Documented to be almost always right 99.8% of the time, I am Rush Limbaugh.
I'm America's real anchor man.
We do the who, what, when, where, and the why, and we do the why confidently and proudly.
And we don't back off of the why because we fully believe in it, whatever it is.
Meaning, we tell you why the left does what it does.
We deconstruct liberalism and liberals better here than anywhere else in American media.
Great to have you here, folks.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, and we're going to get the calls El Quicko here, 800-282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, I check them.
It's ilrushbow at EIBnet.com.
I just want to spend a couple of more little minutes here on this Benghazi report today, because once we finish, the narrative elsewhere is going to be entirely different.
Outside of this program, and I'm sure other conservative media, the narrative on this today is going to be that they found no new evidence of any wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton, so there's nothing to see here.
And they're going to move on.
Now, they won't be able to say that the Republicans targeted Mrs. Clinton.
They won't be able to allege that the Republicans did this for purely partisan reasons, which is what the Republicans want.
That's what they want out of this.
So frustrating.
But the point is, after we spend time on it here, that's going to be it.
And aside from elsewhere in the blogs, Fox News and so forth, they'll be talking about it.
But as far as the drive-bys are concerned, it's pretty much dead now.
Since they didn't find any new wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton, there's no story here.
Benghazi's old news, yeah, four Americans dead.
Yes, too bad.
So sad.
You live and learn.
Still was a great foreign policy achievement by Mrs. Clinton doing what she did in Libya.
And that's the spin.
I want to read to you here from a story about the Democrat version of the Benghazi report.
They've tried to preempt this today because they had no idea what the Republicans were going to do.
So they preempted.
They had their own Benghazi report.
By the way, the Democrats did not even participate in the official House Committee investigation of Benghazi.
The Democrats didn't even show up.
They have released their own report.
And here's all you need to know about it.
339 pages.
House Select Committee on Benghazi mentions Donald Trump 23 times.
Donald Trump wasn't even on the public scene when Benghazi happened.
He might have been on TV commenting about it as an infrequent guest.
But what did Trump have to do with Benghazi?
Nothing.
But that's not the point.
The reason the Democrats mentioned Trump 23 times in their report is to provide the media a highway.
Okay, media, here's what we want you to do.
This is how we want you to cast and to characterize the Benghazi report.
And they put Trump's name in there 23 times.
That total, Trump being mentioned in the Democrat Benghazi report, is more than the combined number of references to Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, two of the former Navy SEALs that were killed in Benghazi.
Their names, when you add the number of mentions, do not come anywhere near to equaling the number of times the Democrats mention Trump in their report on Benghazi.
Ambassador Chris Stevens, also killed during the onslaught, mentioned 85 times in the Democrat report.
Sean Smith, State Department Information Specialist, who also died in Benghazi, named 36 times.
The Democrat report was led by Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings.
Democrats have accused Republicans of using the investigation to target Clinton politically.
Remember now, the Democrats report is issued yesterday.
And in it, they accuse Gowdy and the other committee members of doing nothing other than targeting Clinton politically, that their investigation was totally political, had nothing to do with the substance of what happened, nothing to do with finding out why four dead Americans are dead.
It was all about attacking Hillary.
So what do the Republicans do come out today?
Oh, no, no, no, no.
You won't even find Hillary.
No, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no.
We don't even try to find the why.
No, no, we do the who, what, when.
We don't even try to find the why.
You won't find Mrs. We don't see us wearing t-shirts saying that Hillary died people, whatever.
You don't do that.
We didn't do that.
So Democrats level the allegation.
Republicans the next day say, nope, nope, not us.
And the pathway is cleared for the media to say, no new evidence here, Mrs. Clinton, no wrongdoing whatsoever.
The Democrat report asserts that Clinton was active and engaged during and after the Benghazi attacks.
It also says the investigation has been a waste of taxpayer dollars.
It says decades in the future.
Historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation.
This is the Democrat Benghazi report.
Historians will showcase the proliferation of Republican abuses as a chief example of what happens when politicians are allowed to use unlimited taxpayer dollars.
