a superhuman?
No.
What he is is the ugly belly of America.
And that's what they have turned us into.
And I'm talking about the Republicans out there.
We're coming after you.
We're going to take you out of office.
We elected you in office.
All the Mitch McConnell's, all the Paul Ryans, we are the silent majority and we have spoken.
And if you don't go along with us, we are elephants, and elephants never forget.
Donald Trump is our thermometer.
You either support him and back him or you're going to lose your job.
And I promise you that.
We are voting all across the 50 states.
We are very well aware.
We're not stupid.
We're not misinformed.
That's about it, Buck.
I think, Nathan, I think you've said it all there.
I don't know what else.
I don't know what else one can add.
You seem pretty certain in this.
I don't think there's a lot of room for getting into some nuance as to where you stand on whether supporting Trump as a GOP nominee is a good idea.
But can I ask you one thing before we let you go?
If Trump said, you know what, I've changed my mind on the border.
I didn't know what I was saying.
I'm not going to build the wall.
Would that change your mind?
or no, it doesn't matter.
You still think he's going to...
Let's collect him and see what he does.
And if he doesn't do what we don't want, we will impeach him.
We will get him out of office.
We will find a way.
If we got him in, we were going to get him out as well.
He is going to be the one if he makes these promises and they're in vain just to get into office.
If he is doing what all the crazy conservative Republicans out there that are saying, listen, I'm a conservative Republican, or I think I used to be.
But the Republican Party now has gone through an insurgency and is now hitting the revolutionary stage.
And you're either with us or you're a Democrat.
Wow.
A line in the sand has been drawn by Nathan.
We will leave it at that.
Nathan, thank you for calling in from Virginia.
I like that.
I want to start just saying, I am the voice of the people.
That's a fun.
I know he meant we, but he said I at one point.
I was like, oh, okay.
Nice.
It's fun to speak for everybody.
Let me tell you what the people think.
But fair enough on the Trump stuff.
I might be sharing a sort of this, this is going to get me into trouble.
I should never say that as a preface because then if anything does get me into trouble, it's like, well, you knew it would.
I think on some things, Trump is going to be much more.
It's funny because the Democrats act like that there's this like looming American fascism now because of Trump and that all this terrible stuff is going to happen if he gets elected on a fair amount of issues.
I think he'd actually be pretty moderate, which I know is kind of a dirty word to some people.
I think that he would negotiate.
Hey, he does like to talk about negotiation.
I don't think he's going to be this right wing hardliner, certainly across the board, that Democrats think he is.
And I know a lot of a lot of conservatives are like, he's not going to be right wing at all.
So it's kind of funny.
Nobody.
I hear cases made in all directions.
He'll be like the the Attila the Hun of right wing, right wing ideology in this country, just sort of go scorched earth and build the wall and all this stuff.
I hear people saying that they think that he's going to be, you know, a total sellout on a lot of these issues.
I think that there'll be something as a so often the case, there'll be something in between if he becomes president.
I think on some issues, he'll probably stay strong on other issues.
He might try to move around.
Let's take.
But I see that's that's way to I'm being as this is way too squishy now because the line was drawn in the sand there.
We just heard that gentleman.
You're either.
And I said, I'm supporting Trump over Hillary.
I know it's a lot of my friends get very mad at me for saying this.
I thought you were a conservative like I've been a conservative for as long as I've been able to spell conservative at least at least like five or six years now.
I've been a conservative for as long as I've been an adult and cared about politics.
So I still think that that means that never Hillary is never Hillary is my starting point.
I started never Hillary and build from there.
That's the foundation for my beliefs.
All right.
Wendy in Delaware, Delaware, Ohio.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh.
Yeah, I try and say central Ohio just to keep people from getting confused.
Yes.
My question is, Donald Trump has been a Democrat for decades, and then he went to registered as a Reform Party, and then he was Democrat again, over and over again, and then he was Independence Party, which is not independent.
And then he was a Democrat until he was a Republican.
And I was wondering what you thought of that history.
I can't explain to you the changes.
I mean, he's almost 70 years old.
I can't explain to you the changes in Donald's positions, especially because he was a private citizen.
And so there's always this, there's always leeway to say, look, you know, I said this at a certain time because, and he's done this on many issues.
Of course, the donations to the Clintons in the past, saying that, you know, sort of spreading the money around is because he understands that it's how you buy access and influence.
And he sort of positions himself as somebody who understands that process and so therefore would know how to rein it in.
But, you know, do you believe that or not?
I mean, that's up to you, right?
I can't tell you if I can tell you what I think, but I can't tell you definitively one way or the other what's true.
But no, I mean, many of my friends who write for various conservative publications refer to Donald Trump as a lifetime Democrat.
Now he's not only is he running as a Republican, but he beat a field that I know we look back and think to ourselves, well, it must have been really flawed because Donald Trump won, but there were some excellent candidates in the Republican field.
