All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:43
June 28, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you.
El Rushbow here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Okay, here's how it all works.
Let me let me take just a brief moment to put together a timeline today.
I want to start yesterday.
Trey Gowdy's House Subcommittee investigating Benghazi announces their 800-page report.
Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo, two members of the committee, issue an accompanying report that is a condensed summary of the 800 pages.
Their report is 51 pages.
And it is a full-fledged indictment of the Obama administration and the State Department vis-a-vis Benghazi, and it details all the lies that were told by all the relevant players.
It for the first time puts everything in a timeline.
What was actually going when Mrs. Clinton, for example, was telling us that a video was responsible for the attack in Benghazi.
She was telling her daughter at the same time that it was not a video, that it was a terror attack.
At the same time, she and others in the regime were lying to us about it being a video.
They were on the phone with other world leaders telling them, assuring them it was a terror attack, that they knew it was a terror attack.
Pay no attention to this news that it was the video.
That's our public version.
But all of this is presented in the in in a contextual timeline.
It hasn't been presented that way in official form before.
Now, whether or not they're new details here, uh there are a few.
So the reports come out.
The reports are released.
The 51 page summary is released.
I think it's embargoed until after 5 o'clock last night.
Then it's made all made public today, and the members of the committee, some of them appear at a press conference, go through the timeline information.
Jim Jordan and Pompeo just nail it.
We've played their sound bites earlier.
They have both been on TV since, explaining it.
Their explanations and their report is a full-fledged indictment of Hillary Clinton and her incompetence and her lying and Barack Obama.
And we still don't have the question answered.
Where was Obama for these eight hours?
We still don't know that.
Because the regime will not send anybody to answer these questions.
So during the QA with the press, after the presentation of the report, the media immediately zeroes in with Gowdy and says, essentially asks essentially, so were you really here on a quest to find Hillary Clinton guilty?
And Gowdy's, no, no, no, no.
I was not given that responsibility.
Speaker Boehner and uh Speaker Ryan never told me to go out and investigate Hillary Clinton.
I simply wanted to find the answers to the questions of how Americans for Americans died in Benghazi.
And that's what we did.
And you can read the report.
So the media not caring what's in the report, they're trying to establish their own narrative.
And they whatever it is, their narrative is that this committee was nailing Hillary Clinton.
They were trying to get Hillary, but they didn't come up with anything.
And so the narrative after this press conference is nothing new here.
CNN actually runs their headline.
No new evidence of Hillary wrongdoing reported by committee.
So if you knew nothing until after the press conference today, and you tuned into CNN, the only thing you're going to know is that a Republican committee concluded its investigation and they didn't find any culpability on the part of Hillary Clinton.
That is the story.
But it's not the story.
But it's the story because the Republicans on the committee gave the media that narrative.
For whatever reasons, they do not want it reported.
They do not want anyone thinking that part of their effort was to find Hillary Clinton culpability.
Because for some reason the Republicans don't want anybody thinking that they're partisan.
Because the Republican theory is if they think that what we are doing is for partisan reasons, they're going to discount every bit of information that we uncover and produce.
So we want the substance of our report to speak for itself.
Fine, but that's going to require everybody to read it.
Nobody's going to read it.
The media isn't going to read it.
All they've got is the narrative they wanted that Hillary didn't get a glove placed on her.
That after all of these investigations now, nobody's found a thing to tie Hillary Clinton to it.
That's the story.
Now, you and I both know that that is not true.
We both know that Mrs. Clinton participated in the strategy session to create the lie that it was the video, a video that made all this happen.
We also know that the administration knew because of intel that a terror attack was being planned.
We know that the four Americans who died begged for assistance and none came.
We know everything we need to know to impeach people, is how much we know.
We have enough information to impeach people on lying about this alone.
Lying to the families of the dead, compromising American security.
Here's Mrs. Clinton lying to foreign leaders, admitting that what she and Obama are telling us, the American people, is not true.
She's on the phone with a wink and nod to all these Middle Eastern leaders, assuring them, no, no, we know it wasn't the video.
It was an act of terror.
Don't think we're not up to speed on Al-Qaeda and ISIS and whoever.
We know full well, and we're not going to leave you hanging, but we can't say that we've got to tell the American people that it was video.