This is more than a chutzpah, and they can do it because they know they're not going to get called on it by anybody when politicians are allowed to use unlimited taxpayer dollars and the formidable power of Congress to attack their political foes.
Who actually does that?
Can you think of like the IRS going after the Tea Party?
No, look, folks, I'm laughing.
I'm, in all candor, I'm infuriated by all this, and I always have been.
I'm outraged, but I don't know what good expressing countless outrage does about it.
I'm just, I'm angered beyond my ability to tell you how much.
Frustrated as you are about this.
Asking myself over and over, how do they keep getting away with it?
Because they are exposed.
The Democrats have been exposed over and over and over again.
It's not as now the drive-bys don't do it, but there's plenty of other media to do or does.
Anyway, not only does the Democrats report mention Trump 23 times, but all that Cummings and the rest of the Democrats on the committee did was waste time and attack their political foes.
That's all their report is, is a bunch of wasted time and endless attacks on Republicans.
Not to mention how Hillary and the Obama administration acted entirely based on trying to protect Obama's campaign.
They accused the Republicans of engaging in a politically motivated attack when, in fact, everything the regime did about this was put Obama's political future ahead of the lives of four Americans who thought help was on the way when it wasn't anywhere near.
All of this 56 days before the 2012 election.
Also, the Democrats did not interview any witnesses.
There are 20 references to David Brock and his super PAC correct the record.
There are 23 mentions of Donald Trump in the Democrats Benghazi report.
And remember, the purpose for that is to allow the media, hey, the Democrats have got Trump's name in his 23 times.
Trump might have some culpability here.
So they can do all kinds of allegations, questions, narratives.
What was Trump's role in Benghazi?
It wouldn't be that.
It would be, so what's Trump really trying to do?
Does he really care?
He probably doesn't care.
He's just seeking a political opportunity himself.
But one thing the Democrats did wrong.
They mistaken, listen, the L.A. Times, they mistakenly released a transcript confirming a big payout to Sidney Blumenthal.
The report, which the Democrats published as a preemptive strike before the Republican released their findings today, revealed, apparently unintentionally, details about the eye-popping amount of money a close Clinton friend and advisor made in a contract with a pro-Clinton nonprofit.
Democrats released but redacted a transcript of Clinton confidence, Sidney Blumenthal, answering the committee's questions to make the point that Republicans do not want the public to know what went on during his interrogation.
But the redaction marks are easily erased by anybody able to use cut and paste functions on computers.
And once the redaction marks are lifted, the transcript portion reveals some unflattering things for any partisans on the committee, Republican or Democrat.
Shows that Republicans did leverage their subpoena of Blumenthal for political gain, digging into his financial contract with David.
What do you mean?
We're trying to expose so even a transcript revealing that Hillary engineered a $200,000 payoff for her buddy in the investigation somehow ends up as an indictment of the Republicans for even going there.
And for Democrats, the exchange exposes once again the absurd amounts of money people in the orbit of the Clintons sometimes seem to rake in just for being in the orbit of the Clintons.
Blumenthal said when asked by a committee member how much the part-time work offering up advice and ideas was worth, it's about a couple hundred grand a year.
So Blumenthal admitted that Hillary's paying him.
Remember, Obama refused to allow him to be hired.
That's the point of this one.
She wanted to hire Blumenthal, put him on the State Department payroll.
He's such a bad actor, meaning the reason he's a bad actor, he's a full-fledged partisan, but he gets caught all the time.
So he'd be bad image-wise.
It's not that the work he does is unacceptable.
It's that he would get caught.
So Obama wanted him nowhere near.
Hillary hired him anyway.
And it came out she was paying him a couple hundred grand for advice.
And he was not anywhere in the official statement.
His advice should not have been taken.
He's giving official advice to the Secretary of State after having been told, Hillary having been told she couldn't hire him.
That's what was revealed.
And somehow in the LA Times report, the Republicans are exposed as a bunch of partisan political hacks for uncovering that bit of information.
No, Candy Crowley's name was not mentioned in the report, but it should have been the way she covered for Obama in the Mitt Romney debate.
A brief timeout, and we'll come back and get started with you on the phones after.
So I just got a note.
I checked the email during the break.
Somebody says, Rush, why do you think the Democrats mentioned Trump 23 times in their Benghazi report?
Could it be that they are still literally scared to death, despite the conventional wisdom being that it's now over, that Trump's backtracking on everything.
Trump stopped being who he is, and Trump's no longer jazzing people up.
And even Republicans are saying that they're not excited by Trump.
It seems like all the pizzazz has gone to the Trump campaign.
Now he's revising his statements on Muslims and getting into the country.
Could it be that despite the appearance, it looks like it's all over.
The Democrats still scared to death of Trump, and that's why he's in there twin.
Well, I don't know about that, but I don't think the Democrats ever rely on it being over.
I think they are about pummeling political opponents every day, no matter their standing.
The Democrats are going to try to destroy Donald Trump, no matter if he's sitting there with 2% in the polls.
And they're going to try to destroy anybody else that gets in their way who they think has any kind of credibility at all.
And since Trump's the nominee, they're not going to stop hitting Trump no matter what they think.
I do think they think it's over.
I do think that the Democrats are just like the Republicans.
I think they believe that Trump is eventually going to just implode or explode or quit or never amount to anything.
It's not a serious threat.
Nobody can compete with the establishment.
Don't forget the Brexit vote over in Great Britain.
I mean, the people that voted and wanted to stay in the European Union had no idea what was about to happen.
Their polls didn't tell them the truth.
And even if their polls had told them the truth, they wouldn't have believed it.
They were totally shell-shocked when the actual vote came in.
And what's happened in the aftermath is comical.
Blaming old people who don't know anything, needing to reschedule the vote, changing the terms, meaning we got to vote again.
And this time, the winning side has to get a 20% margin for it to count.
They're just beside.
Now, you've got the mayor, the mayor of London, the new Muslim mayor of London, is now asking for more concentrated power for himself in London.
People said, wait a minute, what are you trying to accomplish?
No, I'm not trying to set London up as its own nation, he said.
I'm not going to put border points on the M4, which is the equivalent of their beltway.
I'm not going to do that.
Wait a minute, nobody said you were.
Why are you denying a charge that hasn't been leveled?
But in the aftermath, this is how they all do it.
The aftermath of a shocking loss, they want more power to make sure some bastardization of events like this doesn't happen again.
So I don't care what the Democrats, if the Democrats think that Trump is never going to amount to Hilla Beans, they're not going to stop assailing him.
They're not going to take any chances.
Here's Amy, Colorado Springs.
We start with you on the phones, and I appreciate your patience.
How are you?
I'm wonderful, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you, sir.
And I just wanted to make a quick point.
I saw the press conference this morning, and my heart just broke for those families, and it just absolutely made me sick to see what was going on.
And Hillary is the, to me, she's the epitome of who should not be president.
She should not, she's a liar, she's a crook, and she should be in jail, not running for the White House.
Well, she is running for the White House.
And, you know, Trump's even said that she shouldn't be running.
She should have been indicted long ago by the F. By the way, you know, I didn't get to touch on this in detail.
I'm glad you jogged my memory on this, Amy.
Toward the end of the program, I talked about the Supreme Court decision exonerating, vacating all the charges against the former governor of Virginia Bob McConnell.
And, you know, the knee-jerk reaction most people had was understandable.
All right, all right.
They railroaded the guy.
They got him out of the way so that he couldn't help Cuccinelli.
They got him out of the way so they'd basically elect McCalloff, but it was all bogus and the court saw it.
Well, that's one way of looking at it.
But how would you like to be the FBI seeing that the Supreme Court just vacated charges, all of them, against a governor, former governor?
And you're trying to go after Hillary Clinton.
You've been investigating her on his email business.
And there's more email evidence today.
A hacker has admitted getting into Hillary's campaigns through a phishing campaign.
P-H-I-S-H-I-N-G.
One of Hillary's crack staff members fell for a phishing attack and opened up even more of Hillary's server to hackers.
They think the hackers from Russia.
But safe conclusion is that a whole bunch of people that shouldn't probably know everything that was on her server.
The TRICOMs probably do.
Putin probably does.
And a bunch of hackers probably do.
