All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
August 3, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Right, so I just saw it.
I just saw up there on CNN, they're ballyhooing and they're promoting Meg Whitman, who was referred to as a Republican donor.
And she may well be.
What did she start?
Did she start eBay?
What did Meg Whitman do?
She's one of the founders of eBay, okay.
And I remember that McCain had her on his uh well, I don't know if she was on a short list, but I remember one day somebody asked him, this back in the 08 campaign.
Is there anybody out there that you really admire, Senator McCain, that you think represents the future of the Republican Party and might be a running mate?
And he listed off some people, he threw Meg Whitman's name in there, and I said, who?
And that's how I first heard of her.
Well, anyway, what's happened here?
By the way, greetings, and welcome back.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
We've got a good call roster coming up.
Um, what has happened is that Meg Whitman not only said that she is going to vote for Hillary Clinton, she is going to help her.
Meg Whitman's a Republican in name only.
She's a Rhino Republican.
But she's gonna go out there, she's not just gonna vote for her, she's gonna help her.
She is going to assist Hillary.
And she is saying that she's going to recruit as many people as she can to vote for Hillary and to help Hillary.
Now, I have to tell you that I that just to me is treasonous.
Intra-party treason.
That is, you can say what you want about Donald Trump.
You may not like Donald Trump.
You may think Donald Trump's whatever you think of him.
But to have somebody who has been thought of as a potential vice presidential running mate, who has been a Republican candidate for office out in California and has gotten beat every time she's tried, and has been a Republican fundraiser, to publicly, and she's not alone.
We have somebody from the Jeb Bush advisory team, somebody, Sally Bradshaw the other day, says she's gonna do the same thing, or pretty pretty close.
This is, and I don't mean treason against the United States.
I'm talking about it is just it's it's treasonous to the party to whom you have sworn allegiance.
People are free to do what they want to do, don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying she shouldn't be permitted to do it.
I'm saying the methodology she's using, she is actively, she's announced that she is going to actively involve herself in helping to undermine the values, political values she has claimed to have all of her life.
She's been a Republican.
That has stood for something.
Well, it used to.
But for many of the years in the past, it stood for something.
What it usually stood for, what people understood it to be was a belief in small government, limited role of government, entrepreneurism, individual liberty, freedom to be who you are and what you want to be, to the best of your ability.
All within the realm of uh compassion, advancement of everybody in America.
It was rooted in the concept of American greatness and American exceptionalism.
This was the Republican Party.
And okay, so you have a nominee you don't like.
So you just chuck all that?
Everything that for your life you've been.
I know I know there's a Republicans in name only.
I know there's a lot of liberal Republicans out there.
Don't I'm not naive, folks, don't misunderstand.
But this is more than just not supporting Trump.
This is undermining the party.
This is not, she can't even lay claim to trying to help to rebuild the Republican Party.
Some of the anti-Trump people claiming they're doing this to save the party, to try to rebuild the party, to strengthen the party, because Trump is weakening it.
That's not what she's doing.
She is willingly, happily participating in the dissolution of it.
And so if there are people out there who have been suspicious of her as a Republican all these years, it seems your Suspicions have been justified.
Now, what is the practical result of this?
Well, let's circle back to Bill Hemer's insightful question on Fox today to Carl Rove, paraphrasing, Carl, what if everything we think we know about politics is upside down this year?
What if everything we think we know about how you advance in politics and how you get support in politics, how you hold on to support, how you build what if everything we know about it is wrong?
What if what we see is a Donald Trump campaign imploding with a staff near mutiny?
And Hillary's polling numbers rising, what if that doesn't mean anything?
Because the people collating information, reporting it, the polling, putting it all together, don't know how to analyze all this.
Now, if if the answer to Hammer's question is, yeah, there's something to it, then I have to I have to think that what Meg Whitman is doing is only going to strengthen the resolve of people who are supporting Trump.
And when Trump supporters find out about this and other people and actions such as that taken by Meg Whitman, I think it's going to strengthen their tie to Trump.
I think it's going to make them even more intensely desirous of Trump winning.
Because this is exactly the kind of thing that Trump supporters are fed up with about the Republican Party, that how easy it is for so many in the Republican Party to sell out the party and join the Democrats, or not sell out the party, stay within the party and advance the Democrats' agenda, be it with amnesty and immigration, abortion, who knows whatever it is.
Isn't this one of the reasons Trump has tapped into all of this, what we will call country class emotion?
Isn't it the Meg Whitmans of the Republican Party and people who like her who do what they do, which has put the Republican Party in the position that it's in?
So if there is something to Hammer's question, you have Obama yesterday going on and on and on about how unqualified Trump is, how he might be mentally unbalanced, how he's unsuitable.
And then Obama says, by the way, now, Mitt Romney and McKenzie, I don't agree with him, but they would have been okay.
I mean, they they would they they I could have been satisfied with them.
I mean, it was the most arrogant display from Obama I've seen, and that's saying something.
He says he didn't agree with them, but at least he understood that they respected the Constitution.
I mean, that wanted to make me throw up.
At least Romney and McCain, they respect the rule of law.
He said, At least Romney McCain, they understand their limitations.
At least Romney and McCain, but Trump, my God, he's unfit, he's ill-tempered, he's unsuited.
He is not qualified, he's unsuited to be present.
Well, the next question is obviously what are you going to do if he wins then?
But that performance that we got from Obama yesterday, I predicted it.
He just got into it about four months, five months sooner than I thought, because that's exactly what Obama's going to do when the next president is inaugurated, and the next president does anything that might look like it's taking on or unraveling the Obama agenda.
That's exactly what he's going to do.
He won't be able to go to the Oval Office of the press room, but he'll be able to go anywhere he wants and uh blow his dog whistle for the media to show up, and that's exactly what he's going to do.
He's going to question the new president's veracity, qualifications, how he just can't sit idly by and watch the eight years of sweat and hard labor he put in to transforming this country be unwound by somebody who's not qualified or maybe unfit, and I think he would say that about whoever the next president is in that circumstance.
So you got a little bit of an advance of what our future looks like with Obama as ex-president.
But my point is, what if all of this stuff that Meg Whitman's doing, Obama's performance yesterday?
What if it's what if it's actually cementing support for Trump out there and everybody's missing it because what they see is Trump apparently not knowing what he's doing, uh, misfiring, aiming at the wrong targets, talking about things he ought to have dropped by now.
What if none of that matters?
What if what matters is that people are fed up with people like Obama and Meg Whitman and all these others that make up the political elite class?
Because believe me, that's why Trump's there.
That's why Trump is winning, is because that group of people is big enough to enable him to beat 16 challengers in the Republican primary.
No, I'm not.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, I'm not doing that.
I'm not trying to get everybody to not panic over what's Trump's.
I'm just responding to a question I heard Bill Hammer ask.
I thought it was a uh an interesting question.
Because so much of what's going on, a lot of people in the establishment haven't understood it since day one.
And they to this day, I think a lot of them don't understand why Trump has the support that he's got.
And I'm not here in denial.
I'm not I'm not sitting here thinking that Trump's running a masterful campaign.
Don't infer that from what I'm saying.
I guess my point is this.
That the movement that appears to be put together and led by Trump actually existed before Trump came along.
The people fed up with the Republican Party, the Tea Party types, the people fed up with the Republican and Washington establishment Democrats included, and what Trump came along, and this is not to put him down, now don't anybody misunderstand.
This this is he came along and connected with it.
Whether he intended to or not, he came along and connected with it, and the people loved him and trusted him, and probably still do.
And they look at him as a fighter and they look at him as somebody's not taking guff from anybody, be it Kazir Khan, be it Hillary or what have you.
But the political professionals see a campaign imploding, and they also see a campaign staff in mutiny.
They see the staff of Trump in mutiny.
And there are stories.
Stories out there that Manafort, the guy brought in, is getting frustrated Trump won't listen to him.
Trump won't listen to anybody.
Howard Feynman had a tweet yesterday saying he had it on good authority that Manafort was close to quitting.
He wasn't going to quit, but he's frustrated because Trump won't listen to anybody, give him any advice.
So they're putting the stories out that there's a mutiny going on in the campaign.
The stories are also out there that Trump is lost.
He has no idea what he's doing.
Now they're even the stories, you know, this is all rush.
You should have known Trump's mission is to destroy the Republican Party.
There are people now saying that this is all part of the plan that Trump's out there to get Hillary in the White House to destroy the Republican Party based on his record.
All of these disparate and various explanations for what people don't understand.
Let me ask you that, Mr. Snerdley, in your lifetime, and you are what, 45?
50?
Okay, 60?
Okay, in all of your life have you ever seen a presidential campaign like this that is not third party or not fringe or what have you?
Never, nothing even close to it, right?
So all you can do, therefore, is measure it against what you have seen, which is the usual well-oiled, highly scripted, very expensive television ad after television ad after television ad campaign, featuring public appearances with stump speeches by the candidate that are always the same.
You have never seen a candidate literally attack, well, defend himself day in and day out, even if they accuse him of having gout, he goes after them.
We've not seen this.
And so since the only experience you have is of these well oiled machines with strategirists and consultants and ads and polling and focus grouping, then it would be easy to say, my God, this is out of control.
This doesn't make sense.
This is not how you do it.
This is this is horrible.
But you only say that because you've never seen it before.
In fact, if you ever seen anything like this, the closest to it's Perot.
And Perot is not even that close.
Perot didn't want to win.
He had another agenda.
Um but Perot even had a much more structured uh what you would characterize as well-oiled campaign and staff.
I take a break.
I said we had some good callers uh holding on.
We'll find out if that's actually true when we get back.
Don't go away.
Meg Whitman is exactly what I was talking about in my monologue of the previous hour about cronyists.
Meg Whitman's a billionaire.
She has decided to throw in with whoever's gonna win the election in her world.
She's decided that she wants to sidle up to Hillary.
She wants to participate in the cronyism.
She wants to be on Hillary's good side.
She doesn't want to be thought of by Hillary as an enemy as a member of the Republican Party.
So Meg Whitman is just the latest addition to the billionaires for Hillary bandwagon.
And it's all rooted in cronyism, not patriotism, not party loyalty, nothing to do with issues.
Meg Whitman wants to be close to power.
She doesn't care if it's Hillary Clinton.
She doesn't care if it's Barack Obama.
All she knows is that if Trump is president, he's not gonna be crony with her.
Trump is not gonna do any special favors for her.
So she's gonna just throw the Republican Party overboard and sidle up to Hillary and not just say she's gonna vote for Hillary, she's gonna help Hillary.
And then there was this yesterday from the Wall Street Journal.
Hedge fund donations.
Forty-eight and a half million dollars has been pledged to Hillary Clinton from Wall Street hedge fund operators.
19,000 for Donald Trump.
Forty-eight and a half million hedge fund, Wall Street big bank money to Hillary Clinton, 19,000 for Donald Trump.
Political donations from people of hedge funds have vaulted this election, and it's all going to the Democrat Party.
And yet everybody out there in low information land thinks that all these Wall Street fat cats are a bunch of fat Republicans who are racist, sexist, bigot homophobes.
Yeah, and yet they're all Democrats.
Sidling up to power.
Here's uh Alicia in Lawrence, New Jersey.
Your first in this hour.
It's great to have you.
Hi.
Thank you.
I'm about to be late for my lunch break, just so I can disagree with you.
Oh, I I'm sorry, I would have gotten to you earlier had I known you're on a budget of time.
It's okay.
No problem.
I so okay, don't take this the wrong way, but you said that uh Trump was taking things personally.
That was your analysis, and I understand what you're saying, but I I totally disagree.
And the reason I disagree, and I also think, and I don't think you're intending to be condescending, but I think that the other people who are on TV are being condescending when they say he takes this personally and he's not doing the right thing.
They're they are being a little condescending.
This man is a he's a he's a businessman, he is he's actually quite brilliant, and he thinks with a different mentality.
I think that you, with all due respect, definitely the political establishment, the media, they're in a bubble, okay?
They don't understand that what Donald Trump is doing, he's not taking it personally.
He's defending us.
He's he's not letting somebody run over us, which they're not used to a Republican doing, nobody's used to it.
When Mr. Kahn, with all due respect, I I from my heart I feel for his loss, but when he, you know, pointed his finger and said, read the Constitution and pulled out the Constitution, he was saying that I felt personally insulted.
And I'm I guarantee you that Trump supporters and a lot of other people felt personally insulted.
My two friends, my two girlfriends who are Democrat, who switched over in the New Jersey primary to vote for Trump.
Wait, you just said you took it personally.
He didn't take it personally, but he's defending us.
And we have had Republicans.
I remember I became politically aware after 9-11.
I had no idea.
Um my father told me to listen to you.
I started listening to you.
I didn't know politics or anything.
And I became politically aware, and I would always say, why does George Bush not defend what they're saying about Republicans?
They're saying the most vile and horrible things, and he just sits there with us.
I know.
Look, amen on that.
Hey, look, look, look, look, look, I I got a heartbreak here.
I can't move it.
I hope you can hold on and delay your lunch break.
But if you can't, I understand.
Well, Alicia in New Jersey couldn't hold on.
She had to get back to work.
But there's hardcore.
There's somebody who hung on hold, stayed on hold during her lunch hour, even beyond her allotted time just to get on the program, Trump supporter, they're committed.
Um had I known she was on a lunch break and didn't have much time, I would have gotten to recall sooner.
But we didn't know until she happened to uh mention that.
Now, I think she might misunderstand me when I say that Trump takes takes things personally.
It's not an insult.
It's uh it is who he is.
He has throughout his whole life.
You attack him, you attack his business, his family, he's gonna hit you back.
And he does take it personally.
He he thinks that attacks on him are attacks on him.
When I say he's taking it personally.
How can I explain this?
It's it's all rooted, folks, in the fact that he doesn't he doesn't see uh people for their ideological identity.
He doesn't see the liberals.
He doesn't see conservatives.
He he does if he would have trouble, I think, explaining beyond, yeah, I know liberals, they believe in big government and Santa Claus and all that, but he their tactics and their politics, personal destruction, um, and the fact that they can't be honest about what they believe.
They have to constantly lie to people about who they are, and that the way they really advance is to destroy the character and integrity and reputations of their opponents.
Uh he doesn't see them that way.
He knows that he's lived in New York all his life, and he's had to get along with them, so he doesn't see them as a bunch of lying, conniving, snivelling small-time pranksters who are out actually unable to be honest about what they believe.
Now, in New York, they can when they're talking amongst themselves, not when they're gonna win a national election.
He just doesn't see that.
And I think if he did, he would have had react he would have reacted to the whole Kazir Khan thing differently.
He would have realized it's from the Democrat playbook.
He would have realized that that man being on stage was not even about Kazir Khan.
It was about the Democrats realizing they had an opportunity to destroy a what they think is a myth that hurts them.
They have made a decision to sidle up to illegal immigrants.
They have made a decision to sidle up to members of a religion who have people trying to destroy this country.
The Democrats have decided for some reason they want to get close to that religion, and they do not want to be in any way thought of as that religion being the home of terrorism.
So they've made a big point of saying that there is no terrorism in Islam, that these militant Islamists, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Obama on down will tell you, no, no, no, no, that's not Islam.
Islam is the religion of peace.
So, guess what Mr. Khan does?
He gives them a living, breathing one time example, that what Republicans and conservatives and what people who fear Islam think is wrong.
Now Khan baited Trump by waving his constitution Out there, but it was Khan that didn't know the Constitution.
It was Khan who doesn't know that the Constitution doesn't say a word about religious tests for refugees and immigrants.
It was Khan trying to employ that uh uh imply that Trump doesn't understand liberty and freedom, and therefore the Constitution's at risk.
But it's Mr. Kahn apparently doesn't understand the Constitution does provide ample opportunity to determine who and who doesn't get into this country.
The Constitution does not say anybody who wants in gets in.
Because that's what liberty and freedom is.
That's look, it's not a big point.
I just think uh that if you have an ideological underpinning, and i it it'd be much easier to understand the real aim of these attacks.
Now the real aim is Trump.
I mean, they're trying to take him out.
They're trying to dissuade people from supporting him and so forth.
But it would it would it would it would create a different response to it if there were an ideological understanding.
So when I say take things personally, I don't mean he's got a thin skin.
I don't mean that he's a crybaby.
I don't mean that he's um uh uh not capable of taking it.
That's not what I mean.
I'm saying he misses the truly destructive nature of the attack.
But Alicia, she nailed something, and it's something that the inside the beltway people are not getting, and they never will.
And she related it brilliantly to the same way we all felt when Bush let all of those attacks on him go by and never answered a one of them.
They were also attacks on us.
And so she's saying, look, we're Trump supporters, we're watching this happen on the Democrat Convention, and Mr. Khan's waving his little constitution, his pocket constitutional.
He's insulting all of us.
Not just Trump.
So when Trump responds to it, when other Republicans don't, they applaud.
Other Republicans just let it all go.
Never say a word about it, pretend it didn't happen, or hope people will forget it.
Trump doesn't.
Whatever he does it, or however he does it, he responds to it.
And his supporters think that he's defending them too.
And he gets lots of credit for it.
And that was the point that she was making.
And I think it's a good point.
This is Steve in uh in Daytona, Florida.
Great to have you with us.
Hello, sir.
Hey, thank you for taking my call, Rush.
Appreciate it, and I thank you for all that you do for uh for us of the peons here out more.
Well, uh I know it's a lot.
I right, but you're not peon.
I mean, I don't I don't no, no, you're not peons at all.
Not here.
Well, very much.
So listen, actually, I'm in Del Tona uh, and I'm heading towards Daytona for the uh Trump rally, which is happening here in an hour and a half.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, well, what there is a Del Tona?
I thought Snerdley didn't hear you and misspelled it.
It's halfway between Orlando and uh Daytona Beach, to be exact.
How do you get halfway between Orlando?
Oh, oh, an I4.
Yeah, okay.
So Trump, he's got an event in Del Tona?
Uh no, it's in Daytona Beach.
I'm heading there now.
So but you're in Del Tona on the way to Daytona to hear Trump.
Okay, cool.
So now that we have that straightened out, um, so you started the show off asking uh Well, you're saying I'm stupid, or you saying I'm uh you think I you saying I didn't understand you?
See, that's taking it personally.
Oh, no, no, no, of course not.
You can I'm sure you understand me.
So you started the show off by um by asking or posing the question as to uh why uh our beloved president would uh uh jump every time Iran asked for something.
And I think the answer is very uh very obvious, and it's Valerie Jarrett.
Um she is his gal pal.
Um, you know, she says jump he asked how high.
Uh she's the closest thing to him, probably closer than his wife.
And uh, you know, she was born in Iran.
Um her parents are from there.
Uh when I know that, I know that's true.
I know she's Iranian.
Her parents are how do you know that she's got that kind of relationship with uh with Barry?
Um Well, you know, in the eight she's she's the one that kind of huddled the two of them together.
She got him uh introduced to the daily Chicago politics group.
Um that would be Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn and all these other people.
Absolutely.
Jeremiah Wright.
This other that that other group of people that show us how qualified Obama is, how suitable he is.
Of course, that group.
So uh I you know, I I think that's I she she has tremendous influence over him.
I mean, she she really from what I understand, I don't know.
Well, look, I I don't know if you're right, but but there's got to be some explanation for this because Obama does seem like he wants Iran to get whatever they want.
And uh if you if you're just joining us and you're wondering why we haven't talked about the ransom, we did.
It was the first thing we talked about.
I've I'm calling it the Affordable Ransom Act, and I think it's a smashing success.
If you like your kidnapped victim, we will buy your kidnap victim.
If you happen to be Iran, it's called single payer kidnapping.
You kidnap four Americans and tell us how much you want, and because of our single payer program and the fact that you get the you keep your kidnapped victim and we'll give cash for it.
400 million dollars.
And what people don't understand that 400 million dollars is just part of a larger payment of 1.7 billion.
Now the regime is trying to say you don't know what you're talking about.
It was a coincidence.
That money has nothing to do with those with those with those sailors being released.
That payment was for something totally unrelated, is two different things.
It just happened at the same time.
So you people thinking it's ransom, you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, it clearly was ransom, and the Iranians said it was.
The Iranians, by the way, have been honest about their relationship with us in this nuke deal from day one.
They have been upfront and honest.
Well, uh no, I take it back.
They lied about one thing.
They lied to John Kerry.
No.
Who do they?
They said, no, it wasn't them.
I take it back.
They haven't lied.
It's the regime that's lied to us.
It was John Kerry who told us.
John Kerry, you he served in Vietnam, by the way.
He's the Secretary of State that replaced Hillary.
And he told us that the reason we were negotiating a nuke deal with the Iranians because there were some moderates there.
And it wasn't the Mullahs.
It wasn't the Ayatollahs.
That we had a new moderate regime there that was ascending to power, and that's who we're doing a deal with.
And it turned out the Irania said there's no such thing as that.
We don't have any moderate here the way he's talking about it.
The mullahs approved this deal or not.
It's the regime lying to us.
The Iranians have called us a hostage ransom payment.
And it was this is in violation of U.S. policy.
This is despite Bergdahl, I mean, that's bad.
I I I remember the days, folks.
I'm old enough to remember the arrogant little press conference Obama did yesterday with the president of Singapore, and he went on and on and on his arrogant platform about, well, you know, Romney and McCain, they were okay.
I mean, I I I if they either one of them had won, you know, I could have tolerated that.
I mean, I think the country could have been okay.
Not optimum, but at least they understand the rule of law.
At least McCain and Romney, yeah, they understand the Constitution.
And uh I disagree with them on everything, but at least, you know, they were okay.
It was the most arrogant thing, but he gets to Trump, but Trump is totally unsuited, he's unfit, he's mentally unstable, whatever it is.
Now, I'm old enough to remember when Mitt Romney was called a tax cheat by Harry Reid.
I'm old enough to remember when Obama and the Democrats accused Romney of standing by doing nothing when the wife of one of his employees died from cancer because Romney wouldn't provide the employee with health care because she had a pre-existing condition.
Oh, yeah, I'm old enough to remember how Obama said that Romney was so mean and insensitive, and he put the family dog on the vacation Station wagon roof when the family went off on a vacation.
Oh, yeah, I'm old enough to remember all of these allegations against Romney by Obama.
But now all of a sudden, yeah, well, Romney, yeah, he's not optimum.
Yeah, he's a little odd, yeah, he's a little weird.
But at least I could have accepted him, Obama said.
Yeah, it was a pet abuser, a tax abuser.
And I forget what the attacks against McCain were.
I think they were age related, subtly.
So brief.
Was it temperament?
They go after McCain.
Age and temperament.
They went after, oh, yeah, because they they that's right, they portrayed McCain as being a little unhinged.
Now, went off the handle too easily.
Got a little dictatorial.
Napoleonic complex.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Remember all of that.
Yeah, they forgot he was a Maverick.
You know, that Maverick status that ended the moment the Democrats chose their nominee.
Anyway, I gotta take another brief time out here, folks, because of the uh programming format, the clock, but we will be right back.
Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, was on uh happening now the day on a Fox News channel.
And uh John Scott was interviewing and said, hey, there's another report out there that there's supposed to be some kind of campaign intervention this weekend.
Uh people like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, you uh Rince Priebus and Trump children are gonna sit down with Trump and you're gonna intervene.
You're gonna tell him where he's going wrong.
You're gonna try to get him refocused and start aiming fire at Hillary instead of fellow Republicans like Paul Ryan.
Is there any truth to this, Mr. Manafort?
This is the first I'm hearing of that.
The candidate watch him this afternoon.
He's gonna be talking about this 400 million dollar Iran secret payment.
He's gonna be talking about Hillary Clinton's failed leadership as Secretary of State.
The only need we have for an intervention is maybe some media types who keep saying things that aren't true.
But there was that email sent out to members of Congress saying, let's put this Khan controversy behind us.
Let's try and focus our efforts on other areas, and yet the candidate himself continues to bring that up.
The candidate wanted to make clear two things on the Khan situation, and we've put it behind us, frankly.
Uh, can they put it behind him?
What if the what if Khan keeps going on TV?
I mean, Khan said he was tired of it.
He wanted to shrink back to private life, but he's on TV every day at CNN.
What I mean, how can they put it behind him if he's out there leveling a tax?
Now Khan is out there demanding the Trump give back the purple heart that the veteran gave him.
I'm telling you, Khan looks more like a vice presidential nominee and a running mate than Tim Kane does.
By the way, here's Josh Ernest.
He's the White House press secretary.
This is during the daily press briefing today.
A reporter said, hey, this 400 grand that you gave the Iranians, was that a was that a ransom payment for the people that released?
No, it was not.
It is against the policy of the United States uh to pay ransom for hostages.
Iran released five Americans who were unjustly detained on Iranian soil, and we resolved a 35-year-old financial claim with the Iranians in a way that saved Americans potentially billions of dollars.
There are many other benefits we can get into as well, but those are the highlights.
Are you kidding?
Did you hear that?
Okay, so what happened was that there were five Americans who were unjustly detained on Iranian soil.
And we were really tough.
We don't negotiate for hostages.
We don't pay ransom for hostages.
The Iranians just released them.
That's all.
And by the way, we resolved a different thing.
Had nothing to do with the hostages.
We resolved a 35-year-old financial claim of the Iranians in a way that saved Americans potentially billions.
So, in other words, we snorkered the Iranians.
For some reason, they gave up the five sailors.
And then we snookered them on the same day.
We gave them 400 grand, when in effect, and by the way, he got the next bite.
I'm not going to play it for time.
The next bite he says the money was for Iran to build up its infrastructure.
Kind of like we did with our stimulus package.
You remember that back in 2009.
So we gave him 400 grand for their stimulant to rebuild roads and bridges and schools in Iran.
But we got a big deal out of this, Ernest said.
Yeah, because we actually could have paid much more than that, but we snorkered them.
He didn't use the word.
But that's what they're that's how they're trying to sell this.
And of course, the drive-bys eat it up and report it, and low information crowd swallows it.
And that's It is the fastest three hours in media.
Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly with zero mistakes.
All while having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
▲
Export Selection