All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
June 28, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
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.
Uh telephone number if you want to be on the program, and we're going to get to calls El Quicko here, 800-282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, I check them.
It's Ilrushbow at EIB net.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.
But the point is, after we spend time on it here, that's going to be it.
Aside from elsewhere in uh the blogs, Fox News and so forth will be talking about it.
But as far as the drive-by is concerned, it's pretty much dead now.
Since they didn't find in the new wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton, there's no story here.
Benghazi's old news, yeah, four Americans dead.
Yes, too bad.
So sad.
Well, 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.
And I want to read to you here from uh a story about the Democrat version of the Benghazi report.
They 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 mentioned 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 accused 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 to Oh, no, no, no, no.
We won't even find Hillary.
No, no, no.
We no, no, no, no, no.
We don't, 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. Clinton.
You want you we don't see us wearing t-shirts saying that 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's been a waste of taxpayer dollars.
This decades in the future, historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation.
This 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 I'm 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 at this distance.
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-by's 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 of political opportunity himself.
But one thing the Democrats did wrong.
They mistaken, listen, the LA 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.
It 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.
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 state that 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.
And 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 for 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 a twin.
Well, I don't know about that.
Um, 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 two percent 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 is 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 are 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 quote or 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.
In 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 Democrat.
If the Democrats think that Trump is never going to amount to Hill of 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, Russ.
It's an honor to speak with you, sir.
Um, and I just wanted to make a quick point.
I saw the press conference this morning, and my heart gets 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.
Um 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 uh vacating all the charges against the former governor of Virginia Bob McConnell.
And uh, you know, the the the knee-jerk reaction most people had it was understandable.
All right, all right, they railroaded the guy, they got him out of the way so that he couldn't help Cucinelli, they got him out of the way so that basically elect McCawloff, 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 fishing campaign.
PH ISHING.
One of Hillary's crack staff members fell for a fishing 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 Chicons 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.
No, McDonald, I'm sorry.
Well who am I who am I conf Oh, I'm confusing him with Mitch.
Well, you know these names.
I remember you know, Sadig Siki Marine Mateen, then you've got the mayor of London is Omar Sadig Khan, and you've got, you know, Lou Alcinder and the NBA, Sahib Skyhook.
I don't get the names run together something.
Don't have them talking about Bob McDonnell 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.
Sturdley's asking if he threw his wife under the bus.
What husband doesn't?
Remember it's 2016.
Little feminist lingo there.
Anyway, seriously, um, 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 what you could look at this and say the establishment circling the wagons, protecting its own little fiefdom.
But then they say, no, wait a minute, no, because we wouldn't get Clarence Thomas voting for that.
We wouldn't, we wouldn't get a leito.
But I don't I don't know how you look at it.
To me, um this probably is scene by anybody thinking of charging Hillary Clinton as thinking it's now waste of time.
Because even if they get a conviction, it's gonna be tossed, and maybe 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.
L. Rushball behind the golden EIB microphone.
Here is uh Mike in Tampa.
Welcome, sir.
You're next.
Make it count.
All right, naked data is from Tampa Rush.
I love your show.
Thank you very much, and I appreciate that.
You're welcome.
I actually I was really shocked, and the reason I had to 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 the the drive-by are in a full protection mode.
They're they're not, they're not.
I I don't know how to I I really don't know how else to characterize this.
See, you're 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 poo-ba of cutter, and you're minding your own business, doing whatever you do in cutter, and Hillary Clinton calls you.
It didn't.
We know it was a terror attack.
This guy in Cutter says, okay, so this is we 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 Cutter, or the Grand Poohacher, 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 maybe these foreign leaders already suspect that about us.
I 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 dollars.
This is in addition to the 21 million dollars 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 they're saying 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 prompt or written script, she's nothing.
So we know we're near 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, I mean it was it was the founders hated the media like everybody else hates the media, but they understood the role they played.
This media long ago, so 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 uh Democrat hacks 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, and 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 of those dreaded unhip and uncool Republicans or conservatives or Tea Party.
And that has that's always been the objective here, how to break through to that crowd of people.
And there still isn't an answer for it.
But but his his conveyor mic is it's it's a brilliant comment in the 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 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, and they 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, it was, uh it was get was 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 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 a protests that got out of hand.
But nothing had happened when the apology was.
I remember it happened during this program.
I remember when I found out we'd issued an apology.
I started scratching my head, what wait a minute.
Nothing said, What are we doing this for?
And it only took twenty-four 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 fifty-six days.
Barack Obama's presidential re-election in two thousand and twelve.
I just watched on CNN, they were just interviewing one of their British reporters.
Well, he's he's American based.
I don't know, 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, not 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 uh here's Charlie in Woke Hill, New York.
Great to have you on the program, Charlie.
How are you?
Wow, great.
What an honor.
Uh a million dittoes 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 uh Hillary fatigue I can't tell you.
Uh so the Monica Lewinsky thing was worthy of an impeachment hearing.
If this is an impeachable uh treason, it it never existed.
Uh and then you consider the selling off of American industries and jobs.
Wait just a second.
I I you 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 and you you ran through it here.
What do you but y Hillary fatigue?
You're tired of hearing about her, or you're tired of hearing her get away with everything.
Oh, hearing her get away with it.
It's always the Captain Cleague, vast right-wing conspiracy.
She sends and sins and breaks every law, and she's always got her ten fingers pointed in ten different directions for all that she does wrong.
Uh, it is it is really beyond the pale.
Uh and 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, if I mean that's grounds for a second revolution.
Taxation with bad representation and in criminal representation.
Uh, I think about the political malfeasance and evil doing 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 or any of these things.
Well, I'm sure you've got I'm I'm out of time, sadly.
I wish I could keep rolling with you, because I'm sure you got people standing up and cheering you on, but we gotta go.
I'll be back after this, folks.
Thanks much.
No, that's right.
Apple Music also has lyrics in the upcoming iOS 10.
I, of course, am running the beta.
Hey, Apple, where's the next beta, by the way?
It's been over two weeks now.
Uh, but they got lyrics in Well, they Snerdley's in there laughing.
It is a frustrating thing.
▲
Export Selection