Not excellent enough to be Donald Trump, apparently, but it was a certain moment in time, and the media culture has changed so much.
But Wendy, I mean, look, you ask a very valid question.
I just can't even pretend to have an answer as to why Donald Trump, you know, I'm not in the mind of Trump.
If I was, that would be a fascinating place, I think, but I'm not there.
Do you think that he's a phony?
Is that what you're saying?
Or are you just talking about that?
Well, I think he's tried to leave the Democrat Party three times.
And I'd really like to know the reason.
I'm a cruise person.
I was a cruise person too, Wendy.
So I've heard that.
And so I'm just like, you know, Wikipedia is not going to help me with this.
And I just thought somebody should look into what happened.
Yeah, but I mean, it's, you know, keep in mind, Romney, and Wendy, all I can say is a fair question, one for which I can give you my sense of different answers, but I don't have a definitive one for you.
Thank you for calling from Delaware, Ohio.
Hi.
She's in Delaware, Ohio.
Wayne's World.
Remember that?
Central Ohio, yeah.
But there's Delaware, Ohio.
Not to be confused with the other Delaware.
No, I don't have an answer as to how Trump has changed around his ideology and his politics over time.
But Mitt Romney, for example, was pro-choice as a governor in Massachusetts and was embraced wholeheartedly, I think, by the pro-life movement in this country when he ran for president in 2012.
As you know, there was a period in Ronald Reagan's, well, Ronald Reagan signed a bill that an abortion bill when he was governor in California.
So, you know, now that's not a lifetime of being a Democrat, but I'm just saying sometimes people accept these things.
Look at the last two candidates we've run for president on the Republican side.
Neither one of them would be, neither one of them would pass these conservative litmus tests that are out there with flying colors.
I think that's fair to say, right?
I'm not saying that they're not more conservative than Donald Trump on the record, maybe.
You can make that distinction for yourself, but they're certainly not the perfect constitutionalist limited government candidates that we would, that many conservatives seem to believe we could have or should have, and perhaps would have if things had gone a little differently in the primary.
But alas, here we are, and it's Hillary or it's Trump or Gary Johnson.
But I think it's Hillary or it's Trump.
I know, I got to stop making Gary Johnson jokes.
Libertarians, they don't play around, man.
They get upset at you.
You make too many libertarian jokes, and all of a sudden you don't get to hang out at the cool libertarian cocktail parties, which are generally fun, and they play good music.
Libertarians are hip.
They're a hip bunch.
Let's take.
No, I'll go to a break, and we'll come back the other side.
We got more calls.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh.
It is Open Line Friday, 800-282-2882.
Much more come and stay with me.
Buck Sexton here in For Rush today on the EIB.
Open Line Friday continues.
800-282-2882.
Paul in North Carolina.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
You're speaking to Buck.
Hey, Buck, thanks for taking my call.
You know, Donald Trump can be a jerk at times, but I would rather have a jerk for a president than a criminal.
You know, I think a lot of times he comes across as brash, and, you know, his thinking of where he is as a businessman and what have you.
He's used to saying what he thinks, and he's not used to having to miss words for anyone.
But again, no matter what his personality is and what have you, he's not a criminal, as I think Hillary Clinton is.
And I think she's corrupt to the core.
As far as people doing a comparison with Romney or McCain, they're only convenient conservatives, only when it's to their advantage to try to get re-election or whatever they want passed.
And then, you know, they're just other nets of slimy politicians, in my opinion.
Yeah, look, Trump's most amusing nickname may be Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren, but his most accurate one is Crooked Hillary.
Absolutely.
It's just the truth.
I mean, this is a woman who is wildly corrupt.
I've put this out there before.
Imagine for a moment that the governor of a state, let's just make it a governor, had a wife, and the wife was, or you could do this either way, husband or wife doesn't matter, but the wife was a painter, and she decided that her paintings were worth $100,000 each or $200,000 each.
And you could buy one of her paintings, but you get to go by the governor's mansion and hang out with the governor.
And oh, maybe you guys would have a little chat about some stuff.
But there's no obvious, you know, that wouldn't fly at all.
Nobody would be okay with that.
Nobody would say, oh, that's just fine.
But with Bill and Hillary Clinton, you can give him, while she's Secretary of State, you can give him speaking fees for outrageous speaking fees.
I mean, it's higher speaking fees than anyone's ever seen and have business that's directly affected by the State Department and U.S. government decision-making.
And they want us to believe that there's no conflict here, that there's no problem.
I mean, it's just, it's actually so corrupt that it's overwhelming.
It's so corrupt that it's like having a document dump on your desk that's six feet high.
How do you get through all of it?
Well, you know, with the Clintons, it's like they're almost saying, you know, now who would do something like that?
It's so obviously corrupt that it's almost too obvious.
You know, would we do something like that?
