All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
July 1, 2016, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, my friends.
Great to have you with you.
Uh have you with us as we roll on.
here on the EIB Network on Friday.
EIB Network And the telephone number, if you would like to appear, is 800 282-2882.
If you want to send an email, it's open line Friday.
Remember now, it does not have to be about anything anybody else is saying.
You can branch out and talk about whatever if you want.
Lrushbow at EIB net.com is the email address.
And I searched those, you know, I reference those now and then.
Okay, so alternative theories continue to pop up here as to what's really going on with the Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton, Troika, and the meeting between Lynch and Clinton and Phoenix on the tarmac, General Aviation Private Jet, Loretta Lynch's passenger cabin there.
Spoke uh an hour ago, Jay Christian Adams, who thinks that uh the fix is in, and that La Wrench pulling herself that Loretta Lynch pulling herself out of this is really not a big deal at all.
Uh it doesn't mean what uh everybody wants to believe.
Uh it by that I mean so many of us want Hillary to be indicted.
So many people just want the Clintons to finally get theirs.
They have been skating the edges of the law for the entire time they've been in the public scene, and in many instances, they have been way beyond the edge.
And they get away with it.
Whatever it is, they get away with it.
And we're being set up, I believe, to think that there might be a real, real, real chance this time of uh nailing Hillary Clinton and this email stuff.
I mean, the goods are there.
And we're told that we've got an FBI director who's Mr. Law and Order, and he doesn't care about partisan politics, James Comey.
That is true for the most part.
So theories are abounding.
Uh my theory is that we're being played, that there's no way, given the construct of the modern-day Democrat Party, that anybody there is going to sit idly by and let their party presidential nominee, particularly Hillary Clinton, be indicted and then possibly convicted, and then possibly go to jail, or what it just isn't going to happen.
And my theory is we're being played because it's it's happened before.
They get us all excited.
This may be the one.
this may be the time we finally get them and they skate again and everybody just gives up.
We're just, we can't win.
They want you thinking.
We can't win.
It's hopeless.
They just got us outnumbered.
They've got us outsmarted.
They just we can't win.
That's how I think we're being played.
Chris Steyrwalt at Fox News thinks the purpose of the meeting was to eventually get an independent counsel appointed.
His theory is that they are so close to an indictment that Comey's got the goods, and everybody knows it.
I mean, there's there's been enough.
You've got credible people on our side, like Joe DeGenevist.
Look, I've got FBI favorite.
The goods are there.
She's guilty of sin.
And a lot of people think that.
A lot of people are why hasn't it happened before now?
What are they waiting so long for?
We've got the goods.
I mean, that's been leaked.
That's been put in the public domain sufficiently well enough that a whole lot of people think, I mean, even at one point in a Democrat debate.
Jorge Ramos of Univision asked her if she would resign from the campaign if she were indicted.
She laughed and cackled.
So the possibility is out there.
Steyerwalt's theory is that the meeting took place specifically for the purpose of creating the appearance of impropriety, which would then soil the investigation,
requiring the appointment of an independent counsel, which would take the Investigation back to day one, we'd start all over another two years.
No way.
Could there be an indictment or anything damaging to Mrs. Clinton before the election?
That's another popular theory that's out there.
There are other theories, such as Loretta Lynch knows full well Hillary's guilty.
Comey's told her there's no doubt about it.
She's pulled herself out of this so as to avoid being tainted by it.
In other words, she's a Democrat attorney general.
She doesn't want her career in the Democrat Party hampered by appearing to taint any kind of an outcome, so she pulls out of it so that whatever happens has no fingerprints of hers on it.
That theory is out there.
I got a note from Andy McCarthy.
He heard the conversation I had with J. Christian Adams, and he agrees with most of it, but he has one slight difference of opinion.
And that is over her recusal.
Andy believes, and Andy was in the DOJ, as you all know by now, he was an actual prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of New York, which is Manhattan.
He's prosecuted a blind shake, as you all know by now.
And he said that he thinks that Loretta Lynch should recuse herself simply because the rules require it.
Ethics, rules, which to genuine law and order people mean something.
She has violated enough now that she should recuse herself.
The investigation is tainted by virtue of her meeting with Bill Clinton.
The fact that it's been discovered that the only course of action for her as an ethical member of the court is an ethical member of the law and ordered Department of Justice, whatever, is to recuse herself.
And he uh where he disagreed with Christian Adams was in this sense.
He doesn't think that conservatives should want her not to recuse herself.
J. Christian Adams said that we don't want her to recuse herself because that would confound things politically for us.
He he thinks Andy thinks that she should recuse herself.
There's no two ways about it, because ethics and the law demand it, the rules, just demand it.
No matter how you feel about it, she has to recuse herself like a judge would.
You know, if look you know, that's a good comparison.
Imagine that this case is already proceeded and she's the judge, and Clinton meets with her.
There wouldn't be any question about that.
She would have to recuse herself if she met with the husband of the accused, who's also involved with the email aspect because the server was also in his basement.
So Andy's point is that we as conservatives should want her to recuse herself because that's the rules.
The rules require it.
And also there's a uh uh I mentioned here at the conclusion of previous hour.
Her spokesman, Loretta Lynch's spokesman has told Bloomberg that she is maintaining the right to overrule the career prosecutors in the FBI.
So this kind of negates her statement earlier that got everybody all hopped up and excited.
Mark Halpern is the source of this via a tweet, key clarification from DOJ official R. E. what Loretta Lynch plans to say today.
And it differs greatly from the New York Times lead from a senior DOJ official, Attorney General Lynch reserves the right to overrule the recommendation of career prosecutors and or the FBI in the Hillary Clinton email probe.
This DOJ official says the probability she would overrule is very, very low, but it is not zero.
So the news is that she will not recuse, despite the fire storm, saying that she will treat this case like other cases, showing deference, but reserving the right to overrule is not new.
It's what Lynch, like her predecessors, does on almost all cases.
So with this tweet from the spokesman of the DOJ, you can forget the fact that Loretta Lynch has said that she is standing aside and will accept the recommendations of the career prosecutors and the FBI.
That's meaningless.
So almost a half day of the news cycle has been wasted on something that isn't news.
Because she is saying, according to her spokesman, that she's reserving the right to overrule.
Whatever decision hands down is handed down, comes from the FBI.
So we're back to square one in terms of trying to figure all this out and translate it and uh and analyze it.
The uh the point about career prosecutors being in the tank for Hillary and Loretta Lynch, and being a thorn in the FBI said, by the way, this is a very, very important point.
And when I first saw this today, red flags went up everywhere because her original statement was she was going to stand aside, not recuse, but she was going to accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors and the FBI.
Well, what if they're not the same?
What if the FBI, what if Comey presents his investigation and it is to indict?
What if Comey says, I've got evidence here that's that's so solid we're gonna get a conviction without hardly any doubt whatsoever?
Well, what if the career prosecutors don't see it that way?
He said career prosecutors and the FBI, not or.
That means the career prosecutors have to agree with what the FBI submits, just as she would.
She simply said that she was deferring the decision on whatever the FBI presents to the career prosecutors.
Well, the point about that is that career prosecutors are not going to be on the side of the FBI.
Career prosecutors, these are people that are there no matter what party is in power.
They're not political appointees.
These are prosecutors that are there for however long they want to stay.
And by career, it's meant that they're not appointed by incoming administrations.
They survive as long as they want to, until they get fired, until they resign, what have you.
But the career prosecutors would no doubt do what they thought the attorney general would do or wants to do.
Because, like anybody else in any other office, how do you advance?
How do you get a raise?
How do you brown nose?
How do you get gold stars?
You do it by agreeing with the boss.
You show the boss that you're on her side.
You show the boss that she can count on you.
You may be a career prosecutor.
It doesn't mean that Lynch and Obama can't fire you if they don't like the work you're doing.
So the presumption is that the career prosecutors are not going to look at this any differently than Loretta Lynch would, which is another reason why it's no big deal for her, in my opinion, to take herself out of the equation, because she she's not gonna turn this over to people without knowing what they're gonna do.
