All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:46
July 7, 2016, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back, my friends.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up, just by being here.
It's all it takes.
And of course, utilizing talent on loan from God.
And I can't believe we're coming up on 28 years on August 1st.
And the time is just zooming by.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882 and the email address, Ilrushbo at EIVNet.com.
FBI director James Comey.
You know this is still going.
How many, how many Clinton crimes?
Is that right away to put this?
How many congressional investigations have there been into Clinton activity?
How many, and this is still going on.
They are still querying Comey.
And again, the subject is something to do with a Clinton.
You know, I said the other day, it's striking to me after all of these years how the Clintons still get the benefit of the doubt on all of this.
You know, some some bimbo will pop up, or there'll be a report that a bimbo is gonna pop up.
You know what people are looking at now?
You know what all that, all those those 26 flights that Clinton took on the Lolita Express?
Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted pedophile, that's where his private Boeing 727, all those trips.
He's got a private island in the in the Caribbean near the U.S. Virgin Islands called Orgy Island.
He didn't name it that.
And Clinton's on this airplane 26 times.
Now stop and think of what we know about Epstein and what he's pled guilty to in a plea deal.
We know there were underage girls that were brought in as massage therapists.
We know that some of the girls have become women who have sued, who have alleged uh local police authorities in Palm Beach amassed all kinds of evidence, but the state attorney had no interest in prosecuting.
They cut a deal.
Anyway, here's Epstein who was under house arrest for 13 months, knowingly knows there's no question about it that he was trafficking in minor girls that were being used for sexual purpose.
Bill Clinton's on the plane 26 times.
Bill Clinton, in fact, there was a story yesterday that this Epstein guy, as part of his filing to the court on his plea deal to get house arrest and and uh basically lenient treatment, said that he was one of the co-founders of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Now there's no evidence that's true, but he cited it as a means of giving himself credibility.
My point is this.
You have this known pedophile, who flies all over the world, who's been a huge, he's a hedge fund, is a huge Democrat donor, uh, has given a lot of money to universities, science departments, and so forth as a means of uh buying, purchasing good grace.
But the point is that this guy, Bill Clinton's been all over the place with this guy, 26 different trips on the plane, and everybody knows what was going on, but for some reason, when it might be suggested that Bill Clinton was also engaged in whatever was going on with Epstein, no, no, no, no.
Clinton defenders say, no, no, that would never happen.
Well, wait a minute.
Why the benefit of the doubt?
You go through the women, you got Paula Jones, you got Kathleen Willie, you got Jennifer Flowers, you got Dolly Kyle, you've got Wadita Broad, you got all of these women and more who tried to come forward that Hillary tried to destroy the Bimbo eruptions unit.
So the idea that Bill Clinton has had affairs, the idea that Bill Clinton is a uh serial philanderer, not even disputed, but yet gets the benefit of the doubt, flying around with a known pedophile on his jet, 26 different trips.
Oh no, no, no.
Bill Clinton would never.
How does he earn the benefit of the doubt?
How does Hillary get the benefit of the doubt when Comey says, you know what, I just didn't see a sophisticated knowledge.
I didn't see in Mrs. Clinton a sophisticated understanding of classified markings on emails.
How in the world do they get the benefit of the doubt?
How many congressional hearings have there been over the course of the last two and a half decades looking into actions taken by perpetrated by the Clintons?
And yet they continue to get the benefit of the doubt.
Oh no, no, no, no.
Hillary would never knowingly traffic in classified data.
Who would you think you were?
No, Bill Clinton would never ever knowingly put any woman in a dangerous situ.
Oh no, it would never.
How seems like that's the stretch.
The stretch is not believing that Hillary would traffic in this stuff and intended to.
That's the stretch.
The stretch is is believing it that they didn't do any of this stuff.
The slam dunk way to look at it is, of course, they did.
Well, I I can answer my own question to get the benefit of the doubt because the left circles the wagons around their people, like they did Dan Rather, like they do everybody.
Anyway, Comey testified before House Committee this afternoon, looking into his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton.
He admitted today that many of her statements about sending emails, some of which are made under oath were not true.
We are continuing to roll tape, and we will assemble this stuff as we can.
But this latest report is from Fox News.
Comey has admitted that many of her statements about sending emails, some made under oath were not true, raising the question of whether in doing so she committed a felony.
That would be the old process crime that they got poor old Scooter Libby on.
A process crime like they got Martha Stewart on.
Want to go back to Trey Gowdy.
We have uh one more soundbite from Trey Gowdy.
Again, when he was questioning Comey, wasn't really questioning him.
He was laying out the case for intent that Comey said he didn't find.
He was laying out for the audience, that would be you and me, that there clearly was intent, despite the fact that the FBI director said, eh, couldn't find enough intent here to recommend prosecution.
Here's one more Trey Gowdy bite on all of this.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account.
She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress.
Because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time.
One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records, and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent.
You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove.
Well, uh you know, in intent, you legal beagles are gonna have to correct me on this if I'm wrong, but there's another factor with intent that is left up to a jury to decide.
You know, in many cases, intent isn't a dominant factor in the decision to charge or not.
But in Comey's world, he's making it out like that it is.
It's the big deal, that there wasn't any intent, couldn't prove it, and therefore nowhere to go here.
Uh and the argument the major arguments are now ensuing in legal circles over this.
Uh my buddy Andy McCarthy has already posted uh a piece at National Review Online in which he thinks uh that that that that it has resulted here that Comey's reasoning has been disputed successfully and refuted.
That uh the jig's up on this.
So it nothing's it's not gonna change anything.
But the legal circus or the legal uh circle of people debating this and analyzing it, what Robert Mort called the intellectual feast is ongoing, and there are a lot of people tearing this apart right now.
And that's what Trey Gowdy is trying to do here in his way, in his way is communicating with the American people who will see this.
And believe me, a lot of the American people are going to see this.
They may not see the cable TV, but they're going to see it streamed, they're going to see it.
Excerpts of it put together, video streamed on various social media sites.
And I think I think Gaudi has been powerful today in laying out how there was clearly intent.
And this latest example is just as good as the first two that we had.
She affirmatively, affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account.
That would have meant that it was accountable and subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.
She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
She didn't even divulge that, but it was discovered.
Having a private email account to conduct official business to Trey Gowdy signals intent.
So you have, he says here, a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office.
Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time.
One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you, Mr. Comey, don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme, Hillary's private email server, took place over a long period of time, resulted in the destruction of public records.
That's again a reference to the 30,000 emails she threw away.
Of the 60,000 on her server, she threw 30,000 away, telling Congress and telling the State Department, that's private, had nothing to do with anything.
I'll save you the trouble of reading them.
I'm tossing them.
That is destruction of public records.
That is intent to hide.
And Gowdy says to Comey, and yet you say there's insufficient evidence of intent.
You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
I'm sorry, common sense rears its head here.
It's impossible to say she didn't have intent.
That's the stretch to me.
It's a stretch to say she didn't intend to hide anything.
To me, the tougher thing to prove would be that she didn't intend to keep all this hidden from public view.
It seems like that would be the easiest case to make, but Comey didn't want to make it.
He didn't want to go there for whatever reason, and he didn't.
Jim Jordan, who is uh Indiana on the committee as well, and he had a great day.
He said uh that former Secretary of State Clinton had misled Congress under oath when testifying to the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October of 2015.
He was speaking to Washington Watch with Tony Perkins on a radio show.
And specifically Clinton told the Benghazi committee she had turned over all my work-related emails from her private email server to the government, that there was nothing marked classified on my emails, and that her attorneys went through every single email.
And according to James Comey, all of those statements are false.
So that's the meaning of the Fox News story that according to Comey, he admits that many of her statements about sending emails made under oath were not true, raising the question of doing so.
She committed a felony and lying to Congress, which is a big deal.
It is in terms of the law, it's a big deal to mislead or lie to Congress.
And keep something in mind here.
