All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
August 11, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, there's a lot of things that amaze me every day, folks.
I'm still young enough that I get amazed over stuff.
You know what amazes me is this Hillary Clinton email story will not go away.
Now, this is the kind of story that I tried to take something that was really in the weeds complicated yesterday.
I synthesized it down to its bare essence.
And even as I was telling you about it, I thought, man, this is going to be impossible for people to follow.
Names they've never heard of, concepts that seem dubious.
And I really don't know what impact it's having out there, but I do know that it's not going away.
Even on the drive-by media, they're talking about this email story and the variations of it.
Not trying to bury it.
They are maybe trying to relegate it to secondary tertiary status, but it's still out there.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Great to have you.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
How many of you had heard at the time James Comey did his press conference detailing all of the criminal activity or quasi-criminal activity Mrs. Clinton engaged in and all the lies that she had told publicly and then saying, but there's not enough here to actually pursue a prosecution.
No reasonable prosecutor would pursue on the basis of what we've got.
Even though he indicted her.
It was a public indictment of Mrs. Clinton's behavior regarding her emails and her server.
And then remember people saying, but hey, Rush, hey, Rush, don't worry, because they're also looking into the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
He didn't say anything about that.
That's right.
The FBI is looking into the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
So people said, yeah, yeah.
And we know there's scandal there.
And so what are they going to turn?
Well, it turns out the FBI was not looking into the Crime Family Foundation.
It turns out that the FBI hasn't done one thing on the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
You know why?
Because the DOJ, the Obama Justice Department, told them to pack it in.
They told them, we're not interested.
We're not going to do anything with what you turn up.
And so if you're the FBI, well, heck, I mean, we can't arrest, we can't indict.
And if we're being told by the DOJ that there's nothing we can show them they're going to do anything with, then we're going to stand down.
There hasn't been any investigation of Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
And that news just popped up today.
And the Clinton Crime Family Foundation is where a lot of really questionable scandal-ridden behavior has taken place.
Whether it's criminal or not, you know, that's what an investigation would turn up with.
The Clintons, the odds are that it is.
But folks, here again, the benefit of experience.
I have been hosting this program.
We're starting our 29th year.
And for almost all of these 29 years, there have been repeated Clinton scandals.
There have been large ones.
There have been medium-sized ones.
There have been blockbuster Clinton scandals.
And it doesn't seem to me, as I look back over the whole period of time, that any of these scandals have actually done much damage.
Bill Clinton served both of his terms.
He then left office and got filthy rich trading on the power that he had as president, selling access to himself and to his wife.
His wife is now the Democrat presidential nominee.
They have both become filthy rich, and yet they've done this with near constant attention on all the scandals that they have engaged in.
And it doesn't seem to have harmed them.
Doesn't seem in terms of the general population of the country.
It doesn't seem that there has been any noticeable damage in terms of their reputation, trustworthiness.
I will say that Hillary's negatives are very, very high.
They're way above 50%.
People don't trust her, but she's still the Democrat nominee.
And if you believe the polls, she is still leading in the polls.
And despite all the news that has turned up about her, all of the disqualifying things, all of the scandals, all of the negatives, she still survives.
The fact that she can't sell books, that she can't draw crowds to her books, she can't draw crowds to her campaign events, that she obviously has some health problems.
By the way, does Erasmus had pulled out that, what is it, 59, what's the number?
59% of the American people want to see her health records.
That's never going to happen, by the way.
But 59% of the people want to see her health records because a lot of people are very much aware that she's got some health problems.
They have been seen.
She can't hide them all.
People are understandably curious, but she's still the Democrat nominee.
And she still has the drive-by media fully behind her, 100%.
So I'm wondering, is the pursuit of Clinton scandal the way to go on these people?
I'm not going to stop detailing the information as we learn it.
But is disqualifying Hillary Clinton as a candidate?
Is that the way to beat her?
Is the question.
As opposed to maybe spending some time on the disastrous policy she wants to continue?
I know that doesn't seem to have had much impact either.
The policies are Obama's, and somehow he's escaped any attachment to them.
And she wants to continue them.
Will she continue to benefit as Obama has from no accountability?
She's to blame for a lot of things.
You made the latest Trump controversy.
They're saying Obama founded ISIS.
And people have had Trump on.
They've talked to Trump.
You want to walk that back?
Don't you really mean to say that it was Obama's negligence in getting out of Iraq that established the circumstances for ISIS to begin and flirt.
No, he founded ISIS.
He and Hillary founded.
Mr. Trump, don't you really kind of want to walk that back and rephrase?
No, they, he founded ISIS.
He's not walking it back.
He's saying, I'm telling the truth.
This is what it looks like in America today in our current political and news media system.
This is what telling the truth looks like.
The truth appears to be so outrageous because we've had so many years of BS sufficing as the truth that when somebody actually utters the truth, it's just unacceptable.
It's outrageous.
How dare you?
But I'm not backing off of it, he says.
And I'm going to continue to do it.
That's what I'm here to do.
It did me pretty well in the primaries, and I'm going to keep doing it.
He will not walk back the fact that Obama founded ISIS.
Now, we all know, those of us, and you in the audience, of course, we know exactly what he's talking about.
And he's right.
Now, Obama didn't go over there and convene a meeting and have negotiations with the ISIS leaders.
His name's not on any founding documents or any of that.
But Trump is saying what he's saying, hoping to shock people into realizing just who Obama is.
Because the point is, since Obama became president, terrorism is expanding around the world.
It's expanding.
The Middle East was, well, you can never say the Middle East was relatively peaceful, but it's on fire now as a result of Obama and Hillary Clinton policy.
Whether there are scandals involved in that policy, who knows, such as the reason for Benghazi being to fund guns to the Syrian rebels, who knows?
Pretty good bet on that, too.
So the question becomes, how many people are going to learn of these scandals and how many people are going to actually learn of all the vulnerabilities that Hillary and Obama have?
But Trump, obviously, serious about continuing to tell the truth as he sees it, as he understands it, as he wants people to know it.
And let's look at the result of that.
Let's assess, as they say, the situation on the ground.
Every time Trump opens his mouth with something, the drive-bys go into their predictable, hysterical, unbelievable reaction to it.
They say Trump's unfit.
This is the entire Democrat Party case, by the way.
Trump gave an economic speech that in and of itself was very good in terms of what the country needs.
But there is no such in and of itself analysis in the drive-by media or elsewhere.
They have to portray Trump as this raging lunatic, maniac, dangerous, incompetent, unfit.
And that is their entire campaign.
They do not dare tackle.
They don't tackle any of us on the issues.
They always try to disqualify anybody on the right who is effective at anything, effective at communicating, effecting at getting votes, effective at winning elections.
They become targeted for destruction.
In fact, you know who Seth Lipsky is, Mr. Snerdley?
Seth Lipsky is the husband of Amity Schlays, the former Wall Street Journal.
She's an expert on the Great Depression.
She's written a couple books on it.
And he himself is a renowned conservative intellectual.
And he has a piece in the New York Post today that is just, I mean, bullseye.
Here's the headline: liberal attacks on Trump are so unhinged it might get him killed.
Meaning that the left here, including the media, echoing the ridiculous assertions that Hillary is making.
He's unfit.
He's this and that.
You know, we're always told.
Hell, we're not told.
We're accused.
Whenever somebody shoots up a movie theater, what do they do?
Try to first find out if the guy listens to Rush Limbaugh.
Then they try to find out if he listens to talk radio.
Then they try to find out if he's Tea Party.
They do everything they can to try to convince people that the gun nuts, as they describe them, who commit these mass murders are somehow tied to right-wingers.
And it turns out they never are.
They're always attached to fringe progressive movements, if anything.
And then they chide us.
And they blame, for example, Gabby Giffords.
Sarah Palin was accused of being responsible for Gabby Giffords being shot because on her website, she had a graphic of crosshairs in a rifle scope.
And that was said to unhinge people looking at her website and inspiring them to want to go out and shoot Gabby Giffords.
Well, Steph Lipsky is turning that around here in the New York Post and accusing the Democrats and the media with some of their outrageous charges and claims of Trump of actually doing the same thing.
I mean, the headline again: liberal attacks on Trump are so unhinged it might get him killed.
And he backs it up.
We'll share the details with you as the program unfolds.
But all Trump is doing is telling the truth the way he speaks.
And within the confines of our political system that have evolved over the decades, where propriety and impropriety are clearly denoted, Trump is outside the bounds of propriety.
And as such, he's unfit.
He's unsuited.
He's dangerously perhaps deranged and all of this.
But yet what has been inserted into the debate because of what Trump has said?
Well, a Muslim terrorist who targeted gays at a nightclub in Orlando, the Pulse nightclub, that terrorism, a terrorist, Omar Mateen, his crazy terrorist dad, who professes love for Hillary Clinton, shows up at one of her rallies, sitting right behind her, carrying big signs.
This has been discovered.
It's pointed out.
What's the reaction?
The drive-bys.
You can't say that Hillary had anything to do with the guy.
You can't blame Hillary for that.
You can't use this guilt by association business, even though this guy's out singing her praises, saying he was invited to show up, that that's what Democrats mean, and that's what democracy means, that he's free to go wherever he goes, plus he was invited.
I dare say that story would not have been much at all.
Then we have Hillary's oft-stated desire to ditch the Second Amendment and remove as many guns from homes as she can, and Trump is highlighting that.
That's his Second Amendment, people.
I don't know.
That is out in the domain.
It's out in the public domain.
It's no question that Hillary Clinton has often stated her desire, even her willingness to use executive actions to stop gun violence if necessary.
The only thing Hillary Clinton can do, the only thing the left can do where guns are concerned is take them away from law-abiding people.
That's all they can do.
And they want to, by the way, folks.
So that's being discussed, despite the fact that Trump is unsuitable.
He's unfit.
He's intemperate.
He's just dangerous.
These things are out there being discussed when they normally are glossed over and covered up.
Or the people who say them are so shamed that they shut up.
Trump does not shut up.
He doubles down.
He keeps the debate in the public domain.
Left is not used to it.
Democrats are not used to it.
Politically correct people are not used to it.
Trump says, I'm going to keep going.
This is what the truth sounds like.
This is what the truth looks like.
This is how strange the truth seems to so many people because it's been covered up for so long.
Now, Trump's comment about Obama founding ISIS.
There is a very smelly and there have been some very crazy, cozy decisions made by this administration that have led to the rather sudden blooming of this terrorist group.
We abandon Iraq.
We make idle threats in the Middle East and don't follow up on them.
We allow our people to get killed in the Middle East in Benghazi and don't avenge it and don't even try to stop it.
So our enemies are free to continue marching.
And our administration won't even call them by their actual name.
He will not even refer to them as militant Islamic terrorists.
What do you think they're going to do?
They're continuing to march.
Many people would have been intimidated and threatened into shutting up about it, but not Trump.
After an entire Democrat convention without one mention of the Clinton founder, here's a Democrat convention where they tried to make it out like Mrs. Clinton is the most charitable, the most loving, the most caring.
She has built her career on doing things for children, and they wouldn't even mention what they do at the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, which is the focal point of their charity.
So now that pops up in the news today, all of this stuff popping up in the news because somebody is continuing to talk about it and keep it out there.
I got to take a break now.
I hate it when I have to interrupt myself, but I can't help it, folks.
That's right, my friends, the truth.
The truth has been so suppressed, so buried under the avalanche of political correctness that when somebody speaks it anywhere, not just Trump, when anybody speaks the truth, it makes people shudder.
Oh my God, I'm not supposed to say that.
Oh, no, no, no.
You're not supposed to say that.
This is what it looks like.
Trump says the things you're not supposed to say.
In his mind, they're the truth.
That's what he says he's doing, speaking the truth.
The truth has been covered up.
Truth has been buried.
Truth has been so reshaped, made to look like public opinion, popular opinion, that it's been obscured.
The truth itself, even as a concept, has been corrupted.
Somebody comes along and articulates it.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Oh, no.
No, no, you can't say that.
You can't say that.
People shudder.
I didn't say it.
Don't associate me with it.
People even are afraid to agree with it sometimes.
Even though they do.
They are afraid to publicly acknowledge they agree with it.
Such is the fear.
In fact, the truth is such a thing.
The longer the truth is buried, the more it is corrupted.
The more somebody who comes along and actually has the courage to utter the truth is going to be feared, going to be hated, going to be disliked.
Oh, my God, this is troublemaker.
And that's what the Clintons and the Obamas and the Democrats are trying to do in terms of casting Trump.
He says he's not going to stop.
We shall see.
You remember the hack, Democrat National Committee Computer Network revealed by Wikileaks, the hack that revealed the Democrat National Committee rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders, rigging the entire primaries for Hillary Clinton to win.
Turns out that that hack was much bigger.
It was much broader and much wider in scope.
The New York Times is very worried now because many, many other Democrats and many, many other things were hacked.
And whoever did the hack has all of those things in their possession now.
So now this has given rise to fears of an October surprise.
And it's led others to speculate: well, if the DNC network was hacked, certainly Hillary's homebrew server was.
And so everybody's worried about what is to come on the Democrat side.
I checked the email during a break, and somebody wants an explanation on why the FBI cannot investigate the Clinton Foundation, even if the DOJ says, well, people are saying, I didn't know that the FBI had to get permission from the DOJ to investigate things.
It's not that, folks.
The way it works is this: the FBI can do preliminary investigations and poke around some on their own on anything.
But for any investigation to go anywhere, meaning indictments, subpoenas, grand juries, the DOJ has signed off on it.
The Department of Justice, you've got to assign a prosecutor to the case, a series of prosecutors, and then you've got to convene a grand jury.
And the FBI can't do any of that.
They need Justice Department authorization to open a full investigation because that means starting a grand jury, issuing subpoenas, and then you have to perhaps have the power to immunize certain witnesses in order to get them to testify.
Then you have to get search warrants and so forth.
You need prosecutors for that.
You need the Justice Department for that.
The agents of the FBI can't do any of that.
So if the FBI is told, if the FBI goes to DOJ, so we want to really dig deep into the Clinton Foundation.
There's something there.
And the DOJ says, sorry, we're not interested.
Well, I don't care what you produce.
We're not going to do anything with it.
They have to shut it down.
They have to stop.
And that is exactly what happened.
The Department of Justice, the so-called public integrity division, told the FBI, we're not interested.
We have no desire for you to dig up anything in the Clinton Foundation.
We don't want to know what's going on there.
We don't think anything is going on there.
And if there is, we don't want to know.
And that's why there's no investigation.
All this time, people have been under the impression that the FBI had a parallel investigation going of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation along with Hillary Clinton's emails and her server and all that.
Not true.
And there won't be an investigation of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
All there will be is information revealed, but so far it's two groups and their work that's producing any kind of public record of the Clinton Foundation and the nefarious pay-for-play schemes going on there.
Judicial Watch, which is Tom Fitton and Citizens United.
And it was Freedom of Information Act requests that produced 44 emails the FBI said they couldn't find because they didn't do anything besides investigate Hillary's server.
Well, these people asked for FOI requests for Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.
They were the recipients of emails from Hillary.
And lo and behold, there's 44 of them that they found.
And they found all kinds of pay-for-play.
What this means is you contribute and the Clintons will do something for you.
You contribute to the foundation, the Clintons will respond in kind with policy favorable to you, either as Secretary of State or on the come as our next president.
And that's been going on.
The Clintons have sold.
And all of this from the Clinton standpoint, forget ideology for a moment.
This is usually, most of this has been done so that the Clintons can personally acquire massive wealth.
Yeah, they're a couple liberals.
Yeah, they're big progressives.
Yeah, they got grand designs in the country.
But most of this is about them getting rich, personally rich by virtue of these donations.
And the DOJ has just told the FBI, we're not interested in any of that.
We don't care what a Nigerian banker might have gotten from the Clintons because of his donation to their foundation.
We're not interested in learning if any crimes have taken place there.
So the FBI can't do anything about it.
So it's up to citizens groups using whatever tools at their disposal to try to get data and evidence and information.
And that is what's happening.
And that's how we are learning in a drip, drip, drip, trickle-down process.
That's why there's a little more every day, a little more every couple days or every week that we are learning.
And the people involved, the players, the people making donations, expecting and getting favorable treatment policy-wise or in other areas by the Clintons.
One of the Clinton donors ended up with practically sole control over the U.S. United States uranium assets.
Could not have happened had he not had favorable treatment from a Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton.
Now, these are scandals, true, but they are also rooted in policy.
Now, we have to admit, folks, that going after the Clintons on the basis scandal, Lewinsky, Whitewater, the bimbo eruptions, you name it, it's arguable how effective it's been.
I mean, the Clintons are still in power and seeking greater power.
They are wealthier than they've ever been.
They are still as loved and adored by the Democrat Party in the media as they've ever been, maybe more so.
They do have public reputations that have been sullied, that have been tarnished, but it has not caused them any actual professional pain.
They have not paid any particular legal price whatsoever.
And I think Hillary is target-rich policy-wise.
I think she's target-rich competence-wise.
I think she's target-rich health-wise.
I think she's target-rich in a lot of areas, above and beyond whatever scandals you might want to associate with her.
Now, the emails in the server, that's a scandal too.
But you tell me, folks, I don't know.
Let me just ask you a question.
I'll never get the answer, but you can get my point.
Let's say that you think you understand the Hillary email server scandal and the associated things with it.
Have you tried to explain it to anybody that doesn't understand it?
Have you been able to make anybody understand what it really is?
Let's say you're talking to low-information voter A at a sports bar getting ready to watch the Olympic swimming events in some green muck that used to be blue water in Rio de Janeiro, okay?
And you start to say, Yeah, she had a private server.
She had a server in her basement.
And the low-information voter at a small bar says, Well, what?
Big deal.
I have one too.
She's not allowed.
She had a server in her basement so she can traffic in information that the government and us, the people, would never know about.
So, what?
I don't want people to know what I'm doing either.
No, no, you don't understand.
She can't legally do it.
Well, did Obama stop her?
No, no.
Well, then, what's the big deal?
She had a private server.
I mean, I'm still eating.
I'm still breathing.
ISIS hasn't reached the United States.
What's the big deal?
So, have you tried to explain to people why it matters?
Have you tried to do this with a Hillary supporter?
I imagine it's kind of difficult, even if you understand it, even if you understand it such a way that you can simplify it enough to explain it to somebody else who doesn't understand it.
Because at the end of the day, probably, so what?
So, what?
I mean, she's got a private server.
Fine.
I can understand her wanting to keep what she's doing from prying eyes.
Everybody else wants she's not allowed to do that, you say.
You keep telling them she broke the law.
She violated.
Well, I don't see her being charged with violating the law.
And you get frustrated because you just can't make them see what's right in front of their eyes.
Maybe it's that you can't make them care.
So, what's another way of going about it?
Well, everybody thinks the economy's in the crapper.
Everybody thinks the country's headed in the wrong direction or enough, a big enough majority, 70%.
How difficult do you think it would be to tie Hillary Clinton to the current policies, economic policies implemented by this administration?
You know what I saw?
Hillary's, she's got a, you know, Trump went out and made his speech, Economic Club of Detroit.
So, Hillary's making hers, I think today.
I think it's this week.
And one of her proposals, are you ready for this?
$275 million to rebuild roads and bridges.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Wait a minute.
Been there done that.
Oh, remember the stimulus?
The porculus bill in 2000?
Obama got almost a trillion, $800 billion for that.
Why do we need another $275 billion when we haven't even started on the project as of nine years ago, eight years ago?
But that's what she's going to propose.
And there's no doubt going to be people in that audience, yay, applauding it as though it's something new, unique, and brilliant, and caring, you see.
Filled with great intentions to help people create jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and modernizing all of our infrastructure.
Well, wait a minute.
We've been there, done that.
At some point, don't people realize they're lying about it?
At some point, when are people going to realize the reason we need the repair, the reason all of this is crumbling about us is precisely because of the economic policies implemented by people in the Democrat Party, specifically for the last eight years.
Which is easier to persuade people of that or to try to convince people that Hillary's unqualified and unsuitable because of her email and server scan.
Now, don't misunderstand.
I'm not going to stop discussing all this stuff.
I'm just asking you what you think is the most or the more effective technique.
Remember, their sole focus on Trump is how he's unsuited.
He's ill-tempered.
He's unqualified.
He's dangerous.
He's deranged, maybe.
He's not all there.
It's scary how unqualified Trump is.
Hillary's out to you.
You Republicans, I don't blame you.
If you care about your country, you join my campaign.
I have my arms open, ready to welcome you to my campaign because we must never allow this country and its nuclear codes to fall into the hands of Donald Trump who's deranged and lunacy filled and all of this.
That's the sole error.
She doesn't dare.
Well, she'll attack Trump's economic proposals, but all she can say about them is what the Democrats always say about really good economic proposals.
They lie about them, call it trickle-down, claim it didn't work in the 80s when, of course, that it did.
Anyway, I take a break a little long again, folks.
We will continue.
Right after this, don't go away.
Trump was in Miami today.
He made a speech to the National Association of Home Builders.
It's their annual mid-year meeting.
And I have not seen this Donald Trump in a long time.
This Donald Trump looked like he was on volume compared to the Donald Trump we see each and every day.
It was not a criticism.
It was markedly different.
It was low-key.
Still is powerful.
He didn't shirk from what he was saying.
It was simply the way he was saying things.
Very, very low-key.
No histrionics.
Didn't go off on tangents as they occurred to him.
Stayed focused.
A couple of sound bites.
He added a chart to the wrinkle.
He holds up a chart here of homeownership under Obama and explains it.
I'm into the world of shorts lately.
You don't need very good eyesight to see what's going on.
So here's Obama, and here's the end.
He's not finished yet.
Isn't that a terrible?
Now, seriously, isn't that a terrible picture?
Look at that.
Homeownership.
So you take a look at what's happened.
That's the American dream right there, folks.
And then they wonder why 25,000 people come to my rallies.
But look at this.
And to me, that says so much because it's home ownership.
That's the American dream.
And it's the lowest it's been in 51 years.
Wow.
So I think that's pretty sad.
So you hear how relatively, comparably low-key Trump is there.
And he's showing his chart.
The thing is about home ownership, right on the money.
It is at a 51-year low.
And that after all of these subprime mortgage scandals designed to put everybody in a home, home ownership's lower than ever after the Democrats, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, come up with this subprime mortgage scheme demanding that banks make mortgage loans to people that have no way of ever repaying it.
It was nothing more than a sop to the poor.
See, it's not fair that the rich and other people own a house and that you don't.
So we're going to put you in homes.
We're going to let the big banks are going to take it on its head.
The big banks have been screwing you.
Well, you're going to screw the big banks.
They don't say this, of course, but this is the impression created.
We're going to fix it so you can buy a house.
The banks cannot say no to you.
Yay, yay.
And even with that, homeownership is at a 51-year low.
And it's largely because nobody is working and nobody is earning enough money to continue to make mortgage payments and people are being foreclosed on.
And somehow Obama escapes any attachment to what Trump is trying to tie Obama and Hillary because she wants to continue all this under the guise of continuing to make it better.
And just one more bite from Trump's speech at the National Association of Home Builders mid-year meeting today in Miami.
She's voted for higher taxes 235 times in the Senate.
She's proposing a big one today in her speech, her teleprompter speech.
She's got.
Her speeches are so short, though.
They don't last long.
You know, they're like 10 minutes, let's get out of here.
Go back home and go to sleep.
Three days later, she gets up and she does another one and goes back home and goes to sleep.
Oh, boy, is ISIS hoping for her?
Is China hoping?
Yeah, that's about right.
Her speeches aren't very long.
Do you know that she donated her speech at the Democrat National Convention?
She waived her $250,000 speech fee.
She was actually thinking of charging them for her acceptance speech and ended up waiving it.
Anyway, you hear the different Trump there.
Maybe it's because of the audience.
He likes it.
Who knows?
But we'll see if this continues.
Be back here in just a second.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
We'll dig into Seth Lipsky here.
The left keeps this up.
They may get Trump killed is his headline today.
CNN's ratings are plummeting.
▲
Export Selection