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 a contextual timeline.
It hasn't been presented that way in official form before.
Now, whether or not there are new details here, there are a few.
So the reports come out.
The reports are released.
The 51-page summary is released.
I think it's embargoed till after 5 o'clock last night.
Then it's 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 Q ⁇ A 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 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 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.
You strip it all away.
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.
Before, 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 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 in 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 Gaddafi'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 Smithereens, 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 number 10.
In post-Qadhafi, 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 said anybody.
Somebody's going to die.
And he told this committee the reaction he got was, everybody knows 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.
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 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 $7 million spent by the Benghazi committee out of taxpayer funds, it had to today 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 United States.
Hillary Clinton, 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 soundbite.
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 11 hours that no one has thought more about or lost more sleep over the lives that we lost, the four Americans, 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 have.
Nothing's more important than safety and security.
What an outright lie.
It's nothing more than an out.
So Donald Trump, what's he doing?
He's in Manessen, Pennsylvania, Western Pennsylvania, standing in front of it, looks like 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 have been squished together like odd jobs, squished a car in 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 break here.
And it's a different Trump.
It's a different Trump.
Well, it's a difference in somebody speaking improvisationally and somebody reading a prompter.
He's making his points.
I mean, he's not changing what he says.
He's attacking Hillary and the elites and talking about himself as the best way for people to recapture the American Dream.
the message is there.
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, 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 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?
Yeah, you didn't until I pointed it out.
His hair is gray.
He's on the prompter.
Now, the audience here includes employees of Illumisource.
The drive-bys are there and a few invited guests.
It's not a typical Trump rally.
There's going to be one of those later today over at Ohio University, the Eastern Campus at Ohio University.
That's scheduled for later today.
It's going to look entirely different than this.
No, I'm not saying, I'm not, I'm just telling you, he's on the prompter.
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 on the prompter.
He's not experienced reading the prompter.
It's not easy to do.
And you can read it.
Everybody can follow the prompter, but if your eyes stay glued to the screen, you're going to look like you're reading, not like you're speaking.
I tried a prompter once.
I couldn't do it.
It was too constraining.
I just said, screw it.
And I went off message and went back.
I forget what it was even for.
I don't even remember.
Long, long time ago.
I'm not commenting.
I'm like Trey Gowdy.
I'm not characterizing anything here.
I'm just reporting.
The who, what, where?
He's in.
Draw your own conclusions.
You're going to 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 did.
No, I'm just observing there's a difference.
It appears to me, I mean, I could just, until I know for you, it appears to me that some handlers have gotten hold of Trump and they have 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 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.
He switches to the other side.
But the audience has got its own enthusiastic.
It's the same Trump message, just how would I characterize this?
Narrowed.
The what's the word I'm looking for here?
The oh, well, I can't think.
I'm thinking of a musical digitally technic term, not spectrum, but he's his, oh, come on, mind, what is the word I'm looking for?
I can't think of it.
Anyway, the prompter has his message narrowed.
He's on a narrower road, and he's not taking any off-ramps.
He's sticking right to it, which is, I'm sure, what the handlers want here.
Now, he's better at, don't, now, don't wait, don't misunderstand, he's better at reading the prompter than Hillary.
Don't anybody misconfuse me.
And I don't, I think, 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 ad-libbing.
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?
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 going to be there.
Here's 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 tend to do everything in notes, so it keeps me on track and on point.
All right, Mr. Dougal, Mr. Robert Dukedow, rather, Assistant United States Attorney, prosecuting the case of the so-called creator of this The Innocence of Muslims.
Apparently, Mr. Nakola, I'm not sure if you're pronouncing it.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
You're talking about the video, and you're talking about the guy who prosecuted the guy as a.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay, so what about?
He used the alias Sam Basil as the name that he produced this movie under.
We know that the people who were in this movie, 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 Egypt Desert Warrior about a random Egyptian nutjob.
And when you look at this 14-minute clip thing, this is not a $5 million movie.
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 jail.
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 attacked suspect gave his name Kakatala or whatever.
His name is Nakula.
No, his name is Nakula Nakula.
And they put him in jail to further this idea that he had committed some act of great aggression against the religion of peace.
They 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 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. Docele.
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 you do to amplify the thing on social media.
It was just sitting out there.
It had been discovered by somebody in the administration 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 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 in the administration admitted within hours of the attack.
Anyway, I'm starting to be redundant here, but I can't.
No, no, I'm going to tell you.
I'm going to tell you.
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.
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 Gaddafi.
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 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 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 Gaddafi.
So Obama and Hillary think we're going to be loved there because we engineered Gaddafi 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 Gaddafi.
The only problem was, and this is where the incompetence and the just what else to describe these people.
The incompetence and the unpreparedness comes in.
The same terrorists who overthrew Gaddafi hated the United States.
They didn't love us.
They weren't joining with us because we had helped them overthrow Gaddafi.
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.
A snake's a snake.
An 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 Gaddafi.
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 or 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.
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 Gaddafi, and they would love us because we helped them get rid of Gaddafi.
And I don't want anybody misunderstanding me on Trump and this 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 going to be proud again.
You're going to be proud of your president, which is a big deal.
You're going to be proud, proud, proud of your country.
You're going to be proud again.
You're going to be happy.
We're going to be richer.
It was a great, great, great finale here in a state that he's going to have to win.
You would think it'd be great if he did.
Pennsylvania, one of these rust-belt states that traditionally goes Democrats.