We wouldn't even know about Hillary's secret home server if requests for her emails hadn't been made.
today, to this moment we wouldn't know about it.
So this is why people want to know what she said in her interview, her three and a half interview on Saturday.
What did Hillary tell the FBI under oath?
And how did the FBI and the professional prosecutors analyze her three and a half hour testimony so quickly and decide that she had not lied to them?
And there's another point that was made earlier by somebody who lists all the things that will signify this thing not going away.
There's a long list of items, about eight or ten, a political science professor at the University of Chicago.
And he said, keep a sharp eye down the road for any leaks from potentially disgruntled FBI agents who worked on the case.
And when I saw that, I said, it's a bit of a you know, they're pretty loyal.
They run a tight ship.
I guess it's possible.
And I thought back to Joe de Genova three, four months ago now, who who was on, I think Fox News and told everybody that the FBI's got the goods that he had inside sources, they've got her.
They've got they've got info.
It is so bad.
He said that if they don't indict her, there are going to be FBI agents who resign in protest.
And DeGenova, the husband of Victoria Tense is a former Justice Department official, knows people the FBI, and he clearly said numerous times, they've got so much evidence she's gonna be indicted.
I know you remember this.
And then he said, again, if she's not, there's gonna be so many people fed up with all the work they did and all the evidence they gathered that there's gonna be resignations, I think is what he said, you'll see.
So the University of Chicago polypsy profit just keep a sharp eye, see if there are any leaks from disgruntled FBI agents down the road who disagree with what has been presented here as the official story.
And then this point needs to be brought home again.
Hillary is not doing a victory lap.
That's a big deal in the sense that she knows it isn't over.
You know, running around beating her chest going, yeah, yeah, beat you again, beat you again, they found nothing.
They looked at me for months and months and years and years and they can't do that.
If she runs around doing that, she just inspires and motivates people even more to come up with stuff.
She's not commenting on it.
So uh, and and Clinton did.
Bill Clinton, every time he escaped the surly bonds of one of these investigations, he went out there and rubbed everybody's nose in it.
Hillary hasn't done that, nor has Obama.
Take a break here, folks.
Hang on.
No, I didn't forget it.
I didn't forget, I'm not, and I'm not teasing you.
It just things keep late breaking here.
But we're gonna get to the there's a Wall Street Journal story today by Reed Epstein says anti-Donald Trump forces see convention coup as within reach.
I want to tell you what that's all about.
And but believe me, they they according to what's consumable out there, they're closer to this than you might think if what they're saying is true.
So I'm gonna go back to the phones and there's not enough time to get started with this before another break.
We'll go to Tulsa this Charles.
Great to have you, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
Hello.
Oh, hello, Rush.
All right.
So I think everybody needs to look at it like this.
Let's say Comey uh he knows the DOJ isn't gonna go after Hillary, regardless of what he says.
So he lays out what he has, uh, says he doesn't recommend, knowing that she's gonna follow what he says.
So then uh Trump gets in office and his DOJ is able to go after Hillary because I mean the case isn't closed, right?
The case is closed.
Well, I mean, I thought, okay, so I thought that, you know, they can't take her to court for this?
No, but the attorney general has said, that's it.
It's over.
I'm officially announcing we will not be prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
We never were going to prosecute.
I'm sorry if you're disappointed.
Screw you.
But we're not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
it's done it's it's over with the only way it can happen it could no wait if if the Republicans win the White House and the next attorney general wants to indict her he can try.
Well yeah that and then that's what I'm saying so he lays out everything that he has knowing that she's not uh not going to go after Hillary he lays all this out and uh I guess kind of safe space but looks bad at the same time I don't I you know I that's what I was looking at.
Okay, so you are of the school that Comey is a brilliant Machiavellian.
And he knows that this current crop isn't going to do anything with whatever he's got.
So he lays out damning evidence for somebody that might someday want to go after her.
And then goes out and he'll defend his decision today.
But he's made it crystal clear that she's gettable.
That's your theory.
That's right.
The man, a legend, a way of life.
So Now, look, folks, you and I are not the only group of people here who think that something out of the ordinary has happened here.
There are some people on the left, including the esteemed Professor Dershowitz at Harvard.
And I like Professor Dershowitz.
I met Professor Dershowitz early on when I had arrived in New York.
It was a Sunday night, and I was already in doing show prep for my show on Monday.
And he was arriving to appear on some Sunday night show.
And he walked in.
He had his trench coat on and his briefcase.
And he walked by.
He already knew who I was.
And he walked.
He was eyeing me suspiciously as he walked by.
And he stopped and turned around and looked at me.
He said, yeah, I know who you are.
I know who you are.
I don't agree with much.
Yeah, you're okay, but I know who you are.
And he kept walking back to wherever he was going to appear on whatever show.
And he's been portrayed in movies, a couple, three movies and so forth.
Anyway, Professor Dershowitz, you and I think that Comey goes out and makes his case and doesn't recommend that Hillary be charged.
We go, what?
After that?
Dershowitz thinks that Comey behaved in an unethical way unlike he has rarely seen or like he has rarely seen.
He said, you don't have people go out.
If you're not going to charge.
you leave it alone but he went out there and he basically listed every crime he thinks that she committed and then said nothing to see here.
That's as unethical as anything I've ever seen Dershowitz said.
There's no way that doesn't happen you just don't do that I'm trying to think there's another incident something like this happened um and it was in the political world where somebody went out might have been an attorney general or deputy went out listed all the things that somebody did and then said we're not charging and everybody blew up.
I mean so Professor Dershowitz has a point here but I'll tell you that cuts both ways you realize we don't ever see this comey Comey addressed this by the he said these are normally things that that happen uh without public scrutiny you know we amass and collect our evidence we present our recommendation to the Department of Justice And then they decide what to do with it.
And if there are charges, then you know.
If there are no charges, nobody ever knows whatever went on.
But in this case, Comey went out and spelled out, and he said because there's such public interest, and there's been so much anticipation, and there'd been so much speculation that he wanted to go out, put it all on the line, and then explain how he arrived at the conclusions that he was making after amassing all this quote unquote evidence in fact.
And that is what Dershowitz says is unethical.
You just don't go.
If somebody, if you're not going to pursue somebody, if you're not going to charge them, if you're not going to recommend they be charged, you don't go out there and air their dirty laundry like that.
You just don't do it.
Now that that would that would tend to argue in favor of those of you who believe that uh Comey is acting in a very brilliant Machiavellian uh way here, that he himself knew that Loretta Lynch would never indict Hillary, no matter what evidence he had.
So go ahead and present it and then give himself an out in the process by knowing she's not going to charge.
So he'll jump the gun on that and say, no reasonable prosecutor would charge.
Thereby guaranteeing she can't, because if he goes out and says no reasonable prosecutor would ever charge this, what does she then do?
Go out and indict her and make herself look unreasonable?
It wasn't going to happen anyway.
But whatever the motivation, whatever the strategy, whether Comey is Machiavellian or not, it is out there.
What she did, the only thing missing is she didn't mean to do it.
But what she did is out there.
And that means it's now in the political realm and is subject to relevance in the campaign.
And that's why Professor Dershowitz, and he's not the only one, a couple others too, have joined him in this, are upset about this.
Because it is an indictment of sorts in the political world, depending on what Hillary's political opponents want to do with it.
And if the early indications are worth anything, they're going to do quite a bit.
Already we've had four juxtaposition videos, like our Torricelli soundbite, where he proclaims his innocence left and right, and then lawyer detailing the crimes contradicts everything he says.
There's four of those out there.
Well, three, and then we put one together, juxtaposing Comey with Hillary.
We had that yesterday.
Now, before time runs out, let me get to this Wall Street Journal story.
As I say it's by Reed Epstein, and the headline, anti-Donald Trump forces see convention coup as within reach.
And this about the Rules Committee, folks.
And the subheadline of the story.
Backing of 28 Rules Committee members would allow a full vote on unbinding delegates.