But the real point of the Supreme Court decision to vacate the charges against McConnell is very simple.
The Supreme Court obviously just made it much more difficult to convict government officials.
And it was eight to zip.
It was a unanimous vote to vacate the charges on McConnell.
McDonald, I'm sorry.
I'm confusing him with Mitch.
Well, you know, these names, you know, Sadiq Siki Maireen Mateen.
Then you've got the mayor of London is Omar Sadiq Khan.
And you've got, you know, Lou Alsender and the NBA, Sahib Skyhook.
How do I get the names run together or something?
Okay.
I'm talking about Bob McDonald and his wife.
And by the way, when this guy was convicted, people, this guy?
This guy, this vanilla guy did all these horrible things.
People couldn't believe it.
He couldn't either.
Well, I don't know.
I don't remember Snurdley's asking if he threw his wife under the bus.
What husband doesn't?
Remember, it's 2016.
Little feminist lingo there.
Anyway, seriously, the charges are all gone.
And some people think, well, it's justified.
The guy was railroaded.
Maybe.
But at the same time, you have to conclude now that it's just been made all that much more difficult to convict government officials either in office or shortly after they leave office.
And you could look at this and say the establishment's circling the wagons, protecting its own little fiefdom.
But they say, no, wait a minute, no, because we wouldn't get Clarence Thomas voting for that.
We wouldn't get a Leto joint.
But I don't know how you look at it.
To me, this probably is seen by anybody thinking of charging Hillary Clinton as thinking it's not a waste of time.
Because even if they get a conviction, it's going to be tossed.
It may be even possible to get one.
Who knows?
Not a pleasing thought, I know.
Your guiding light.
Times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, lies, distortions, corruption, and the occasional good time, too.
You can count on me, El Rushbo behind the golden EIB microphone.
Here is Mike in Tampa.
Welcome, sir.
You're next.
Make it count.
All right, Nicky Dittos from Tampa Rush.
I love your show.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
You're welcome.
I actually, I was really shocked.
And the reason I had the call today is that when you opened up your show by saying the drive-by media said there's nothing new here.
Yep.
Nothing new.
I'll tell you something that's new that the Americans have found out and our enemies have found out at the same time, which is that Hillary Clinton is a blabbermouth.
She'll tell top secret information to her daughter Chelsea, who probably doesn't have any security clearance, and make her into a target for international espionage.
Well, of course you're right, but then the drive-bys are in a full protection mode.
They're not, they're not.
I don't know how to really don't know how else to characterize this.
See, you're absolutely right.
Hillary Clinton's a security risk before she blabs to her daughter about what really went on.
She's a security risk before she's calling all of these foreign leaders and admitting that they're lying.
I mean, okay, imagine that you are the grand poobah of Qatar.
You're minding your own business, doing whatever you do in Qatar.
And Hillary Clinton calls you.
He says, by the way, the thing that we're saying about a video caused by Gaz, it didn't.
We know it was a terror attack.
This guy in Qatar says, okay, so I have a woman admitting to me she's lying to her own country.
And so is her president.
They are admittedly lying.
They're telling me and whoever else they're calling, they're lying to their own people in America about what happened.
Now, if you're the president of Qatar, or the grand poo-bah Qatar, or whatever other country, and she called a bunch of people to tell them this, supposed Middle Eastern allies.
What in the world are you going to think when it comes time to do business with this woman if she becomes president?
You're going to know full out that she's not honest.
Now, maybe you already know that, dealing with her.
Maybe these foreign leaders already suspect that about us.
I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be any integrity here, and there doesn't seem to be any concerns about it.
Or maybe, maybe the truth is that Hillary's calling all these other people, knowing they lie to everybody, too.
So the joke's on us.
But your point about her being a security risk, that has been well established with her private email server that was not protected and has probably been hacked.
Hillary Clinton's a security concern because of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
Hillary Clinton's been selling access to her future presidency for years to foreign governments, foreign entities, to the tune of over $100 million.
This is in addition to the $21 million she earned in two years making speeches before banks.
The woman and her husband have literally sold everything they have to sell.
They have sold their honesty.
They've sold their integrity.
They've sold this country down the river.
They have sold everything in order to amass critical personal wealth.
They have sold everything about this country and its policy and its future for their own personal gain in terms of amassing incredible wealth.
Security risk, long ago was that established.
The Clintons are obsessed with money, and they have been since they came on the national scene.
I'm sure that both of them since childhood have been obsessed with money.
And I mean it.
I mean obsessed with not having it when they were young and they go to Yale and Wellesley and wherever and they are admittedly around a bunch of blue-blood old money sons and daughters of the blue-blood rich and they don't have a dime.
They don't have a pot to pee in.
And those days are going to end as soon as they can figure out how to do it.
And the one thing they know, they're never going to be able to earn it.
They're going to have to be able to somehow run deals, some sort of scheme like Whitewater was in order to get rich.
And that has been their objective since before you and I ever heard their names.
And now they've pulled it off.
Why in the world take any country and make up a country?
My favorite made-up country, San Cordoba.
I watched the Mission Impossible episode, which they saved San Cordoba when I was like 12 years old, Sunday night, CBS.
San Cordoba.
So there's San Cordoba out there.
Mrs. Clinton's accepted, let's say, $50 million or $45 million in total from people in San Cordoba.
For what reason are people in San Cordoba or any country giving her money after she's, either while she's Secretary of State or afterwards?
Why are the banks paying her a quarter of a million dollars for 20 minutes of her time?
It's not because she's great at a party.
It's not because she's miss entertainment.
It's not because she comes in and dazzles and wows people.
It's not because she's got a great stand-up routine because she's a dryball.
She is a dead fish when it comes to being entertaining and alive.
Without a propter and a written script, she's nothing.
So we know they're not giving the money because she's cool to have around.
There's some other reason, and it's because Mrs. Clinton is selling access.
So security risk, long ago established.
The fact that this doesn't bother half the country, that's always been my concern.
I don't know if it's half the country, 40%.
The fact that we have an institution constitutionally endowed to speak truth to power, I think is the phrase.
The media, in the founding days of the Constitution, the purpose of the media was to make sure that powerful government officials were held accountable.
It really was.
I mean, it was the founders hated the media like everybody else hates the media, but they understood the role they played.
This media long ago, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Democrat Party, no, no, no, no.
The Democrat Party now, there is no media.
They're just journalists with Democrat hats with bylines.
And their objective is to advance the Democrat Party agenda and to protect Democrat Party officials because they're not really journalists, not in the sense you would define the word.
So the fact that here you have this giant institution called the Drive-By Media knowing full well that the Democrat Party is selling access to the United States presidency.
And they're not phased by it an iota.
You have this giant institution called the United States media was fully aware of the real reason behind open borders, mass immigration, and they're not phased by it.
They are not phased by any of the dubious, any of the criminal, any of the catastrophically wrong, catastrophically, potentially damaging behavior on the part of Democrats.
It won't even be reported on.
It won't even be referenced.
And as such, there's a certain percentage of the country that's never going to know what you and I know.
Certain percentage of the country that, if they were to be told, wouldn't believe it, because they would then be told that the people providing the information are those dreaded, unhip and uncool Republicans or conservatives or Tea Party.
And that has always been the objective here, how to break through to that crowd of people.
And there still isn't an answer for it.
But his kind of Mike is a brilliant comment in terms of citing this as an example of how Mrs. Clinton's a full-fledged security risk.
It reminds me that everybody knows that and they don't care.
Mrs. Clinton gaining the White House, it's all that matters.
It doesn't matter what she does when she gets there.
Well, it does because they're fellow travelers.
But doesn't seem to be any patriotism involved, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.
But the whole world knows Mrs. Clinton was lying to the American people about this video.
They know that President Obama was lying.
Obama and Hillary were calling these people and telling them, hey, hey, hey, we know it wasn't a video.
We know it was an act of terror.
You know, people are forgotten on the same day.
Don't forget, over at Cairo in our embassy in Cairo, the embassy there issued an apology for something that hadn't happened.
We issued an official State Department apology on September 11th, 2012.
And the apology was for any protest that might happen, given it was the anniversary date.
Now, it turns out that that apology, they told us, by the way, that some rogue State Department employee got something terribly wrong and released an apology that wasn't supposed to be released.
It was readied in case it was necessary, but it was released way, way prematurely.
It wasn't.
The whole thing was to set up the excuse that the video caused the protest in Cairo that incited the protest in Benghazi that led to four dead Americans.
So they were going to use this video as the excuse before any protest or terrorism even happened.
Which leads to other questions.
What did they know was coming down the pike?
Because they knew that night that what was going on at the annex and at the compound was not a protest.
They knew that it was a planned terror attack.
So how much in advance did they know?
Well, they had to know in some advance because they wrote an apology to Egypt.
The embassy in Cairo issues the apology.
And the apology was for being responsible for any acts of terror that might happen or any protests that got out of hand.
But nothing had happened when the apology.
I remember it happened during this program.
I remember when I found out we'd issued an apology, I started scratching my head.
I said, wait a minute.
Nothing.
So what are we doing this for?
And it only took 24 hours for all of it to be explained.
So anyway, the point is that Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama admit to world leaders they're lying to the American people.
They're assuring them, don't worry, we know it's not this video.
We know it was a terror attack.
Don't think we're not prepared to protect you.
Don't think we're not prepared to deal with acts of terror because we know that's what this is.
For our own reasons, we're blaming it on a video.
And their own reasons were an election was coming up in 56 days.
Barack Obama's presidential reelection in 2012.
I just watched on CNN, they were just interviewing one of their British reporters.
Well, he's American-based.
I don't know how to remember his name.
He was interviewing Nigel Farage, who was the leader of the Leave movement in Great Britain, leader of the get-the-hell out of the European Union movement.
And he was up there saying there's no way, no way I ever vote for Hillary Clinton.
No way I would ever tell any Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is the answer for those of us who wanted to leave the European Union.
Donald Trump is the answer for great American relations with the UK, with Great Britain.
And this reporter, there's nothing, nothing I can say to change your mind about Mrs. Clinton.
Not a thing.
Not a single thing.
And he was smiling all the way, but this guy was trying to talk him out of his support for Trump.
Here's Charlie in Wolkhill, New York.
Great to have you on the program, Charlie.
How are you?
Wow, great.
What an honor.
A million dittos from the very beginning.
Thank you, sir.
So, Rush, I've got four points I'd like to just list, and I'll hang up if you want, but I'm so overwhelmed with Hillary Fatigue, I can't tell you.
So the Monaco-Lawinski thing was worthy of an impeachment hearing.
If this isn't impeachable treason, it never existed.
And then you consider the selling off of American industries and jobs.
Wait just a second.
You said that and you kept going, but you're exactly right.
And not just her.
There are all kinds of impeachable offenses at a whole bunch of different levels of our government over this Benghazi thing.
It is that bad.
It is that incompetent.
It is that violative.
And you ran through it here.
But Hillary Fatigue, you're tired of hearing about her or you're tired of hearing her get away with everything.
Or hearing her get away with it.
It's always the Captain Kleeg vast right-wing conspiracy.
She sins and sins and breaks every law, and she's always got her 10 fingers pointed in 10 different directions for all that she does wrong.
It is really beyond the pale.
And around this whole administration, one treacherous, treasonous thing after another.
I think of the IRS tyranny.
I mean, we were founded on that holy ground, taxation without representation.
And here we have a politicized IRS predating on what they seem as the greatest threat in the world, Christian Tea Party people.
I mean, that's grounds for a second revolution: taxation with bad representation and in criminal representation.
I think about the political malfeasance and evildoing of so many of the politicians in this country from state levels on up, and Secret Service agents coming out with books about it.
Well, I thought they swore to uphold the Constitution and represent the people and the law.
And we're not a monarchy, and no president should be above the law.
He should be the first arrested when he does drugs or when he commits a man act or any of these things.
Well, I'm sure you've got, I'm out of time, sadly.
I wish I could keep rolling with you because I'm sure you've got people standing up and cheering you on.
But we got to go.
I'll be back after this, folks.
Thanks much.
No, that's right.
Apple Music also has lyrics in the upcoming iOS 10.