I do believe they think they're above the law and do whatever they want to do.
I can't even imagine the level of corruption and deception and hiding of just everything would happen if she becomes president.
It's almost unimaginable to me.
So to me, as someone who supported Ted Cruz and, you know, I am voting for Donald Trump.
I can't even imagine people saying that it would be anywhere close with Trump as president as it would with Hillary Clinton.
You know, and I have a son that's getting ready to go into the military.
I can't imagine her as commander-in-chief.
It's almost unfathomable to me.
Everyone that I speak to who's, look, and this is just a personal anecdote, right?
So, but everyone that I speak to who served is very low on the idea of Hillary Clinton as commander-in-chief.
That I can say.
I'm sure there are people, I'm sure the Clinton campaign will trot out as many vets as they can to say, or, well, they can't get active duty because they can't politicize them, but as many veterans as they can to say that Hillary would be amazing.
But all the ones that I speak to are like, she'd be terrible.
Maybe that just tells you more about my circle of friends and associates and anything else, but I think she'd be pretty bad.
So that's what we got.
Thank you for calling in, sir, from North Carolina.
Another North Carolina caller, Jim, what's up?
Yes, Buck.
Thank you for taking my call.
Thank you for calling.
Yes, I'm wondering whatever happened to the congressional investigation of Bill Clinton's involvement with Laurel satellite and the sale of staging technology to the Chinese, in which he ended up getting contributions from Johnny Wong and the Chinese.
Well, obviously, nothing in it.
I mean, the Clintons made it go away, just like they make everything go away.
There's the old expression, where there's smoke, there's fire with the Clintons.
There's smoke everywhere and there's fire, but nothing happens.
No one seems to really care.
So, yeah, I mean, this is the campaign finance controversy from the 90s that people still talk about the Clintons.
But like so many things with the Clintons, it's not, it hasn't seemed to make much of a difference in terms of, well, it has made a difference in terms of voter attitudes about Hillary, but there are a lot of people, and I think this is maybe part of what's changed, Jim, who even if Hillary is corrupt, they'll vote for her.
Even if she's a criminal, they'll vote for her.
Even if she was indicted, they will vote for her.
They just don't care about any of that.
They just want somebody who gets an A-plus from Planned Parenthood and plays the identity politics game really well and is of the left and wants to make a bigger government and wants to create a more sort of democrat socialist state in America, a giant welfare state, essentially wants de facto open borders.
That's what matters, right?
Everything else is secondary.
Clinton, if she's the worst, they don't care.
So all this character stuff doesn't really matter on the Clinton side.
And I'll be honest with you, I think that's why a lot of, and I've spoken to a lot of Trump supporters who will say, okay, so yeah, I mean, the guy's, you know, he's got some personal imperfections, as all of us do, of course, but his might be a little more noticeable than some others.
But they don't care.
They're like, why should we care about that?
I mean, they're running against the Clintons.
Can they beat the Clintons or not?
And will they give me some of the conservative policies or some of the conservative actions that I want from a commander-in-chief or not?
Those are the only questions they care about.
But you're asking me about the 90s.
And, you know, as far as the Clintons are concerned, the 90s was just an awesome time of cell phones, the tech bubble, and Seinfeld.
It was great.
Let's bring it back.
The Clintons are Teflon.
And it's sad because what's going to happen is we're going to lose all of our freedoms in the end because Big Brother is going to be watching everything that we do.
And Sarah Palin was not off base when she talked about death panels with Obamacare.
If Hillary continues the Obama legacy, my goodness.
Yeah, no, she says she's running for Obama's, I mean, or I don't know if she openly says it, but she's look, she's running for Obama's third term in all but name.
She defends Obamacare.
She says, in fact, that she was kind of the founding, I was going to say sort of forefather, but, you know, she's obviously mother, but whatever, you know what I mean.
She's the founder of the principles behind Obamacare.
So, you know, she's going to be another Obamacare.
I got to go into a break.
But, Jim, thank you for calling in.
She's going to be Obama term three.
That much is for sure.
Buck Sexton in for Rush.
Stay with me.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
We've got a lot more coming up in the next hour, so stay with me on that dial.
Don't go anywhere.
800-282-2882.
A little quick recap of one of the more epic tweet battles of all time.
So from Hillary Clinton's official, or from Donald Trump's official account, which we all know, he loves to use and deploys on a regular basis.
Obama endorsed crooked Hillary.
He wants four more years of Obama, but nobody else.
That's from Trump's account.
Hillary Clinton responds from her official account, delete your account.
Ooh, burn, burn.
And then Donald responds, how long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up?
And where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?
Bam!
Yes, that is what we call a counter-strike, a counter-attack, and a rather successful one, I might add.
One of the more amusing tweets I've read in a long time.
All right, we've got a lot more coming up in the next hour.
Buck in for Rush.
▲
Export Selection