Because an election was 56 days away, and there was no way under the sun this administration was going to in any way, shape, manner, or form make itself look responsible.
Even though it was totally.
Now this is all leading somewhere.
I have three new soundbites coming.
You just hang on.
I want to read to you here from page 30 of the Jim Jordan Pompeo condensed report.
51 pages totally.
51 pages total.
You keep in mind the context of which you're hearing this is the media reporting, no new evidence of any wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton.
Nothing to see here.
Another Republican committee failed to produce the goods on Mrs. Clinton.
She's scot-free.
That's the narrative today.
So section two, last clear chance.
In August 2012, it did not take an expert to see that the State Department's facility in Benghazi should have been closed if additional security was not to be provided.
Now, August 2012, this is a month prior to the attacks on Benghazi.
In August, it did not take an expert to see the State Department facility Benghazi should have been closed if additional security was not to be provided.
The location and the risk demanded Secretary Clinton's attention.
The Benghazi facility was wholly unique, and there is no evidence that Secretary Clinton asked her experts, let alone Ambassador Stevens, who she personally chose for the job, the hard questions.
The robust host nation security forces that the United States takes for granted in other countries did not exist in Libya.
Rather, competing militias, some friendly, some not, filled the vacuum left by 40 plus years of Qaddafi's rule.
What this means is that in most places where we have a security relationship and a diplomatic relationship, that our facilities are jointly Protected by our Marines and uniform military of the host nation.
There was none of that in Libya because we'd blown it to Smitherenes, getting rid of Gaddafi.
So the only thing we had, we didn't have any U.S. security there, folks.
We had none.
We were relying on ragtag militias, like the Michigan militia.
Only in Libya for protection of the consulate in Benghazi, meaning there wasn't any.
And it was known in August there wasn't any security.
Escalating violence against the U.S. compound and others in Libya, 230 incidents since June of 2011 alone made a terrorist attack all but inevitable.
These were the facts known in August of 2012.
Also in August of 2012, Secretary Clinton had the last clear chance to provide adequate protection or failing that to close the facility and pull our people out, and she did neither.
And here is a quote from State Diplomatic Security Agent No. 10.
In post-Gaddafi Libya, I told him that this was a suicide mission.
Meaning the ambassador, I told Stevens, I told him it's a suicide mission, that there was a very good chance everybody here was going to die.
That there was absolutely no ability here, meaning in Benghazi, to prevent an attack whatsoever.
Everybody back in D.C. knows that people are going to die in Benghazi, and nobody cares, and nobody is going to care until somebody does die.
This was a warning issued by a security official to the State Department and the administration by State Diplomatic Security Agent No. 10.
It was a war.
This makes this even more reprehensible.
We had security experts warning Hillary Clinton and the State Department, somebody's going to die there.
You don't have any security.
We've got a facility.
We don't have any local military to rely on.
You haven't sent anybody.
Somebody's going to die.
And he told this committee the reaction he got was that.
They'll deal with it when it happens.
According to the diplomatic security agent quoted above, he had this exchange with the State Department's desk officer for diplomatic security in the region that covered Libya shortly after he arrived in Benghazi on temporary assignment as the regional security officer.
So a guy sent there to assess the security situation is who reported back to the State Department.
Somebody's going to die.
You don't have any security here.
There's absolutely none.
And there had been over 230 terrorist incidents in the previous year.
Thank you.
The conversation did not occur days before the attack.
It did not occur a month before the attack.
This warning that I just shared with you, according to this report, was given nine months before September 11, 2012, shortly after this security agent arrived in Benghazi.
And it wasn't his only warning.
In June 2012, a second Benghazi security official reported on the increase in extremist activity in Benghazi and described his fear that we have passed a threshold where we will see more targeting, more attacks, and incidents involving Western targets.
Folks, what this all means is, and this is according to the Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo's summary of the 800-page report, the 51-page report, the summary, that the administration, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the State Department, had adequate intel for a full nine months prior that something like this was entirely possible and that if it were to happen, people were going to die because we had no defense.
And this was never acted on.
The ambassador was sent.
We still don't know what he was doing there.
You know, the rumors about maybe running a gun operation up to Syrian rebels.
We still don't know what he was doing there.
We don't know why all that.
We don't know why Benghazi was so important to whoever it was important to.
Okay.
So It goes on.