What that means is, as you remember from the campaign, on the first ballot, delegates are required to vote according to the results in each state, which is why the tabulation of delegates after each primary mattered and was tallied.
And so the magic number of 1237.
So Trump is way beyond that now.
What is the over 13 or 1400 now after the primary?
Something around there.
So what the rules committee, there's a bunch of never Trumpers out there.
And they are they're in the Republican uh at the convention, they're delegates and they're members of the rules committee.
And they are attempting to pass a rule that would unbind delegates on the first ballot.
Meaning delegates could vote their conscience, their preference on the first ballot, they would not have to follow.
Now it's the Republicans' convention.
They are a private organization and they can make whatever rules they want.
So they can try to do this.
And they are trying to do it.
And there are 28 rules committee members already who would vote to change the rule to unbind delegates on the first ballot.
Months after Trump appeared to seal the nomination, anti-Trump forces are making one last push to force a vote on the party's convention floor that would throw open the entire contest.
It's a long shot, but by some counts, they are remarkably close to getting past the first hurdle next week in Cleveland.
So they're going to meet next week before the convention starts, uh week from Monday.
Mr. Trump's intra-party foes, led by a group of rogue delegates, are waging an intense behind-the-scenes effort to push the convention rules committee for a vote on freeing delegates to back whoever they want rather than being bound to the Trumpster.
The presumptive nominees team is fighting back just as vehemently with an organized campaign of dozens of aides and volunteers.
It is a power struggle that has prompted threats of reprisals and left many Republicans anxious that it could hurt the party's prospects in November.
Now, here are the numbers.
The anti-Trump camp needs the backing of 28 or 25% of 112 convention rules committee members to place the issue before the full convention.
The rules committee cannot by itself change the rule.
They recommend a change and then the whole convention votes on the change.
They need the backing of 28.
And they say they are close.
In interviews, 20 members of the Rules Committee say they're willing to consider allowing delegates to be unbound.
59 delegates support Trump, 33 couldn't be reached or didn't respond to messages requesting a response to this.
Now who's doing this?
Who do you think is doing this, Mr. Snerdley?
You think it's the Cruz camp doing this.
The never Trump Cruise camp.
So this is Trumpists believe that the workings behind the scenes here are the evil manipulations of the Ted Cruz campaign.
That there are serious efforts being made.
And on the other hand, Cruz, uh, I saw an NBC story.
I don't know if this is true or not.
Cruz is is is lobbying for a speaking position.
One of the nights, uh, well, uh, the Donald's will eventually have to pass on that, approve that or not.
Uh so that intrigue is going on.
Now, the journal, of course, these news media people want to create drama and want to make it look like something is going on, so people be interested to read about it.
I don't know if it's as close as they're letting it out to be, but some people think it is.
Some people think this is dangerously close.
And here's the other part of this.
You do this if you're a rules committee, if you're a never Trumper, you do this because you think you can win on the first on the whole convention vote.
It's it's one thing to get the rules committee to vote to do something, but then whatever change passes the rules committee has to be voted on by the whole convention.
Well, you don't really go all out on this unless you're confident, relatively confident, you could win the full convention delegate vote.
And the number I saw last night is that they believe the never Trumpers believe that if they succeed, that on a first ballot where delegates are not Bound that the maximum number Trump is going to get right now is 900.
Did you see that last night?
So they think the Trump coup, well, the anti-Trump coup crowd, they believe that if they succeed at the rules committee, that they will succeed because they think that the Mac they've canvassed things.
They're the maximum number of delegates that actually want to vote for Trump on any ballot, but the first ballot's what counts is 900.
That's well short of 1,237.
If any of this happens, folks, if any of this happens, it's going to be Hillary Who?
It's going to be a civil war like you have not seen since.
Civil War.
I can't believe it's already going to be open line Friday tomorrow.
But it is.
The week is skating by.
Folks, thanks so much for being with us today.
Thanks for being with us each and every day.
I look forward to it every day.
I am ever mindful that you're there.
You're out there every day.
Do not take it for granted.
Daily appreciation for that.
And looking forward to tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection