All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
August 8, 2016, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
No, no, I'm not watching the Olympics.
I haven't, I haven't watched one second.
I mean, who wants to watch people swimming in sewage and rowing their boats in gunk and all that?
I no, no, no, no.
I bet in fact, I watched Ray Donovan last night, and I can't even describe it.
I could not.
I mean, I couldn't even get close to approximating it without value of violating every tenet of good taste that I've got here.
Impossible.
And yet it was hilarious, but I can't describe it for you.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here.
Here we are, revved and ready to go.
Another big broadcast week from the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, telephone number 800-282-2882.
Speaking of the Olympics.
If bashing Donald Trump were an Olympic event, the news media would be winning every medal, every gold, every silver, every bronze.
It is incredible.
It is so bad.
The media bashing, the imbalance.
Now I know we say this every four years, but this is the worst that it has been that I have ever seen.
Brian came in moments ago to hook me up here for the uh particular tech I need to do the program, and they flashed a picture on CNN of Trump looking the scariest, most mean, vicious person you've ever seen.
And I looked up at it and I said, Brian, these guys are doing a bigger job on Trump than they've ever done on me.
He said, Yep, yep.
It's incredible.
It's so bad that the New York Times has written a piece justifying it.
Our old buddy, Jim Rutenberg, who has taken over the media analysis responsibility at the New York Times, has a piece, balance, fairness, and a proudly provocative presidential candidate.
What this piece is about, it prints out to like six pages.
What this piece is about is how the media has had to abandon all of its known norms.
The media has had to abandon all of its objectivity.
The media has had to abandon all of its impartiality because Trump is so bad that the media has nothing else to do.
They have no choice but then to try to destroy him.
For the sake of humanity, for the sake of decency, for the sake of saving the planet.
It is, I've never seen a piece like this.
It's written with ringing hands.
Oh, we feel so bad about this.
It's just horrible, but it's a necessity.
We've never been in a situation.
Everything we learned in journalism school has had to be thrown out the window.
I'm paraphrasing these are not uh actual quotes.
But I will get into it here just because it sets everything up.
It sets everything up for the rest of the campaign, the rest of the program today.
Uh you name it.
But before I get to that, just a couple things here about the Olympics.
You know, the TV ratings are in the toilet, as are the Olympics, apparently.
Apparently, some of the water sports are actually taking place in the equivalent of a toilet down there.
And it is it is so bad.
Get this.
This is a story from the Daily Caller.
An NBC Olympic announcer pointed to the negative reaction U.S. teams have received all over the world during the women's indoor volleyball team match against Puerto Rico.
The U.S. lost a point to Puerto Rico towards the end of the second game during the match as a result of a challenge regarding a ball called out of bounds.
The Brazilian stadium audience cheered when the decision was announced.
And you heard the cheers from the pro-Brazilian, pro-Prettorican.
In other words, this story says that America, the United States, is being cheered against everywhere.
No matter what venue, no matter where you go, no matter what event, the hatred for the United States or the dislike is so vicious that people are cheering against the U.S. At every venue.
Now, why do you think this story is a story?
Who do you think might be responsible for this?
Would you say it would be the last eight years of the Obama administration and the things we've done around?
No, no, don't be silly.
Oh, don't be silly.
It's got to be Trump.
The world hates us because of Trump.
Just I mean, there's no end to this.
Snerdley asked me, was it Sterling?
It was a caller last week, asked me if it's possible this could get so over the top that there'd be a backlash.
Who knows?
I I this is so new, and it's it's so at least in our lifetimes it's unprecedented.
Look, some of the stuff that went on in presidential campaigns back in the founding days of this country, the civil war, it was vicious as well.
And it's it's safe to say that in all of life that there isn't anything really new, but within the historical context of most people, in most people's lives, history began the day they were born.
You know, stuff that happens when they're alive.
That's the most important, it's the best, it's the worst, whatever it is.
So within that context, I don't think anybody can remember it ever being this bad at purposely and undisguised.
I mean, this piece of the New York Times today makes it clear that they're doing it purposefully, willfully, knowingly, and here's an excuse for it.
And we're going to keep doing it, Rutenberg says.
Well, they, maybe he's an analyst.
They're going to keep doing it because it's the only hope for the country.
The only hope for the world is to deny Trump the presidency.
This is so bad.
This is so over the top, this is so unacceptable.
Now, meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is an absolute walking disaster.
But not one aspect of her negatives is being touted, is being reported on, and fact checkers are doing their best to uh eliminate gaffes and other things that she commits.
I mean, it is it is it is one sided like uh we haven't seen before.
And I don't know uh how to overcome it or if it can be, and I don't know what the uh long-term impact of it's gonna be.
The the the thing I know is that whether you want to hear it or not, the drive-by media, despite having lost their monopoly, and despite having lost their their overall dominance, they still are located in Primo places like Google, Google, and Google search are the monopoly of ABC CBS NBC had up to 1988.
Yahoo News, Google, uh pop culture, the drive-by still dominate there.
And in entertainment and pop culture, they may as well still have a monopoly for all intents and purposes.
And so the uh the reality is that this stuff affects people.
Um just to reiterate with the story from last week.
When the story of a 400 million dollar bribe, when that story surfaced, and the take on that story being a bribe happened, and yet there was no national outcry.
There didn't seem to be any anti-Hillary reaction to it, anti-Obama reaction to it, and any polling data, or you you you just couldn't find any news stories.
Couldn't tune into anything and find people upset about it.
So people were right, what do people not care?
I can't believe people don't care.
And I wrote back to my friend, I said they don't know.
The fact that 400 million dollars was paid as a bribe, that hasn't shown up in the drive-by media.
It's only in our media.
So the people you're waiting to blow up over this.
And let's face it, how long is it we've been waiting for what we think average ordinary Americans to blow up over things that we routinely know and react?
They don't know, they don't react, so we think we're losing the country, but the fact is they don't know.
Most of them, if they tune into Yahoo, go to Google or wherever they get their news, Facebook and the news feed doesn't matter.
They're gonna they're they're not gonna see anybody's take on that deal as a 400 million dollar bribe or ransom or any of that.
So it's not that they don't react to it.
It's not that we're losing the country per se, it's that these people just don't know.
So in that sense, it's hard to calculate.
You know, just how far can the media go being unfair, unbalanced, uh, and and actually uh programmed and oriented to destroy one of the presidential candidates and candidacies.
How far can that go before the low information across says, wait a minute, something's wrong here?
This it can't be that bad.
We don't know.
We just have to play it out.
So it's it's within this context that the usual kinds of stories are now popping up.
And here's here's the way this timeline kind of goes.
And it seems that this way with Romney, it happened this way with George W. Bush.
Uh not so much Reagan, but generally how it goes is that uh presidential race starts off, both parties uh, both candidates in full gear.
And then the polling data starts to show that our our candidate is losing big.
That the Democrat candidates starting to pull away and just dominate.
The next thing that happens is we get stories about the polls are not right.
The polls are rigged, the polls are used to make news, not reflect news, the polls at this stage are being used to create public opinion for Hillary, anti-Trump.
It's not really reflecting that.
Then the next version is we hear all of these stories about people who are not being polled because the polsters can't reach them, the hidden supporters, in this case of Trump, who are not being polled, who cannot be found.
There's a special group of people out there, it's a unique campaign, nobody's getting to them.
We have no idea who they're for.
You've got to throw this campaign out the window because it doesn't fit the usual mold of what presidential campaigns are because of Trump.
And then you get the anecdotal evidence.
See, the polls are wrong.
Look at the size of Trump's crowd.
And then the latest one is this.
There's stories running around.
Look at all of the social media Trump has, right?
Trump has two and three times the social media presence, supporters, and so forth, and Hillary Clinton doesn't.
See, Rush, that's another bit of evidence that the polls are not right.
You've got to factor social media in.
So we go to our guy losing.
The polls can't be right.
There's hidden Trump support out there, but it isn't being found.
And then the size of Trump's crowds versus Hillary's pointer, see, see, she's not that popular.
She doesn't have that big a lead.
And then the social media paradigm is thrown out there.
See, Trump is just dominating.
He's got three times the social media presence.
And then the election happens and our guy loses by six or seven.
That has that was the pattern with Romney.
And I see the pattern repeating here.
And have you ever wondered why the pattern is what it is?
I mean, it it it's you can you can make book.
I could have made a lot of money if I would have made a bet early on that this would be the pattern.
And it clearly is.
Now, still there are major differences because it's better or worse, we have not had a candidate like Oh, by the way, Trump just started his address to the, this is a huge economic address, to the economic club of Detroit.
We are not going to be gypping it, joining it in progress.
Uh we just we just can't.
I've warned them about this.
I warned them that that if don't start these things at this time of the day.
But I guess they have no choice.
You know, I've spoken to the economic club of Detroit.
Back in, I forget what it had to be 1991, 1990.
And I didn't know what they were.
Uh and uh some of my uh partners came to me.
Rush, this is a bunch of it's it's it's a big, big important group, business people, not the wazoo.
You go in there and you gotta make the sales pitch for your show.
That's what they want to hear.
And I said, no, no, that's not that that you that can't be right.
Yes, it is.
They want to hear a sales pitch.
They want you to hear, you want to hear you tell them why buying your show is the only thing they should do.
So I prepared to do that.
We get into Detroit, we go to the cocktail part, it's a luncheon thing, just like this one is.
We go to a little cocktail reception before I'm supposed to speak at lunch, and I run across a guy who's a big fan, very excited I'm there, and says, he can't wait to hear what I'm gonna say.
So let me ask you a question.
You guys waiting for me to big uh deliver a big sales pitch?
And his mouth fell up.
God, no, don't you do that?
If you do that, they're gonna walk out of the room.
They don't want you they They want to be entertained.
They're not here to have you pitch advertising on your radio show.
So I went and got my partner and said, you know what?
That's not what they want to hear, and I've got to totally redo this.
So I had about 10 minutes to rework what I was going to say.
And that was that's my memory.
It turned out to be fine.
Everything was okay.
But I I've the reason I make this point is because this club meets at noon.
Whenever they meet, it's always at noon during the business week.
So I guess Trump didn't have much of a chance to move it.
But we're rolling tape on it.
He's going to announce major, major economic policies in this speech.
Tax cuts, a major, major tax cut proposal, three tax rates, the elimination of the estate or death tax, and some other big, big things.
It's a it's going to be on par with a Reagan-esque tax cut from uh back in the 1980s.
And there will be other things.
It's written, it's on the prompter.
He's delivering it in a serious vein, of course.
So whatever is noteworthy from this speech, we will have it for you as soon as we're able to roll it off and uh and edit it.
Back to the Olympics before we go to the uh the first break.
In addition to a story being out there, how the U.S. is being booed against, cheered against at every venue, no matter who, no matter what the event, no matter who the athletes are.
Here's the next story from the Associated Press.
Los Angeles mayor, Eric Garcetti acknowledged Saturday that the results of the November presidential election could weigh heavily on Los Angeles' chances of hosting the 2024 Olympics.
Eric Garcetti said that a victory by Donald Trump could turn off the International Olympic Committee voters.
In an exclusive interview with the Associated Press, the mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Garcetti said that if Trump wins in November, the Olympic Committee might not want to have anything to do with the United States.
We might not ever get another Olympics again.
And certainly we would not get the Los Angeles Olympics in 2024.
He said, Garcetti said, I think for some of the International Olympic Committee members, they would say, wait a second, can we go to a country like that where we've heard things that we take offense to?
So Trump is so offensive.
He's offending so many people that members of the IOC would reject any chance to go to Los Angeles in 2024 because Trump is saying offensive things.
Well, okay, fine.
If they want to stay in third world hellholes, fine and dandy.
I think what everybody's overlooking, though, is that it's it's settled science.
It's a consensus out there that by 2024, Los Angeles will be underwater.
Climate change.
I checked in with Trump and his speech at the Economic Club of Detroit, and I got to tell you, this audience is eating it up.
He is bashing Hillary Clinton's economics.
He's like I heard him uh preview what his uh tax philosophy is, practically got a standing ovation at that one.
He hasn't gotten into detail yet, except on one thing.
Uh and in the middle of it, when he started talking about only his campaigns reaching out to everybody and trying to unite everybody, some protesters started screeching like Hillary Clinton.
And they had to drag her out of there.
I felt like I was watching uh Bertha Butts be dragged out of there in a troglodyte song.
The security was dragging her out.
The audience was applauding this lone protester being dragged out of the place.
She wasn't being dragged there, being leading around by the hand.
She's a rabble rouser and troublemaker.
Uh Trump started talking his tax philosophy, and he had it all right, folks.
Trust me on this.
Ideologically, economically, he was right on the money.
Then when he got spiffed specific and said that he was going to eliminate carried interest.
The room, half of the room booed.
And there might have been another protester that was distracting and they had to drag out, but the half of the room booed, half the room cheered.
And I said, whoa, this is interesting.
Now, the carry the interest tax deduction, what it basically is, is a SOP to the hedge fund community.
It is a it is a it is a tax law, it's the official law that allows hedge funds and other similarly structured financial management houses to only pay a tax rate that's pretty much equivalent to capital gains rather than the earned income tax rate.
It just has a name carried interest.
And it's thought to be unfairly low.
I mean, these are billionaires.
Why should they not be charged for earned income, which is what people think this is.
Okay, five or six protesters have had to be escorted out of the Trump speech at the economic club of Detroit.
Oh, there goes the sixth now.
They're all women, they're all white women, and they all they they protest at uh you can tell it's at intervals.
When when Trump says something that's not an obvious applause line, is when they start screaming and yelling.
Can't understand what they're saying, but they're dragging them out of there every time it happens.
And that's great to see.
You know, I whenever I have made speeches elsewhere, anywhere, protesters have not been hauled out.
Nobody drags them out of there.
Uh, but they are doing this for for Trump, and it's allowing him to continue.
Look, you're gonna hear these highlights as we've because we're rolling on this right now.
I have to tell you something, it just happened.
Every time Donald Trump criticizes Hillary Clinton, that room explodes.
And he just got a standing ovation when recounting her dismal failure at job creation as a senator in New York.
The room stood up and gave him an extended standing ovation.
And he was talking about a Washington Post story today, which is, I guess the obligatory anti-Hillary story of the week, in which they recount her promise to create 200,000 jobs in upstate New York and her dismal failure to do so.
And they chronicle all of the falsehoods, the uh short circuits, the uh lies and so forth.
And Trump is referencing that story, and whenever he talks about his economic policy and how it's going to make us more competitive, it's gonna create jobs this place erupts, the economic club of Detroit.
But when he criticizes, this is significant.
When he criticizes her policies, he hasn't started making fun of her for anything.
It's all policy related.
When he criticizes her policies, this room erupts.
The protesters are starting to show up a little bit more frequency.
Now, I'm sure the economic club of Detroit is starting to ask itself how the hell did these people get in there?
But they're escorting them out, and it looks like, yeah, it's another woman.
This looks like I can't tell African American, but it's a bunch of women in there protesting Trump, and it's well planned.
These intervals are well thought out.
But Trump's unfazed about it, he's laughing at it and talking about it now.
I want to get to this New York Times story.
We will have all this for you in uh in due course.
This Jim Rutenberg story from the New York Times yesterday, actually, the Sunday paper, and it is a story about how Trump is basically so off the charts bad.
By the way, you know what's interesting about this?
Here's the New York Times actually standing up for America.
Now, before you start snickering, I can remember a number of occasions.
George W. Bush, his administration, would ask the New York Times to withhold publishing a story that would put soldiers at risk in Iraq.
Or ask them to delay the public, not to cancel it.
You know, not to spike it, but just to delay publishing a story until they could get assets out of the way, and the New York Times generally told Bush to go pound sand.
And Bush's request was rooted in, you know, doing the good thing, the right thing, the safe thing for Americans, and the New York Times ignored him.
Now all of a sudden, Trump poses such a grave threat to the great United States that the New York Times is justifying this media behavior, unlike any we have ever seen.
And I I probably just need to read the first two or three paragraphs to set the tone for this whole thing for you.
Jim Rutenberg, we like Jim Rutenberg here.
Jim Rutenberg is one of the few that has always quoted me accurately and respectfully at the New York Times, which makes this an even double whammy.
But remember, he's their media analyst now.
He looks at the media and what they're doing and excuses it, explains it, tells it to us plebs that don't get it.
If you are a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue, playing to the nation's worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, if you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald Trump cozies up to anti-American dictators, and he would be dangerous with control of the U.S. nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Now, isn't this fascinating?
We never get a story like this.
For example, if you're a working journalist and you believe that Barack Hussein Obama has ties to dangerous anti-American organizations and people, and enlist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and all of the things that they have said anti-America, would you then say, how the heck are we supposed to cover it?
No.
If you're a journalist and you know that Barack Obama has relationships with less than upstanding characters who are of dubious intent where the U.S. is concerned, you ignore it.
If you're a working journalist, you ignore everything about Obama.
You ignore every potential negative, you ignore every danger point.
You ignore every red flag.
That's how you do it.
You ignore it if it's Obama because he's a liberal Democrat, and that means he's okay.
But if you are a working journalist and you think Trump's a demagogue, playing to the nation's worst racist nationalistic tendencies, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Because if you believe all those things as a journalist, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism's been using for the better part of 50 years.
So they think it is so bad, they have to throw out everything they've been taught.
Except, folks, what they're doing to Trump is precisely what they've been taught.
What they are doing to Trump is precisely their textbook.
It's no different in direction than what they did to Mitt Romney.
It's no different than what they've tried to do, did do to George W. Bush, no different than what they did to Reagan.
It's just that with Trump, it's even more egregious than ever.
So it's so bad that journalists now have to just toss out everything they've learned about objectivity and fairness.
You have to approach it in a way you have never approached anything in your career, as Mr. Rutenberg writes.
If you believe all these horrible things about Donald Trump throughout the textbook that you've been using for the better part of the past half century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you've never approached anything in your career.
If you view you a journalist, if you view Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that.
You would move closer than you've ever been to being oppositional.
That is uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream non-opinion journalist I've ever known and by normal standards, untenable.
That's Jim Rutenberg.
I'm sorry.
Jim, I don't believe this.
I mean, I I believe you think it, but I don't believe this is in any way, Even anywhere near close to the truth.
That this is the first time you've had to become oppositional as journalists?
That you're uncomfortable in this uncharted territory, and that every mainstream non-opinion journalist you've ever known finds Trump untenable.
You found Bush untenable, Reagan was untenable.
Any of it, a number of Republicans who've run for the Senate, have run for the House found them untenable.
A number of Republicans in the primaries that ran for the White House found that this is the f first time that they've had to throw out objectivity and become oppositional.
Is he kidding?
No, he's not, folks.
This is the point.
Rutenberg is not kidding.
He thinks that he and his codray of associates and comrades in the drive-by media are in uncharted territory for them, because they're mainstream non-opinion journalists.
They've never had to go where they are going.
But Mr. Rutenberg says a question that everybody's grappling with is do normal standards apply?
And if they don't, what should take their place?
So Trump is so over the top.
Trump is so bad.
Trump is so dangerous.
Though we got to chuck our normal standards out the window.
But what do we replace them with?
Well, covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system.
Oh, okay.
So in the middle of this attempt to take Trump out and destroy him, journalists are in shock.
They don't believe what they're doing.
They can't believe that they have been reduced to this.
And you know why get this next sentence?
This is unbelievable.
Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal, potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system.
It threatens to throw the advantage to his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
No kidding.
You mean to tell me that if Trump were a normal candidate, you guys wouldn't be pulling for Hillary.
But Trump is so bad that you are now for the first time in many of your careers actually pulling for the Democrat to win the race.
And that's a dangerous precedent, Mr. Rutenberg says.
Covering Trump is more than just a shock.
Covering Trump threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who ought to be drawing plenty more tough-minded coverage.
Well, why isn't she?
If you in the drive-bys think that Hillary should be getting tougher coverage, why isn't she?
Oh, I because Trump is so dangerous and so bad, it's taking everything you've got to take him out.
Mr. Rutenberg writes, Hillary proved that again last week with her assertion on Fox News that James Comey had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for State Department business.
A grossly misleading interpretation of it.
Well, okay, why can't you just report that?
Why can't you just report she lied?
Why can't maybe if, like when Hillary was supposedly made a uh Freudian slip when she promised to raise taxes on the middle class, maybe she didn't make a mistake.
Maybe Hillary Clinton accidentally told the truth.
But no, when Hillary Clinton makes a faux poll like that, the drive-by's run in and make sure everybody knows she didn't mean it.
And she really didn't mean when she said that Comey said that she had pretty much told the truth.
But if we're to believe this, mainstream journalists have never before been oppositional.
They've never been in this precarious, dangerous situation, they've never had to become for a particular candidate.
They have now been forced to do that by virtue of having to be oppositional to Donald Trump.
But let's face it, Mr. Rutenberg continues, balance has been on vacation since Trump stepped onto his escalator last year to announce.
For the primaries and the cockeye, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season.
He has nearly two billion dollars in free media is more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.
Anyway, the story goes on with examples and quotes from media people like MSNBC anchors and infobabes about their shock at what they're hearing, their shock at what they're saying, and they can't believe that Trump should be allowed anywhere near the nuclear arsenal, the nuclear codes, the nuclear football.
So they know.
Of course they know.
So what we're getting is an explanation for why.
And it's so, so dangerous.
They've never before had to go to these lengths to destroy a candidate.
But they have to.
Here they have to throw every standard of fairness and objectivity, and just standing around and watching what's happening and telling people they have to throw that all out.
They have to destroy Trump.
And in the process, they're helping Hillary, and they don't like doing that.
And it's Trump's fault.
Because he's so bad he demands all this coverage.
He demands that the media destroy him.
I mean, his candidacy is such the media's got no choice, and then Hillary's ended up getting a free pass.
It's gotta be so tough to be a member of the drug buys.
I don't know.
The truth is, folks, the New York Times never even covered Hillary's appearance.
Last Sunday on Fox News Sunday, where she lied and said that everything Comey said was truthful.
She said, Comey said that what I said was truthful.
The New York Times never even covered it.
Their ombudsman actually wrote a column in the New York Times that if you what did he say?
He said if uh did it that uh well, I can't find it right.
But if if you didn't know that Hillary Clinton, whatever he said, he's he made it clear that you're hearing it for the first time if you read the New York Times in my Ombudsman column, what Hillary Clinton said, because the Times did not report it.
They were so focused.
Trump is so bad.
He's so threatening.
Trump is so dangerous that the drive-by media has to stop every ounce of coverage of Hillary Clinton to focus on taking Trump out and saving America.
When's the last time you read of journalists concerned with saving America?
Go to the phones.
Where do we start first?
I got time to squeeze a call in here before the um hour ends.
Long Island Robert, great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Uh pleasure to speak to you.
Um, I just wanted to share with you a fact about uh Donald Trump as how he says, I was taught we could say we were always taught the last four letters of American is I can.
And here's a man who's saying something what we can do, we can build a wall, we can drill, we can do this, and they shoot him down to say we can't.
And the values that were instilled to me by my father that I try to teach it to my four children are a thing of the past.
And here's a man who's saying what we can do, and they chop him down to say what we can't do.
That's all I wanted to say.
Yeah, well, you're you're chronicling one of the uh major, major cultural devolutions that has taken place.
That kind of thing is mocked today.
Um, a can do spirit, uh, an uplifting optimistic uh message, work hard, pay you it.
The reason that's mocked is because the the narrative today is that America is unfair, structured only for the rich.
The game is rigged for the rich, and nobody else has a prayer, and that's why you have to turn to government for many of your wants and many of your needs, because a country's so rigged for the rich.
The rich are taking everything.
And so the idea that if you really apply yourself, when you go out and really, really work, they're just lying to you.
They just want to benefit from your hard work, but they don't want to pay you for it.
And that's what a lot of people have been convinced is uh the truth of America today.
It's all part of the Obama transformation from the founding days of this country, which were inherently bigoted and racist and unfair now.
whatever it is he's trying to make it.
Okay, Trump, Trump's apportioning his 45th minute here.
It won't go on much longer than this.
And he's getting uh continued applause throughout his speech, The Economic Club of Detroit.
And we'll have the excerpts and highlights that I have referenced and some stuff I haven't heard.
Uh, as soon as we can get to it, we are scrambling, even as I speak, assembling these bites, and we'll have whatever we have as soon as we can.
We get back.
▲
Export Selection