This 51 pages is filled with things just like this about Mrs. Clinton's incompetence, her culpability.
Hillary Clinton has since spoken to the media after the report and the press conference today.
She was in Denver.
Here's the first of her two soundbites.
I understand that after more than two years and seven million dollars spent by the Benghazi committee out of taxpayer funds.
Report it had found nothing.
Nothing to contradict the conclusions of the Independent Accountability Board.
Or the conclusions of the prior multiple earlier investigations carried out on a bipartisan basis in the Congress.
Simply following the narrative presented by her buddies in the media.
The committee didn't find anything.
There's nothing here.
The committee found absolutely nothing to link Hillary Clinton to this.
And here's her next sound button.
Nothing is more important than the safety and security of our diplomats and development officials who go into dangerous places around the world.
Pursuing American values, interests, and our security.
And I said this when I testified for eleven hours that no one has thought more about or lost more sleep over the lives that uh we lost the four Americans, uh, which was devastating.
She probably can't even name them.
Outside of the ambassador, she probably can't even name them.
Yeah.
The lives that we lost, the four Americans, which was devastating.
Nobody's lost more sleep over this than I am.
Nothing's more important to safety and security.
What an outright lie.
It's nothing more than an out.
So Donald Trump, what's he doing?
He's in Nesson, Pennsylvania, Western Pennsylvania.
Standing in front of uh it looks like a an aluminum Christmas tree.
It obviously is not that.
So what is that?
A recycling.
Yeah, it looks like a bunch of different colored cans that have been squished together like odd jobs, squished a car and goldfinger.
And it's obviously some recycled, but he's speaking on the prompter.
Have you been listening to it in there?
You haven't been listening to it.
Well, that's right.
You're screening calls.
You probably think that I'm running a test.
No.
He's on the prompter.
I listened a little bit during the uh during the break here.
And it's a different Trump.
It's a different Trump.
Uh well, it's a difference in somebody uh speaking improvisationally and somebody reading a prompter.
He's he's making his points.
I mean, he's not changing what he says.
Uh he's attacking Hillary and the elites and talking about himself as the best way for people to recapture the American dream.
No, the message is there.
It's just it it's uh it's uh and the crowd is not as enthusiastic as the usual Trump crowd is.
You know, somebody speaks on a prompter, the audience is also attuned to wait for the applause lines.
And if they're not obvious, then they don't applaud.
Sometimes the speaker thinks it's an applause line, waits, and when there's no applause, uh oh.
That hasn't happened.
I'm just telling you there's a difference here going out there and doing it and reading prompter.
Okay, so Trump is at the Illumisource plant in Manessa.
It's a recycled aluminum.
By the way, by the way, when you get home or when you uh have a chance to watch this, you'll note that Trump's hair is not orange today.
It's actually gray.
Did you notice that in there?
You d yeah, you didn't until I pointed it out.
His hair is gray, he's on the prompter.
Now the the audience here includes employees of uh a Lumisaurce.
The drive-bys are there, and a few invited guests.
It's not a typical Trump rally.
There's gonna be one of those later today over at uh Ohio University, the Eastern Campus at Ohio University.
That's that's scheduled for later today.
It's gonna look entirely different than this.
No, I'm not saying I'm not, I'm just telling you, he's on the prompter.
He's and it's it's a difference.
There's a difference when Trump's out there doing a rally and just improving and doing what he does and reading the message in the prompter.
He's not experienced reading the prompter, it's not easy to do.
And you can read it, and Everybody can follow the prompter, but if you know your eyes stay glued to the screen, you're gonna look like you're reading, not like you're speaking.
Um I tried a prompter once, I couldn't do it.
It was too constraining.
I just I just said screw it.
And I went off message and went back to I forget what it was even for.
I don't even remember.
Long, long time ago.
Um I'm not commenting.
I'm like, I'm I'm like Trey Gowdy.
I'm not characterizing anything here.
I'm just reporting.
Who, what, where?
He's in.
Draw your own conclusions.
You can watch it.
Just watch it.
Watch it.
Why do you need me telling you what's about?
I'm just following the lead, the Republican committee.
No, I'm just observing there's a difference.
It appears to me, I mean, I could just until I know for it.
It appears to me that some handlers have gotten hold of Trump and they have uh put him on prompter because they don't want any variance from the message.
Not saying it's not his message.
It is.
I mean, he's he's saying the same things he always says.
And you can tell at points he stops reading and starts commenting on what he just said.
It's almost like he's commenting on what somebody else just wrote.
And he amplifies on it and he pounds it, and then he goes back to reading.
And when he's not reading, he's looking right at you.
When he is reading, he's looking either to the left or to the right and not varying it.
It's when he goes off the prompter and looks straight ahead when he's improvising that you can tell he's not reading that.
Now he switches to the other side.
But the audience has got its own um uh is enthusiastic.
It's it's a it's uh it's the same Trump message, just how would I characterize this?
Uh narrowed.
The uh the uh what's the word I'm looking for here?
The uh oh well, I can't think I'm thinking of a of a musical digitally technical term, not uh spectrum, but he's is his uh oh, come on, mind what is the word I'm looking for.
I can't think of it.
Anyway, the the prompter has his message narrowed.
He's on a he's on a narrower road, and he's not taking any off ramps, you know, he's sticking right to it, which is I'm sure what the handlers um want here.
Now he's better at read- don't now don't wait, don't misunderstand.
He's better at reading the prompter than Hillary.
Don't don't anybody misconfuse me.
And uh I don't I think uh don't uh it's just I'm just observing that it's different from a Trump rally.
That's all.
See, now he's not on the prompter.
Now he's in lab ad-living, he's using his hands are moving, he's gyrating, he's now he's back to the prompter.
It's stupid of me to talk about this, because you know what's that people now rushing to try to turn on a TV to see what I'm describing.
Don't do that, folks.
Wait till this show's over, then go find it.
It's gonna be there.
Here's uh here's uh art in Brownwood, Texas.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
Let's get right to the point here.
Let's get right to the point here.
I uh I tend to do everything in notes, so it keeps me on track and on point.
Um, Mr. Dougal.
Uh Mr. Robert Dugdal, rather.
Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting the case uh of the so-called creator of this uh the innocence of Muslims.
Um apparently uh Mr. Nakola?
I'm not sure if you're pronounced that.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
You're you're talking about the video, and you're talking about the guy who prosecuted the guy as a as a yeah.
Okay, so what what about the alias Sam Basil uh as the name that he produced this movie under?
We know that The people who were in this movie, uh, the actors, they came out and publicly said that that was not the original intent of this movie.
It was supposed to have been a movie called uh uh Egypt Desert Warrior about a random Egyptian nut job.
Um, and when you look at this 14-minute clip thing, this is not a five million dollar movie.
Um this is really terrible acting, it's done on a really bad, poor green screen background.
The point is it wouldn't incite anybody to commit an act of terror.
No, and especially when we have people like Representative Stephen King of Iowa.
When he came out and he said, and I quote, we know this is false.
On top of that, we know that they knew it was false.
They knew within three hours it was a calculated, strategized attack by an organized enemy on the compound in Benghazi.
And on July 6th of 2014, we had Fox News came out, quote, court documents filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in the criminal case against Benghazi attack suspect, gave his name Katala or whatever you're talking about.
His name is his name is Nakula.
No, his name is Nakula Nakula.
And and they put him in jail to further this idea that he had committed some act of great aggression against the religion of peace, and put him in jail to show that we will pull out all the stops to go get these vile human beings that produce such filth that create terror attacks, is that we're not going to put up with it.
And they scared the hell out of the guy, and they turned him into Mr. Dossel, and he went along with every charge.
The point of this is it was poorly produced, it was laughably bad, it was not it couldn't generate any anger whatsoever.
The whole thing was a bad joke from beginning to end.
And anybody that's taken the time to look at it has concluded the same thing.
What's also known is nobody had seen it before 9-11, 2012.
It had hardly any hits, it didn't have any retweets or whatever the hell else he do to amplify the thing on social media.
It was just sitting out there.
It had been discovered by somebody as it as a in the in in the administration as a as a potential foil to explain away something that they knew had happened because of their negligence.
I'm talking about the administration.
I mean, it was it's it's there's no way that this video would anger any, any Islamic jihadist into taking action.
And what else do we know?
We know that it doesn't even take videos to make that happen.
We know that they attack because we are infidels.
It doesn't take a video.
As what happened in Benghazi proves Benghazi was a terror attack that had nothing to do with this video, which everybody administration admitted within hours of the attack.
Anyway, I'm starting to be redundant here, but I can't.
No, no, I'm gonna tell you.
I'm gonna tell you here's here's what you need to know about Benghazi, folks.
In the first place, there's not even any evidence that anybody in Libya ever saw that video.
There is don't I don't care what you hear from other people.
I'm telling you.
There's no evidence that anybody in Libya, which is where Benghazi is, for those of you in Rio Linda, ever saw the video.
Libya was at the time.
We had gotten rid of Qaddafi.
This was supposed to be Hillary Clinton's grand performance as Secretary of State, regime change without a shot being fired, no boots on the ground.
It was supposed to be the smart way.
Conducting warfare, the smart way of doing diplomacy.
Libya was, and it still is in total shambles.
Say, what do you want about a Qaddafi?
But he was a dictator, had the place running.
It was like Iraq after Saddam.
I'm not arguing for Qaddafi to remain, but it was a it was a disorganized mess, and all kinds of factions were angling for power.
There was mass crime taking place.
It was total chaos.
You wouldn't want any part of it.
Now the the key here is Hillary and Obama thought that Benghazi would love the United States.
This is their perverted, corrupt view.
They think that the things they don't like about this country are shared by our enemies, and therefore they think they have a common ground with our enemies.
Our enemies don't like certain parts of America, and Obama and Hillary agree with them, and they think that forms the basis of reliable diplomacy.
So in this case, Benghazi, it was thought the people in Benghazi, everybody would love the U.S. because Benghazi was the epicenter of the revolution against Qaddafi.
So Obama and Hillary think we're going to be loved there.
Because we engineered Qaddafi going, and Benghazi was the epicenter.
That's why we put the annex there.
Why we put the mission there to show solidarity with the people that had overthrown Qaddafi.
The only problem was, and this is where the incompetence in the and the just what else to describe these people.
The incompetence and the unpreparedness comes in.
The same terrorists who overthrew Qaddafi hated the United States.
They didn't love us.
They weren't joining with us because we had helped them overthrow Qaddafi.
They hated us because we're America.
Obama and Hillary are thinking we forged a new alliance.
So they went after our mission on the anniversary of 9-11 because that's what terrorists do.
A tiger is a tiger.
Snake's a snake, and alligator's an alligator.
Al Qaeda's Al-Qaeda.
And our people were aware of it because I've read to you page 30, the warnings on security and the lack of it, that people were going to die, and Hillary and Obama ignored all of that, thinking they had forged a relationship with these Benghazi terrorists because we had the common ground of getting rid of Qaddafi.
That was the main reason for not sending security.
We didn't want to offend them.
We didn't think we had to.
We didn't want to send security because we had this new alliance with this new relationship with people in Benghazi.
Hillary and Obama did not want to offend the terrorists in Benghazi, who they thought would now love us.
That is how dangerously incompetent and totally erroneously wrong these people are about our enemies.
And who the hell wants to form an alliance with these people anyway, folks?
I opened this program today talking about how sickening I feel over all of this.
And it's only gotten worse as this program has unfolded before your eyes and ears today.
Bye.
The very idea that we somehow would have an alliance with a bunch of human debris, and therefore we could trust them not to attack us because we saw things through the same set of eyes.
And meanwhile, when you know all of that, they think we, conservatives and Republicans.
We are the real enemy.
We're the ones you can't form alliances.
We're the ones that have to be beaten back at every tack and turn.
But yeah, we can find some commonality with our blood brothers in Al-Qaeda who also hated Qaddafi, and they would love us because we helped them get rid of Gaddafi.
And I don't want anybody misunderstanding me on Trump and his prompter business.
I'm just observing it's a different guy, but he finished this speech in typical Trump barn burner status.
And he was not reading the prompter.
And he finished it by saying, you're gonna be proud again.
You're gonna be proud of your president, which is a big deal.
You're gonna be proud, proud, proud of your country.
You're gonna be proud again, you're gonna be happy, we're gonna be richer, we're gonna.
It was it was it was a great, great, great finale here in a state that he's gonna have to win.
You would think it'd be great if he did.
Pennsylvania, one of these rust belt states that traditionally goes Democrat.
So all's cool, folks.
We'll be back here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection