All Episodes
Previous Next
July 6, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:54
July 6, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 247 podcast.
Okay, we've had a whole day to digest this.
We've had a whole day to digest everything everybody else has said about this.
And so we have a little bit better opportunity here to probe this.
Try to get to the nub of it.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here.
Yet another three-hour excursion into broadcast excellence, hosted by me, Rush Limbaugh, coming up on our 28th anniversary on August 1st.
I had to make sure I'm going to be here that day.
I don't see anything to prevent it, but I've got to make sure.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program, the email address, Ilrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Also, I've got Andy McCarthy coming on in a half hour.
He'll be with us after the uh break at the bottom of the hour.
I seldom bring guests in here for a whole lot of reasons that I've explained before, don't need to go through it, but uh I've asked Andy to come on and summarize this.
What do we know?
Where are we, day two?
You know, he had a great piece yesterday, practically immediately after Comey's press conference, dissecting uh the the two laws in question here and blowing up this whole concept of intent and and Hillary's lack of it as the mechanism for not proceeding uh any further, and it was a brilliant piece.
It was National Review Online's been quoted practically uh everywhere.
And this whole business of her intent, I I I you know, everybody is wondering now was a fix in.
Because it doesn't make sense otherwise.
You know, and even I, I mean, I'm being quoted all over the drive by media in order to give Comey credibility here, because back in April, I had gone out, well, not on a limb, I thought I was speaking honestly, telling everybody was something going on, and something big, by the way, happening on April 10th.
For those of you that think the fix might be in here, wait till you hear this coming up just a second.
But we were discussing this, some some of us uh not on the air, and uh I had a lot of people asking me what I knew about Comey, and I've never met Comey, but I know a lot of people who do know Comey.
Andy knows Comey very well.
And I came on the uh program back in April and basically sang his virtues.
As a man of impeccable integrity, uh nonpartisan, uh, and and I still think that's the case in a lot of ways, which is another thing that I want to get into today.
You know, the Republicans are conservatives always, when it comes to judging, when it comes to legalities, always try to do the right thing, even if it harms their interests.
Well, maybe a stretch to say always, but the Democrats never do.
And that was on display yesterday, so that's another thing I'm teasing you with that before the program ends today.
I'm uh I'm going to get into.
But so I'm being quoted all over the place to give Comey cover.
Well, I mean, even Rush Limbaugh said that Comey is beyond reproach.
It's in the politico.
Even Rush Limbaugh said that Comey's integrity is unquestionable.
Da-da-da-da-da-da.
And this is being done because everybody's in CYA, everybody on the left.
You know what they're laughing about?
You know what they're smiling at?
But she got away with it.
As long as she didn't go to jail, she's fine.
Is she if she's criminal and gets away with it, that's okay with them on the left.
They don't care.
They are not bothered by that.
What in fact that's become a standard.
Hillary's okay if they can't prove any criminality or if nobody wants to charge her with it, then whatever she did's fine.
They just don't throw people overboard, and we do.
We have had a we've had a habit of that.
Uh well, habit.
We've had a practice of it for as long as I've been doing this program, and a lot of the motivation for it is defensive.
In addition to trying to do the right thing and obey the law and follow principle.
There's a there's a part of the conservative slash republican movement that believes if we just show that we're fair and impeccable, then we will get credit from those who think we're all these horrible things, and maybe they won't hate us as much.
And I'm so sick of that motivation.
I'm so sick of that reasoning Why we support amnesty?
Well, we have to show the Hispanics that what the Democrats say about us isn't true.
So we undermine ourselves in some silly attempt, silly attempt to disprove all of these baseless allegations.
As such, we're constantly on the defensive, and that's where we find ourselves now.
Trying to find out exactly what went on, why it went on, explaining it away, and then searching somehow for a way to overcome this.
Rudy Giuliani has been on fire.
We have audio sound bites from him.
Do you remember the Bob Torricelli audio that we put together?
I want to because everybody copies this now.
Everybody does this.
And I want to go back, grab audio soundbite number two.
This goes back to 2001.
Bob Torricelli, Democrat member of the Senate, was uh basically about to be thrown out of office on corruption charges.
And he went to the floor of the Senate to deny everything.
And we juxtaposed his denials with an attorney from someone in an action against Torricelli, who was listing all of the gifts and all the bribes that Torricelli had been given and offered in exchange for policy considerations on the Senate floor.
So he's on the Senate floor denying it.
We have the opposing lawyer listing all of the offenses.
We call this the Torricelli montage, and this is how it was back in April of 2001.
To challenge my integrity is beneath contempt.
I do not deserve this treatment.
Two watches, a Rolex watch, diamond earrings for his girlfriend.
I have never.
Television set ever.
Oriental rug, grandfather clock, other antique items.
Done anything.
Suits at any time.
Approximately 14 deliveries of uh envelopes of cash to Torricelli's house.
To betray the trust of the people of the state of New Jersey.
Never.
And they got rid of him, and he was replaced by uh the lout, Frank Lautenberg.
Torricelli was losing.
The Democrats can't lose.
So they got rid of him way beyond when it was permissible.
The time for a replacement had passed.
But the New Jersey Supreme Court made up Democrat hack said, hey, if our candidate can't go, sure you can put in a replacement.
And they did Lautenberg and he ended up winning.
So to show you how this is done now, here's the reason.
We've got three different versions of this, and they're all fabulous, and they illustrate exactly what went on, the contradictions, the hypocrisy, and worse, first reason magazine on their website.
I did not email any um classified material to anyone.
There is no classified material.
110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
I provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related.
Several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton.
I thought using one device would be simpler.
She also used numerous mobile devices to send and to read email.
There were no security breaches.
It is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.gov accounts.
Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
No doubt that we've done exactly what we should have done.
They were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
People will be able to judge for themselves.
We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
Thank you.
Thank you.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.
Americans will find that uh, you know, interesting, and I look forward To having a discussion uh about that.
It's pretty damning.
It it is uh that's that's Hillary Clinton uh juxtaposed against the FBI director Comey uh yesterday, clearly illustrating she lied.
Have anybody ever heard of Martha Stewart?
What do you what whatever Hampton people lie at the prosecutor Libby?
Anybody ever heard of that?
I mean, she walked away scot-free on everything other than in the court of public opinion, and of course, that's now up to the Trump campaign, the Republican Party and whatever conservative media can do with it.
But now we're dealing with low information voters, we're dealing with people who uh who knows.
You know, the standards have have sunk so low throughout our culture that who really knows.
And I I gotta tell you I just read my web blogs and my tech blogs.
Uh it's highly, highly educational folks.
They're all a bunch of young lib millennial journalists.
And everyone that I read that commented on this, you know what they were happy about?
I'll give you a classic, I think typical reaction to this.
All of this was worth it to see the right wing have a fever attack.
All of this was worth it to see the right wing think they were gonna get her, and she skates.
They don't care whether she's guilty or not.
The fact that she got away with it and defeats us is exactly the point that I've been trying to make about this to people who want to listen.
That is their motivation, including these are these are people are gonna vote for Hillary Clinton.
They couldn't care less that she is sleazy.
They couldn't care less that she cannot tell the truth.
They couldn't care less that she exposes this nation to great risk.
This is a great nation at terrible risk in a dangerous world, and she has fully exposed this nation and will continue to do so because of her utter incompetence and her lack of care, lack of attention, lack of concern, and she's got people are gonna vote for her on the basis that she can give the right wing fever attacks, on the basis that she can make mints meet and make fools out of the right wing who think they've got her, and she slithers away yet again.
It makes her a hero.
It makes her husband a hero.
And I don't have an answer how you overcome that, because that's pure hatred.
That is just pure hatred.
And now, one thing I do know, you can't change the hatred by showing those people that uh they're wrong about us.
That's not gonna work.
You can't go out and adopt Democrat policies all the way or halfway to show that you're not what they think you are.
They have to be defeated.
We cannot find a way to mutually coexist with them.
We cannot meet them halfway.
We can't cross the aisle.
These people, I'm talking about the left, wherever you find them, the Democrats, wherever they they have to be defeated.
What about partisanship rush?
What about cooperation?
We're the wrong people to talk to about that.
My point is we've tried that.
We try it practically every time it comes up, be it amnesty, be it any other issue they want, we try, and it gets us nowhere, and it doesn't get us any favors among left-wing inclined voters either.
Now, these videos that put together uh like we did the Torcelli.
Uh the GOP has done their own version of this.
So far, we've had the reason magazine version.
Here is the GOP's version of the same effort to expose Hillary Clinton as a flat-out liar and James Comey allowing her to walk on.
There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.
Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department.
She also used numerous mobile devices to send and to read email on that personal domain.
We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department and provided All my emails that could possibly be work-related.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton.
I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information.
It had numerous safeguards.
It was on property, guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches.
We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
Did you or any of your aides delete any government-related emails from your personal account to uh conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything uh that could be possibly uh viewed as work related.
They deleted all emails they did not produce to state, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
Do you think it poses a national security problem?
I don't think it posed a national security problem.
She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
Look, this is devastating.
It just illustrates that she lied every time she opened her mouth at any press conference about this.
The press conference where most of this comes from is the one that she did at the UN, where she thought the press corps there wouldn't be as up to speed because it's a foreign policy, foreign press press corps.
So she chose the UN to do this, and they were up to speed, and she cut this press conference short.
Now, if this if these are the answers that she gave the FBI in numerous interviews, or if these are the answers that her staff gave, there are process crimes here.
Galore.
There is lying, and if there's lying, there is intent.
This whole business of intent, anyway, there's no doubt about her intent.
Otherwise, she wouldn't have lied about every step of wrongdoing.
She surrounded herself with accomplished legal and political fixers, and that's because she's careful.
Careful crooks control the flow of information.
Careful crooks destroy and attempt to destroy evidence.
Careful crooks have powerful friends to grease the skids.
Careful crooks break laws and are not held accountable.
There's no question that she had intent.
So what happened?
How in the world did this happen?
Was the fix in?
People are searching for any sensible explanation because nothing makes any sense here.
This dust just doesn't add up and doesn't jibe.
I found a Wall Street Journal editorial.
In fact, folks, go back.
Obama granted a very rare interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News back on April the 10th.
And in that interview, Obama said, and I just I don't have the audio of this.
I just had a chance to send the whole interview up to the uh the audio editors, and there's not nearly enough time to get this done anytime real soon, maybe by the end of the day.
And I've got to take a break right now.
But the point is that Obama back on April 10th on Fox News used almost the identical language that Comey used yesterday.
Details are coming up.
Don't go away.
So back on April 10th, Obama appears on Fox News Sunday.
It doesn't happen very much.
He's on the Chris Wallace.
And he just happened to use, as we've gone back and looked here, exactly the same words that James Comey ended up using yesterday.
There's an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal pointing this out on April 11th by Cleta Mitchell.
side.
President Obama chooses his words carefully, so it was startling on Sunday when he chose to opine on the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, all the more so in the way the President phrased his defense of the Democrat he wants to succeed him in January.
And Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace rolled a clip from October of Obama saying I can tell you this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered.
Wallace then cited the two thousand or so emails that we have since learned contained classified information, including twenty-two that contained top secret information.
And he asked, Mr. President, can you still say flatly that she did not jeopardize America's secrets?
And Obama says, I gotta be careful, because as you know, we have a investigations going on their hearings, Congress looking at this, and I haven't been sorting through each and every aspect of this, but here's what I know.
Hillary Clinton was an outstanding secretary of state.
She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.
Wallace pressed further.
And Obama said, I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America's national security.
Now what I've also said is, and she acknowledged, there's a carelessness in terms of managing emails.
She's it's almost it's uncanny how like Comey's remarks yesterday, Obama's words were all the way back in April.
Andy McCarthy next.
Welcome back, folks.
El Rushbow here on the cutting edge.
Executing a signed host duties flawlessly, 800 two eight two two eight eight two.
If you want to be on the program, we'll get to the phones fairly quickly here.
But first we welcome Andrew McCarthy, who has become a good friend.
He's a former uh prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Manhattan, as you all know by now, was the co-lead prosecutor who secured a conviction against the blind sheikh, has become an expert in Islamic terrorism, uh Islamic supremacism and sharia law, and is also an expert constitutionalist, so we're glad to have you here, Andy.
How are you?
Russ, I'm doing great.
How are you?
Good.
Now, okay, we got the second day here.
You've had a day, we've all had a day to digest this.
You had your piece at NRO yesterday that basically shredded uh the FBI director's claim that he couldn't find any intent here, and as such, no reasonable prosecutor would seek charges or would seek to prosecute the case.
Where are you today after having an overnight to digest this, talk to people about it and review your own thoughts?
Well, I guess uh I think highly of Jim Comey, he's been uh a friend of mine and someone I have a lot of respect for personally for a long time.
Uh I tried to find some silver linings in what otherwise is a pretty disappointing outcome.
And the one that I keep coming back to, Rush, is that the normal way that this exchange between the FBI and the Justice Department goes is it happens really in secret, in private, and we never hear about it.
And when a case basically gets tanked or not brought, you never know what the evidence in the case was.
And the only upside I can see to what's happened here is he in a very expansive, lavish way, laid out exactly what the FBI's investigation found, so that at least the American people will have that uh before them when they go to the polls in November.
Now, I I should underscore that I don't think that's the FBI's job.
I I I like the idea that uh the law enforcement people do law enforcement and leave the politics of the politicians, but I am grateful for the fact that at least we have a full accounting of what they found.
You know Comey, so in that regard, let me ask you uh analogy made here yesterday that others have made also is that this was strikingly similar to the Chief Justice John Roberts saying, you know what, I don't feel comfortable finding a major piece of legislation of the presidents that was voted in favor by the people's representative.
I I I just don't want I I'm not gonna rule this on Constitutional.
So he changes it from the bench essentially to make it uh pass muster.
And some people are saying that that Comey has in his own way done the same thing here, that he just couldn't bring himself to have such a major impact on something as important as a presidential campaign by taking an action that might result in the nominee of one of the major parties being taken out.
Any reaction to that theory?
Yeah, I I like the comparison for a few reasons.
I think, you know, one of the things that Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts did in that opinion, very much like what uh what Jim did yesterday is with uh with Tom Brady like precision, he moved down the field um briskly and in a way that looked like he couldn't be stopped,
and then once he got to the red zone, he moved the goalpost, he moved the uh end zone, he changed the uh uh the rules that would have otherwise led him to uh to a different conclusion.
So it's it's an interesting comparison.
The other thing is there are a lot of people like myself who were very disappointed in Roberts, just like I was disappointed in Comey, whereas there were other people in the Roberts Ra section who said that the chief justice was a diabolical genius because while he seems to have come up short of doing what he should have done in this particular case,
he sowed the seeds for undermining the jurisprudence of the commerce clause, and therefore all of this uh federal expansion is under uh you know, under uh uh potentially vulnerable to attack.
I I hate that kind of stuff.
I mean, I I just think it's too Machiavellian for me.
I want the judges to to judge the cases.
I want the prosecutors to prosecute their cases.
I want the I want the FBI to find facts, apply the law, and and do the right thing in a case.
Right.
It's it's akin to the theory somewhat related.
People say, Go ahead and let the Democrats win the election so people find out how bad they are.
Go ahead, make Obamacare constitutional so people will learn how bad government expansion and intrusion is never works out.
No, and and we've got it already, you know.
How many more times do we need to do it?
You know, message received.
Well, but look in these two cases.
I find this interesting.
I'm I'm I hope I'm gonna be able to find the right words here to phrase the question here.
But you have praised Comey's integrity, uh, you know, him personally.
And everybody does the same thing about John Roberts.
So here we have two people that arguably, if you had to peg them ideologically would be on the right side of center, and both reputed to be highly, highly integrity, uh great integrity and and highly reputed.
And both of them exercised restraint.
They did not go where they could go.
They did not go where the law fully permitted them to go in order to cause less havoc, wreak less havoc on the country, on the body politic, thinking they were doing the right thing for the stability of the country.
Now, the left never does that, Andy.
If they've got a chance to take us out legally or illegal, they do it.
We don't seem to be able to close it when we've got them in the jaws of defeat, we don't seem to be able to clamp down and send them packing.
We practice restraint, we practice fairness, we show that we have uh uh maturity and and an understanding of uh everything going on and and we hope people see us uh in in that way.
And it it just never works out.
So we're in a fight for the life and death of the country.
And they my I'm really nervous about this.
I'm I'm this even though I knew this was gonna happen, I didn't think she was going to be indicted.
I'm still devastated by this because of the implications for the country and what it means.
Particularly if she goes on to win.
Yeah, Russia, I I think you should be for a couple of reasons.
Uh you know, number one, I I've never understood this idea that you know, we have to have the election calendar in mind when we're doing these political corruption cases because we wouldn't want to do anything that would make the FBI responsible for the outcome of the election.
Well, you know, look, if you're in these jobs, and I've been in these jobs, um, you have two choices.
You either indict someone who deserves to be indicted and affect the election that way, or you don't indict someone who deserves to be indicted, and you affect the election that way.
One way or the other, you are in the situation where you're affecting the election.
So that ought to be liberating.
We shouldn't be worried at all about how our exercise of discretion affects the politics.
What what our job is is to exercise discretion correctly and let the chips fall where they may.
But secondly, we are never going to impress the audience that they seem to want to impress.
Um I think you pointed out earlier that, you know, there are half of this country is going to vote for Hillary Clinton no matter what.
And the reason they're going to vote for Hillary Clinton is not that they're under any illusions about who he sh who she is character wise.
It's because they see her as the way to defeat Republicans and defeat conservatives and and block us from being in power.
And to them that's more important than what her character shows I don't think there's any question about it.
There's gully I mean they'll they'll they'll they'll sing her praises just short of I mean even if she'd been indicted I think they would have they would have circled the uh the wagons around her.
Uh well okay so there's no legal future here.
There's there's no she she's exonerated uh well no actually she's not she's not been cleared that's that's another thing she's not been cleared she's not been exonerated they just made the decision not to pursue this so she is still susceptible you alluded to this in the beginning here to the court of public opinion.
Are you confident do you have any confidence at all that a case can be made in the political campaign that would uh accomplish the same thing barring legal penalties of course that an indictment might have I think Rush that uh it's going to take more than you know just saying the system is right.
And I you know I know that that's been an effective argument for Trump but I think most of the people who are buying that or mo are already in his camp.
It's going to require more in the way of carefully going through what the FBI has found and showing in a way that that thing that you played before showed but Comey really didn't show yesterday which is how appalling the difference is between what the FBI found and what she represented to the American people throughout this campaign.
I hope they're up to that because I think there is a there is a way that that can resonate with the public explain to me if you would and to the audience too before you go here.
You you uh you made it very clear in your article yesterday that Comey essentially had to combine two statutes one statute that did not require intent he changed so I rewrote the law in order to make intent uh relevant and then to say she never showed any in it well you know you you and I never intend to do any of the stuff that's illegal that we do or any of the questionable things.
Like your example to me, you know, we text when we drive that's that's that's negligent.
We know we're being negligent.
We don't intend to have an accident because of it yet we still engage in it.
And in many it's against the law.
So but she was given a pass.
She was given a pass not only on intent, she was given a pass on negligence.
She was given a pass on recklessness and she seeks the highest office of the land.
It clearly looks like there's two sets of laws for two different classes of people here.
You're exactly right I mean if you if you apply the law that applied to her um she was reckless uh in the sense of of being grossly negligent which is what the statute talks about.
Now the way the reason this is uh confusing to people is that in most criminal cases there's an intent requirement uh where you have to specifically intend the thing uh that that causes the harm in a in a case involving recklessness or gross negligence um you often intend to do the thing that is the negligent thing to do like when we text when we drive and we know we shouldn't.
We know in our minds that when we do that we could cause injury to ourselves and to anyone who's in our care in the car.
We don't intend that those people be injured but we certainly intended to do the texting and that was grossly negligent.
What she did here uh she had every reason to know as Cody pointed out to her fairly well yesterday that her behavior setting up this systematic non secure system to have these highly classified communications uh she perfectly well knew that that was uh a creating a major vulnerability for our national security now did she want our national security to be hurt?
No.
But you know obviously she engaged in behavior that ran that risk and it's uh it's absolutely clear.
I wish he had gone more yesterday into the the damage assessment that the intelligence community has had to do on the basis of what she leaked out by communicating on this non secure system.
I have one more question, but I gotta take a break.
It's on intent.
Can I can you spare five more minutes?
Okay.
Andy McCarthy is with us from National Review Online at PJ Media.
We'll be back here in just a second, folks.
Don't forward.
And we are back with Andy McCarthy with a long and deep resume, including time in the U.S. attorney's office of the Southern District in Manhattan, where Rudy Giuliani was the U.S. attorney, which means Rudy was Andy's boss.
Um Rudy's been pretty pointed.
Rudy thinks that if she shouldn't get a security clearance now, that had he been uh Comey, he'd been the U.S. attorney, he would have indicted her, and he says that if Trump wins, he could appoint an attorney general who could still indict Hillary.
Is that true?
It's absolutely true.
And uh this uh it'll never happen, but this Justice Department could indict her.
The recommendation is just that.
It's a recommendation, it's not the decision.
On intent, this is uh a little bit of my ignorance on the law.
I was I for some reason I've been confused.
I thought intent was a manner, a matter for the jury to decide in cases.
I didn't know that intent became such a big factor in the decision to charge.
Well, every case rush, when you make a decision whether to charge or not, involves weighing every what we call essential element of the crime.
That is, every criminal offense has three or four or five elements that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to bring the case.
So if you're gonna assess the strength of your evidence, one of the things you always have to evaluate is the intent requirement of the statute, which varies from statute to sat statute.
Sometimes it's uh intent, uh like intentional action, sometimes it's willfulness, uh, and sometimes very unusually in the criminal law, it's gross negligence as it is with this particular statute involving national security.
Well, gross negligence cannot possibly have intent because it cancels it out.
If you're grossly negligent, the intent's not a factor.
You are or you aren't, and she clearly was.
Yeah, I think I I think what I uh what we've hit on is uh what your confusion is, and I'm not clearing up by explaining it.
We use intent uh among prosecutors and agents as shorthand for what we should call men's rea or the mental element of a crime.
Sometimes it's intentionality, which means uh you know, you you intended when you pointed the gun to shoot that victim.
Uh sometimes it's willfulness, which means a kind of an evil mindset, uh, and sometimes it's uh it it's gross negligence as it was in this case.
Okay, 90 seconds.
The one other thing, uh I I I've I've seen that she tossed her State Department uh her calendar, her schedule, that she got rid of a number of things like this, burned them, threw them away, they're gone.
Uh was that part of this investigation that's now concluded?
That's not part of something else that she gets away with that too.
She gets away with destroying all the evidence of her calendar, her schedule she met with.
That's all gone too, right?
Yeah, according to what the the attor uh what the FBI director said yesterday, what they were looking at here was the question about handling classified information.
We had heard some reports that they were also looking at the Clinton Foundation and the shenanigans that went on there, where I think those calendars would be more relevant.
He didn't mention a word about that yesterday.
I don't know if that means that that that's off their radar or he just didn't want to discuss it yesterday.
And do you think the meeting, 30 seconds, Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton had any effect on Comey's decision making and timing?
No, I uh I don't think uh I don't think that would have affected it, but I you know, I I I do think that um the fact that uh President Obama in his assessment of it uh talked about intentionality as opposed to uh you know carelessness and did kind of the same thing Jim did yesterday in terms of laying this intent on the city.
She never did anything wrong.
She never intended to do anything.
Yeah.
Okay.
Andy, I appreciate the time, I really do.
Andy McCarthy, um, who you can find at National Review Online frequently in PJ Media Well Worth the time to do so.
We'll take a brief time out and continue after this.
Okay, some campaign news.
Hillary Clinton desperately trying to change the subject is out attacking Donald Trump and his business practices in Atlantic City, claiming, by the way, get the word she's using, claiming Trump rigged his Atlantic City business, so he got paid no matter what.
Anyone in the Trump campaign out there, please do not spend much time on this.
Do not let go of the message.
Hillary lying, emails, unqualified, contemptible.
Don't get sucked into this business of defending your business practices.
Stay on message.
That's all I can do, folks.
▲
Export Selection