No sane lawyer ever does anything like that, either with a witness, being granted immunity or testifying.
You know what they're gonna say before you put them up there.
You don't ask them the question until you know what they're gonna say, usually having already said it under oath in a deposition of many cases.
So you know, back in May, uh you remember they stopped the FBI from questioning Cheryl Mills about the procedure used to produce Hillary's emails to the State Department.
You know, the the actual, excuse me, the actual collection of these 60,000 emails on Hillary's server to present those to the State Department, because by definition they didn't have them.
She had her own server.
And this is when Hillary went through them herself, she said, and 30,000 of them were irrelevant, they were personal, they had to do With yoga class and Chelsea's wedding and whatever else.
And in the other 30,000, now that was serious stuff, and she sent it over to the DOJ.
And you'll recall that even after that, we keep learning.
They discover 14 more here that were not presented, another two over here.
The drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, if you recall.
Well, they called in Cheryl Mills and other people from Hillary's office to testify about this process.
Well, maybe not testify, but it was an interview of all the okay, maybe it was okay at depot.
Huma Weiner.
Well, if you recall back in May, the career prosecutors shut down the FBI questioning of Cheryl Mills about the procedure used to produce Hillary's emails.
And if you recall, the DOJ lawyers made up a preposterous attorney client privilege argument to stop the FBI from asking some of the most important questions that Mills was in a position to answer.
Such as what did Hillary provide to state and what did she destroy?
And okay, so she said the 30,000 were not relevant.
Well, what was in those 30,000?
They shut down the questioning.
These career prosecutors, the career prosecutors have already shown their hand.
Which is why I think all this, I think all of this is a giant game.
It is so classically part of the Clinton handbook on dealing with your enemies.
I'll give you another example, if you want to remember this.
Remember when the Lewinsky story was published by Matt Drudge?
Newsweek had it, Michael Isakoff, but Newsweek spiked it.
They thought, nothing to see here.
Drudge got hold of it, ran the whole story, which revealed Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, got that ball rolling.
Well, we remembered three weeks before that, three weeks before that, the Los Angeles Times ran a front page photo, black and white photo, of Bill and Hillary Clinton in swimming suits dancing on the beach on a Caribbean island.
The LA Times is the only place had the picture.
That day, at the White House press briefing, Mike McCurry was the press secretary.
Some reporter asked about it, and McCurry said, that is the most outrageous example of journalism I have ever seen.
I can't believe that that's an invasion of privacy would ever that was unconscionable what the media is doing to this president.
What picture?
What are you talking about?
Nobody knew it.
This is 92.
This before Facebook, Twitter, this is before internet mass distribution of news.
It was the LA Times, and every single what picture.
Well, everybody knew about the picture.
And the picture shows the Clintons in love and swimsuits and dancing on the beach.
Like nothing could be wrong in this marriage.
Three weeks before Drudge publishes the spiked newsweek store.
There's more to this.
I have to take a break.
Don't go away.
And there's one more point here about the Chris Stierwalt theory.
I don't want anybody sending stywald emails saying that I was bashing Steirewall.
Okay, and that probably guarantees it's going to happen.
I'm just going to tell you that I have a slight divergence of opinion on the Steyrwalt theory that the meeting out there took place in order to get the process started of appointing an independent counsel.
She wouldn't have to do this to appoint an independent counsel.
She could do that anytime she wanted.
And she wouldn't have to taint her reputation to do it.
This meeting with Clinton on a jet in Phoenix has within certain circles questioned her ethics.
We've got the appearance of impropriety here.
It's being talked all about over the place.
We have her now explaining what she's doing, and there's a there's a uh a level of doubt that has now arisen.
None of that was necessary.
If she wants to appoint an independent council, she can do it any time she wants for whatever reason.
Any number of believable reasons, too.
And then, folks, there's another aspect of this.
Did they want this meeting to be discovered or not?
Remember, if it weren't for that ABC affiliate out in Phoenix, and the morning drive anchor getting a phone call from a source, nobody would know this had happened unless one of the FBI agents of Secret Service leaks it.
Nobody would know it happened.
If they wanted this meeting to happen, there were a bunch of easier ways to get the news out that it had.
Open line Friday, Rushlin Boy having more fun than a human being, should be allowed to have okay, time to go back to the phones now, and we have a 12-year-old rush baby named James from Conway, Massachusetts on the phone.
Hi, James, how are you today?
Good.
How are you, Mr. Limbaugh?
Very, very fine.
Thank you very much.
It's a pleasure to have you on the program today.
Thank you.
So what's up?
Uh well, I had an idea for your next book.
Unless you're already making it, then your next next book.
It's about Christopher Columbus.
Christopher Columbus.
Yes.
Why do you think we should uh do a book on Christopher Columbus?
Well, because there's lots of people and kids that I've met that hate them.
They call them horrible, racist, a psychomaniac, a killer, a slave owner.
How old are you, James?
Twelve?
Yeah, 12.
12 years old.
And you know people that have called Christopher Columbus horrible, a racist, uh a psychomaniac, killer, and a slave owner.
Yeah, it's basically my whole school, sadly.
I don't doubt that.
Now don't don't misunderstand my question.
How do you know that he wasn't?
Well, we have this uh book at our house that kind of documented document documented his whole entire journey.
Right.
And everything he did, and when we read the book, we found nothing in there.
So exactly about that.
I wanna I want to make sure I understand, because if I'm right about this, you are an incredibly gifted and advanced young man.
At age twelve, you already know some of the uh truthful aspects of Christopher Columbus and his voyages to the new world, and you're also aware of how certain people have attempted to lie about that, and in your case, have persuaded a bunch of other people your age that Christopher Columbus was all those horrible things you said.
Yes.
I think that's incredible.
Um do you know why?
Have you have you told your parents about this?
Do you know why these things are being said about Christopher Columbus?
Well, not entirely, but I think it has something to do with they don't like uh any of the new finding of something, exploration, they want to have it all be equal and stuff like that.
Well, you're close.
Let me let me tell you.
It's been going on for a long time you're exactly right, by the way.
I don't I don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing with you.
I'm I'm trying to find out exactly how extensive this is, even within your school and within the few people you know that your age.
Um this has been going on, uh, this effort to taint and to uh criticize impugned to destroy everything good about all of the traditions associated with the founding of America and the arrival Of Western civilization on this continent.
That's why this is all happening.
And it's happening because of a of a phenomenon called multiculturalism.
And that thing, multiculturalism, has basically taken over the curriculum or what is taught in the public school system.
So Christopher Columbus was all of those horrible things.
And further even people that came to America after Columbus.
I'm sure you're you're going to be taught if you haven't already that the people that were here, the Native Americans were beautiful, they were wonderful, they were at one with nature, and these evil white Europeans like Columbus came in and killed them and took them uh imprisoned them, stole what was theirs, took it for ourselves.
Their point is to undermine as much of the greatness, historical greatness and tradition that led to the founding of the United States.
That's that's what they want your like your people your age, the kids your age at twelve years think this.
The purpose of teaching them is so that they do not think America is such a great place.
That's the objective of teaching this stuff.
And it's only the beginning.
As you stay in school, you're gonna hear much more like this about people that came way after Christopher Columbus.
And I am I can't tell you how flattered I am that you want me to do a rush revere book to correct this.
Well, actually I had heard all about the evil white people coming to take away everything and stealing all their gold and their houses and their babies.
It was I didn't get it.
I I thought it was just an exploration from New York.
Do you do you go home and you tell your parents about this?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Yes.
I tell my parents everything that happens at school.
Right.
And they uh they take the time to tell you how they don't believe what you're being taught's true.
Yes, they do.
They take the time to tell me uh why they don't believe this that that isn't really a true thing, because we have all these old books in our house of explorations and travels and finding this new land.
Um let me James, let me ask you this.
Are some of the people that you have heard say these things about Columbus and the other things you just mentioned, the other things that were supposedly very, very bad about the people who discovered and founded America.
Is it been teachers in addition to your students who have said these things?
Yes.
Yeah, that's what I was.
There are a couple of teachers that are all just Christopher Columbus is evil, and Christopher Columbus shouldn't there should be no holiday call Columbus Day should be indigenous people's day.
It's I I don't get it.
Do you know what indigenous people means?
No, but it does it doesn't really sound like a good thing.
Well indigenous means the people who were here before Columbus got here and destroyed everything.
Indigenous people in this case would be well, Columbus actually discovered the Caribbean before the bit, but to the extent that he discovered America.
They're talking about Native Americans or Indians.
That so it should be indigenous People's Day, not Columbus Day.
Uh James, the whole point of this, and you sound mature enough to to hear this, because obviously your your parents are trying to counter what you're teaching.
You are gonna hear more of this because this has become the standard curriculum in the in the public school system.
You're gonna hear things like this, you're gonna hear about how the Americans have destroyed the planet with climate change, our entire political system, our economic system has created poverty all over the world.
By the time they finish with you, their objective is to get you doubting everything good about this country.
That's what they want for you and your classmates.
They want you to not believe any of the greatness.
They don't want you to have any pride.
They want you to feel guilty.
They want you to feel like you need to get into action to correct all these wrongs that your ancestors, James, brought with them.
And it's uh it's a horrible thing.
It's not true.
None of it's it's it's so made up and and and it's just a pack of lies.
All done for political objectives.
And then they also teach teach us fake history, so we make the same mistakes as in the past, which then will try to tell you that what your parents learned or what your grandparents learned was a bunch of lies, and they're telling you the truth now.
They're somehow telling us the truth.
Right.
They're telling us that climate change is going to kill us all.
Global warming.
Well, multiple polar ice craps in the world will spin out of control.
It's it's really odd.
I don't get it.
Look at the fun.
You hear what you're twelve years old.
This, I mean, you you probably have twelve-year-old kids yourselves listening to this.
But this is this is exactly this is exactly why we write the Rush Revere books.
This is exactly you.
I can't tell you how happy I am that you want us to do a book on this.
Thank you.
Um and all that, because you you're uh you're reading them and and but I'm I'm also really encouraged that it is not working on you or your parents.
No, I just hate it all.
It's all all the liberal lies and the communist idea of everything should be equal.
And then once everything's equal, we're stuck with the same stuff.
Everyone has the same clothes, shoes.
No, but you won't.
See, that's the thing.
There's no such thing as equality.
No two people are the same.
You you will not have the same clothes.
Well, they might put you in a uniform.
Uh but but don't ever fall for this notion that uh no two things are equal, no two people are equal.
Nobody can guarantee equal outcomes unless everybody's poor.
Yeah.
The only way they can do it, and that's how it works in these utopian countries where there's socialism supposedly made up of compassionate leaders that want everybody to do if you go anywhere where these countries exist, people live in poverty, they live in tyranny, they do not have freedom to act or to think.
Uh you're you're gonna be bombarded with this as you get older.
You have a wonderful foundation to resist it.
And I I hope, I hope you're able to.
I'm being bombarded already.
They they're saying that whatever I choose is wrong.
Because I personally don't bel because I don't believe in climate change.
I mean, I believe in natural climate change, like the seasons changing.
But man me in climate change, they just want me to believe, they want me to believe in global warming, they want to believe in let me tell you something, James.
I had I had an appointment after my program yesterday, and I was I was standing in line, waiting for my turn at the counter, and the person I was going to be talking to at the counter was telling me somebody behind you is talking to you, Mr. Limbaugh.
I couldn't hear him because of my here.
So I turned around and it was a woman who was telling me what a big fan she was of my program.
She had just come to the dentist's office and she was holding her cheek, she was in a lot of pain.
She said, I need to ask you a question.
Everybody's telling me Donald Trump is going to destroy the stock market if he's elected.
And I said, And this is an adult woman, James.
Ma'am, wait a minute.
Do you mean that Trump is personally going to do what he can to destroy the stock market, or that his election will be so bad that the stock market will die and plunge because of just because he won.
And she said, no, he purposely wants to destroy this.
This is a f uh an adult woman.
And I said to her, I said, ma'am, she wants Trump to wish she's a Trump supporter.
She's an adult woman.
She's believing this stuff.
She hears this stuff from her friends along.
I said, I as an example, I said, you know, that's so you've got to stop and think about that.
There's no way one person can destroy the stock market.
I said, if Donald Trump gave the order to create climate change to melt the polar ice cops, we could not do it.
We do not have the power to do this.
Global warming, climate change, you're exactly right.
It's a total I was reading my tech blogs.
Don't hang up, James.
I was reading my tech blogs yesterday when I got home.
I was in line as a bank.
You well, you don't believe I stand in line.
I was in line.
There was a person in front of me at the bank.
I had to go to the what how long was I in line?
Ten minutes.
Ten minutes.
Yeah, that's why the I ended up talking to the woman behind me.
Anyway, I got home and I'm reading my tech blogs, and it's some, it's a, it's a, it's one I've quoted before, and they're saying, well, this is it.
We've probably just got the news that it's too late to save the planet now.
And it was some UN agency that issued a report saying we're beyond the point of return here.
We can't.
And there was a picture of a polar bear on a little tiny block of ice, which is a fraudulent.
There are more polar bears than ever.
The Arctic ice caps are not melting.
There's so much garbage out there.
Um, James, let me do you have, do you have all of the Rush Revere books?
Have you read them all?
Uh yes, I have.
My favorite one is uh Star Spangled Banner.
Okay, cool.
Well, look, I want to if you'll hang on, Mr. Snerdley, get your address.
I want to put together a little uh goodie package that I want to send out to you that's got some related things and and you have an iPad?
Uh yeah, but it doesn't work at all.
Well, I'll send you an iPad that works.
Um if your parents will, I'm sure your parents won't mind.
Oh, no, no, they don't they don't mind that.
Cool.
They wanted me to call you and then talk to you because they had heard that everyone else would hear.
Well, let me tell you something.
I've uh you keep listening because I've got a story here.
I had it from yesterday.
It's a Wall Street Journal story.
Few top schools require history majors to study American history.
I'll have details coming up.
Do not hang up, James.
We will be back, folks.
All right, here it is, Wall Street Journal.
Read it and weep.
Few top I had this yesterday and I didn't get to it.
Um, so I printed it out again today.
Few top schools require history majors to broadly study American history.
The group says that niche classes like baseball in U.S. history are rather disgust.
History majors, it's by Melissa Korn.
History majors at top colleges don't know much about U.S. history, or at least they don't have to.
A new report by the American Council of Trustees and alumni, a nonprofit group that advocates for accountability of schools, found that just twenty three of the institutions, universities, among the 76 deemed to be the best by U.S. News and World Report's 2016 rankings.
In other words, 76 best universities, only 23 require history majors to take at least one U.S. history course.
Now stop and think of that for a minute.
History majors only have to take one course on U.S. history.
And why would anybody want to study U.S. history?
Of course, all it is is the history of racism and sexism and bigotry and homophobia.
Syphilis.
Sexually transmitted diseases.
Wars.
Colonialism.
Pilferage.
Rape, raving.
Why would anybody want to study American history?
All we've done is come in and displace indigenous peoples and then enslave them and take everything they had and make it ours.
There's nothing redeemable about America.
U.S. history, why in the world would anybody even want to study it?
Many elite schools, including Rice University in Houston, Johns Hopkins University may require students to take courses about events before 1750, or on East Asian and Sub-Saharan African politics without demanding they study the creation of the Constitution, Civil Rights Movement, or the Declaration of Independence.
You can't.
You cannot study history and exclude the history of the United States and understand.
This is just it's worse than our common sense tells us it is.
Remember, John Silber, Boston University president, once studied high school textbooks.
Seven different textbooks.
the largest reference to Abraham Lincoln he found was one paragraph.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
You know, folks, despite all of this Clinton, Loretta Lynch Hillary stuff, I still have made the case many times that Obama's in charge of all of this, the drip-drip, drip, drip.
▲
Export Selection