All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 19, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
August 19, 2016, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Let's conduct a little social experiment here.
I don't mean at the very beginning when he said he was robbed, but I mean when the story was challenged, when you heard Ryan Lochtie report that he was robbed and you initially heard that there were questions about it.
Go back two or three days.
Did you believe him or not?
I didn't, but I admit doing what I've been doing now for decades, being a talk radio host and before that, a news reporter in places like the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois.
I've been exposed to so much lying.
It is impossible for me not to be a cynic.
It's getting hard to believe anybody about anything anymore.
So I wonder.
The people that initially bought Lochtie's story.
Are they primarily Hillary Clinton supporters?
In other words, they simply buy everything without regard to how fantastic it sounds or not.
I don't know the answer to that.
But I do bet this.
I bet the Clinton supporters are the ones that aren't really bothered by the fact that Lochtie and the other swimmers evidently made up that story.
Because if you're a Hillary Clinton supporter, you have had to work yourself into not just the rationalization of, but a total acceptance of lying.
You can't back Hillary and be bothered by lying, since lying is at the core of who she is.
It's all she ever does.
And evidently now all Obama ever does.
Anyway, I spent some time in the first hour of the program talking about the presidential race and this divide within not only the Republican Party but the conservative movement created by Donald Trump and the anger that the anti-Trumpers have and the persistence of some, not most, but some on the pro-Trump crowd of being more determined to still keep fighting with Republicans than fight with Hillary Clinton.
In the meantime, since the convention, I don't think anyone would deny that Trump has had a hard run of things.
There's been a shakeup, it's the second one, and it appears to have been completed today with the resignation of Paul Manafort as the campaign chairman.
I want to analyze this for a moment.
Manafort was brought in in the middle of the primary run when Donald Trump was knocking off victory after victory after victory, and it dawned on, I think Trump and his people, we might win.
And the idea was that you needed to get somebody who was a professional political operative to run the campaign.
For one thing, they didn't have any delegate strategy in the state.
They were running the risk of having all of these delegates going to the convention who didn't support Trump.
They didn't know if there'd be a floor fight at the convention that they had to win, so they figured we know let's bring in a political pro, so they brought in Manafort.
The first thing Manafort tried to do was change Donald Trump.
He got up and he gave the interviews on the Sunday morning talk shows and he said there's going to be a pivot.
He said, you know, well, Trump acts like this, but that isn't the real Donald Trump.
The real Donald Trump is something other than that.
And I think what you've had ever since is this clash between the Manafort wing of the Trump campaign and really Trump himself in managing the way Donald Trump appears and communicates.
So you get these moments in which he gave the telepromp speech one day and seemed to reach out and do what he was being told to do, and the next day he was back to tweeting, seemingly off page.
It was all disjointed, and I think that the problem here was they were trying to package Donald Trump as someone that Donald Trump is not.
This is not the first thing this time this has happened.
I recall back in the eighties there were people who tried to stop Ronald Reagan from being Ronald Reagan.
I remember the great mantra is let Reagan be Reagan.
Now Donald Trump isn't Ronald Reagan, and I don't want to pretend that he is.
But you can't package a candidate.
You can't package somebody like Trump, for whom the American public has such familiarity with, and make him something that he is not.
So this latest restart.
I don't know about the one guy, man, and I don't know about him because I don't know him, and I don't know about coming from Breifart and so on, but I do know about Kellyanne Conway.
She is really good.
First of all, she's a conservative.
She's taken a lot of heat in her career for being a female, outspoken, and a conservative.
But I've always had the impression that she gets it.
She is very good at taking candidates and presenting their message in a way that it's a winning message for mainstream Americans.
She's able to get Republicans to speak in a way that communicates with a lot of people who might initially be resistant to them.
And I think promoting her to the position of campaign manager, and I think putting her in charge of style is the right thing to do.
The first indication of this was the speech that Trump gave last night in North Carolina.
Now we can't go through the whole thing because it was long.
But it was an extraordinary speech, and I think it was an attempt by the new people running the campaign and by Trump himself to have Trump come forward in a way that is true to Trump.
But also a little bit more disciplined.
Not ninety eight million different messages taking shots all over the place, but focus on the three or four things that are most important to him.
Give him a message.
I'm telling you every winning candidate that has won the presidency in my lifetime had a message that you could narrow down to five, ten, fifteen words.
And Trump needed that.
But he also needed to communicate to the people who have been rubbed the wrong way by some of his antics.
I have the entire copy of the speech here, and I'm not going to read Donald Trump's speech.
Donald Trump can speak for himself, but there are a few paragraphs here that I think are remarkable that I want to share with the audience.
First, he addressed the concern that a lot of people have about his style and his behavior.
As you know I am not a politician.
I have worked in business creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods my entire adult life.
I've never wanted to learn the language of the insiders, and I've never been politically correct.
It takes far too much time and can often be more difficult.
Sometimes in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words if you say the wrong thing.
I have done that and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain.
Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.
Now, is that an apology for the comments about Megan Kelly?
Is it an apology for what he said about Ted Cruz's father?
Not directly, but everybody knows what he means.
He's referring to incidents like this, but then he continues, but one thing I can promise you is this.
I will always tell you the truth.
I speak the truth for all of you, and for everyone in this country who doesn't have a voice.
I think that that is an outstanding point that he makes.
That you have to differentiate between the bluster and in some cases the obnoxiousness of some of the tweets with somebody who is going to level with you because he's running against someone who can't level with us.
It's not in her DNA.
Honesty is something that can't come to Hillary Clinton.
She just can't do it.
He then continues, I refuse to let another generation of American children be excluded from the American dream.
Our whole country loses when young people of limitless potential are denied the opportunity to contribute their talents because we failed to provide them the opportunities they deserve.
Let our children be dreamers too.
Our whole country loses every time a kid doesn't graduate from high school or fails to enter the workforce, or worse still, is lost to the dreadful world of crime and drugs.
In the world I come from, if something is broken, you fix it.
If something isn't working, you replace it.
If a product doesn't deliver, you make a change.
That language seems to me authentic to Trump.
Rather than something that a speechwriter simply put in front of him, where he's rating it as if it was coming from someone else.
I think that that's a message that's true to Trump, that they're trying to find language here that is authentic to Donald Trump.
He continues, I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.
That's why I'm running.
To end the decades of bitter failure and to offer the American people a new future of honesty, justice, and opportunity, a future where America and its people always, and I mean always come first.
Aren't you tired of the same old lies and the same old broken promises?
And Hillary Clinton has proved proven to be one of the greatest liars of all time.
He said that in the same speech in which he makes it clear there are some things during the campaign during the primaries that he regretted saying.
He's making it very clear that he doesn't regret anything about these attacks here on Hillary Clinton.
Aren't you tired of arrogant leaders who look down on you instead of serving you and protecting you?
In this journey, I will never lie to you.
I will never tell you something I do not believe.
I will never put anyone's interests ahead of yours, and I will never ever stop fighting for you.
So while sometimes I can be too honest, Hillary Clinton is the exact opposite.
She never tells the truth.
One lie after another and getting worse each passing day.
The American people are still waiting for Hillary Clinton to apologize for all of the many lies she's told of them, and the many times she's betrayed them.
Tell me, has Hillary Clinton ever apologized for lying about her illegal email server and deleting thirty three thousand emails?
Has Hillary Clinton apologized for turning the State Department into a pay for play operation where favors are sold to the highest bidder?
Has she apologized for lying to the families who lost loved ones at Benghazi?
Has she apologized for putting Iran on the path to nuclear weapons?
Has she apologized for Iraq, for Libya, for Syria?
Has she apologized for unleashing ISIS across the world?
Has Hillary Clinton apologized for the decisions she made that have led to so much death, destruction, and terrorism?
Please remember this, I will never put personal profit before national security.
I will never leave our border open to appease donors and special interests.
I will never support a trade deal that kills American jobs.
I will never put the special interest before the national interest.
I will never put a donor before a voter or a lobbyist before a citizen.
And then finally we are going to bring this country together.
We are going to do it by emphasizing what we all have in common as Americans.
We are going to reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, which sees communities of color only as votes and not as human beings worthy of a better future.
If Trump can stick to this type of language and focus on these areas, I believe he can win.
I think that that's a message that reaches out to a lot of people.
The problem Trump has had has been that he doesn't stick to these types of messages because he keeps reacting to everything.
Well, just as I was encouraging people that are really anti Trump and really pro Trump to right now not react to everything and focus on the priority, Trump needs to do that too.
But I think what we see here is that he's now comfortable with the people surrounding him in his campaign, and I think he's found a voice.
And I think he's found a message.
And I think it's a good message.
As you know, I'm not someone who's been a big fan of Donald Trump.
But I agree with just about everything he said there.
He's finding areas to unite conservatives rather than tear everything apart.
If he can stay with this type of message and portray himself as a contrast to the lying and insider dealing of Hillary Clinton, and say that the change that he is offering is a sincere one, and that he's actually a politician who's coming to represent the public.
I still think he can win.
And I don't think this is over.
I'm Mark Belling, and for Rush Limbaugh.
one eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two is the phone number, and it is open line Friday.
Time to talk to some folks.
Fallbrook, California, John, John, you're on E IB with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
Hey, thank you very much for taking my call.
And I just wanted to make a point that how can we hold this cool swimmer, uh, Ryan Locke accountable when his role models are our president who's a big liar, and Secretary of State is a big liar.
And also, how come the media isn't as hard on the president and the Secretary of State?
And look what they're doing to this poor Ryan kid.
So that's what I'm saying.
Well, I'm not going to give him a poor Ryan kid because you know what?
I know.
You know what?
I've been and I for first of all, he's not a kid.
I I swear Ryan Lochty and Michael Phelps seem to have been swimming in the Olympics.
I I think they actually beat Mike Mark Spitz once.
They've been around for a long time, so I'm not going to give him a pass on that, but you make some excellent points.
And I want to run with your point if I can for a second, John, so thank you for the call.
The point that he makes is how can you expect a guy like Locktey to tell the truth?
Whom we've had a Secretary of State who's lied and married to a husband who lied to us for eight years, and now a president of the United States who lied.
The first part of the Ryan Lochtie thing that people are having a hard time with is why did he do it?
And I think that this was a lie that just got out of control.
He was actually outed by his own mother.
He apparently had talked to her and said, hey, we were robbed, and why did he tell her that when he wasn't, I don't know, was he covering up something that they're four young guys, something that they did that they shouldn't have done, or was he telling a story or was he just bragging?
I don't know.
But she then told someone else.
We're living in the age of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and all sorts of other social medias that I don't know the name of, and the story just got out there.
So then people started asking them.
And NBC asked Lochti.
And the reason they never went to the police, obviously is that it wasn't true.
And the lie just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and they kept chasing the same lie.
In the meantime, the Brazilian authorities, they resent the fact that these Americans are out there running around.
They got enough crime problems as it is without a bunch of Americans making up that they were criminals.
But, and this is where the caller makes an excellent point.
This story of Lochti and the untruths has been chased and chased aggressively by the media for days.
It's on page one of just about every newspaper in America.
I have never seen that zeal chasing the lying of Hillary Clinton.
Could we have used that zeal after the attack in Benghazi when they were lying to us and telling us that it was all about a protest over a video and not a terrorist attack?
Could we have used that zeal when she got up and started telling the lies about the emails?
Oh, I just needed to have everything on one device.
Lie.
I didn't delete any emails.
Lie.
There were no confidential emails.
Lie.
There was never any pursuit of that.
There's discussion now that this is going to damage Ryan Lochte's ability.
By the way, the guys who get a break are the other three swimmers.
Nobody can name any of them.
They okay they could only name Lochtie, and I guess that's because the thing started with Lochtie.
They're saying that Ryan Lochtie's endorsement potential is limited.
You don't make a lot of money by swimming, by swimming in the pool.
The money all comes from the endorsement deals when you endorse the speedos and the swim equipment and all of the other stuff, and you do training endorsements and you make personal appearances, that he has damaged his brand.
Well, if so, that's probably good.
That lying has harmed him.
But think about that for a minute.
Getting caught in one lie about one incident down in Rio de Janeiro can affect your ability to get endorsements.
Lying for all seventy years of your life and all 40 years of your public life, though, can get you elected president of the United States.
There's something warped about that.
There's something really screwy when we get angrier with a swimmer for concocting one story that got out of control than we do with a presidential candidate who lied to our face again and again and again about matters pertaining to foreign policy and national security.
Her lying started, so far as we know, with the cattle futures deal.
The lying continued through Whitewater.
The lying continued when she said she didn't have the Rose Law firm billing records.
The lying continued when she got up there and lied about the women who were making allegations against her husband.
As Secretary of State, the lying continued all the way through the administration.
She lied about Benghazi.
And then when she's caught exposing all of our national security secrets to the world with her email, she lies about that.
Lying is her MO.
It's the thing that she does.
Yet many of the people appalled at Ryan Lochtie, who's a goofy swimmer with changing hair color, they're accepting of Hillary Clinton.
The problem here is that what the Clintons have done is they have made lying acceptable to us.
That's where this all starts.
When we accepted Bill Clinton's ability to lie under oath.
Perjury, when he was impeached for that, but the Democrats in the Senate refused to convict him and remove him from office.
We took a giant leap in this country in which we said that if the situation calls for it, why not lie?
After all, lying's not that bad.
That is where it all starts.
I still think most Americans are resistant to it, which is why we are bothered when a case like Lochti comes up.
Well, if we're really that bothered, should we be electing a president of the United States whose career is defined by lying?
The September issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
Russia's going to have an interview with Mike Pence.
It is kind of interesting that there hasn't been a lot of attention given to either of the vice presidential candidates.
Let's be honest about this.
Both Trump and Hillary are kind of up there in years.
The fact of the matter is that whichever one of them wins, there is a very plausible scenario in which the vice president could become the president.
Based on what we're seeing with Hillary, I mean, I don't know how many legs she's got left to stand on, for heaven's sakes.
Mike Pence and the selection of him by Donald Trump is the best indication we have had of what type of president Trump would be.
I'm told again and again and again by the Never Trumpers, Mark, he's just gonna sell out, he's gonna move to the left, it's gonna be lefties on the Supreme Court, they're gonna be lefties in the cabinet.
You know that that's what's going to happen.
Well, no, I don't know that.
Donald Trump has chosen a grand total of one person so far to be in the government with him.
He's chosen the man who would be his vice president if he wins.
Mike Pence, I thought was a great pick.
He comes from the wing of conservatism that I'm in.
He doesn't get to name a Supreme Court justice as yet, but he's told us the list that would come that they would come from.
He's talked about the type of justices he'd be interested in.
And as he's fleshed out a policy platform, he may be a little bit too far out there on certain issues for my taste, and nowhere near far enough out there on other issues for my taste, but he keeps bringing up the names of people that I respect.
There's a lot right now from the Never Trump movement of just denial of reality in which they're trying to pretend that Trump is doing things that he isn't doing.
And I say this again as somebody who's never been a big cheerleader for Donald Trump.
On this whole lying issue that we've been talking about, it was only a couple of weeks ago that President Obama held that news conference in which he was asked about the 400 million dollars that the Wall Street Journal found out that we delivered to Iran in cash on an airplane.
Do you all remember that answer?
I watched that news conference.
He had that look.
He gets this certain look when he just can't believe that he, Barack Obama, should have to deign to answer such stupid questions.
He got that look where he sort of rolls his eyes and sticks his big nose up in the air and looked at us like we were so stupid for not understanding that this is a payment that was scheduled all along, this had nothing to do with any type of ransom, it had nothing to do with the hostages.
He looked at us like it was just terrible that he should even have to answer the question.
Well, guess what?
We now learn that the plane didn't leave the ground and wasn't turned over, that the contents of the plan, I guess I should say, was not turned over to the Iranians until after the hostages were released.
And the State Department is now acknowledging that the money was being used as leverage.
I wonder how long it took them to come up with that word leverage.
So it wasn't ransom, but it's leverage.
In other words, there was a direct connection to the hostages.
Once again, we were lied to.
Now I don't want to minimize this point.
If we're treating seriously the way Ryan Lochti made the Brazilians look stupid.
Consider what it is from the Obama administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that we have been lied about.
We were lied about how we evaluate whether or not there was active terrorism going on in the nation of Libya.
That was a pretty doggone important point given the fact that Libya has under had been undergoing regime change with the fall of Gaddafi.
Americans died.
We were lied about that.
Now, an important question.
Did we pay money to the Iranians to get hostages released?
We were lied to about that.
I remember when I was a kid, nine trillion years ago, when the Soviet Union was still in charge, and Eastern Europe was part of the Soviet bloc.
The government controlled all media.
And they put out lie after lie after they always lied about the United States and they lied about conditions in the world.
They told bald face lies.
And I remember as a kid just being so shocked by that.
You usually hear this in the context of a public service announcement for something like Radio Free Europe.
You were asked to donate money or to support Radio Free Europe because Radio Free Europe was sending these radio signals in to Eastern Europe and even into the Soviet Union so that people could learn the truth because they weren't hearing it from their government.
We now need radio free Europe here in America.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
I think I'm on Radio Free America.
That's the purpose, I guess, of this program.
It's the purpose of an alternative conservative media.
It's the only way people can be told the truth about any of this stuff.
First of all, paying the ransom is a violation of federal law, which is why I guess they had to lie about it.
Secondly, we now learn that there's an extra 1.3 billion that was sent over there.
Whether or not Obama was paying money to get hostages released, or whether or not he was using the hostage release as just another excuse to send 1.7 billion to his friends in Tehran isn't the point.
The point is that the American public has a right to learn about these things and decide for ourselves whether or not these are good policy decisions or not.
We can't trust the government anymore.
Now there are some people who then take this to a level in which they never believe anyone about anything.
They simply presume that everyone in government and everyone in a position of power is lying to them.
When that happens, the government loses legitimacy.
If Trump wins, his feet need to be held to the fire.
The very least all of us should be able to demand from government is even when government does things that we disagree with, that it be truthful about what it is that it is doing.
As I say, I think this started with Clinton.
Bill Clinton and his inability to level with the American public on just about anything, and it started with his need to cover up his personal scandals.
Much of the lying that occurred under Bill Clinton was based on the scandal stuff, the lying about Whitewater, the lying about the firing of the travel office employees, the lying about the women, the lying about Monica Lewinsky, the lying about what was going on, the lying going back to his personal conduct in Little Rock, the lying about John Wang and Charlie Tree running money from China back to Little Rock and then into Democratic coffers.
Hillary's lying, primarily prior to her becoming becoming Secretary of State, about personal matters to cover things up.
But when they transition into making lying a part of public policy strategy, they change the nature of America.
I don't want to make too much of the Ryan Lochte story.
But where do you think we got this idea that lying is the default response to anything?
It is not who we are as a country.
How many times have you heard someone say, you know, my word is my bond?
When I shake hands, that's better than any contract.
And we look upon people who live their lives that way as admirable people.
The way the Clintons and Obama have run the country is completely contrary to the way that we as Americans have wanted to live our lives and to think about ourselves.
You generally don't have to lie unless you have things that you need to cover up.
It's not just that they've been covering up bad policy decisions and mistakes.
It's that they've now made essentially the official means of communication with the American public being the lie.
Do we really want to extend that for four more years?
And do we really want to say to ourselves that that's okay?
These people who find equivalency between Trump and his antics and Clinton.
You understand, therefore, that you're putting Trump and some obnoxious tweets and Trump and his lack of seriousness about certain policy detail on the same level as essentially treating the American public as patsies to be lied to about every public policy decision.
I don't think we should treat it so cavalierly.
I promise you we're going to take some phone calls here.
My name is Mark Belling and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
MUSIC Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
1 800 282882 is the phone number.
Sargades New York and Bill Bill, it's your turn on the Rush Show with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark.
Um very upset.
I'm a father of five daughters, four who are in the United States military, two are currently in two or uh in or out.
I've been out all daughters.
Yeah, all daughters.
Well I have two son-in-laws who are currently serving because you know how military guys are, they pick on military girls and they get married.
That is how it works.
Four right now that are overseas um in harm's way, and this president with his ransom is not a ransom, has made it more difficult for them, uh, more dangerous for them, and everyone who serves with them.
And his issue with black lives matter, my one daughter did not go in the military, her husband is an FDNY first responder.
So I am very concerned that the policies under the current administration, which I believe Hillary would follow.
I want to pick up I want to pick up, Bill, on your first point about your concern for your daughters, and I don't want to directly personalize it to upset you further, but you are right when we pay a ransom for the release of hostages taken either by terrorists or an overseas government, we merely encourage them to take more hostages.
It becomes a good business.
If this was 300 million or 400 million or 1.7 billion, divide that by the number of hostages, you see that it's a pretty good deal for the people who take hostages.
While everyone applauds efforts to get Americans back safely, the problem with the payment of money is that it makes everybody who's in harm's way, and look how much of the world is dangerous right now, a target to be taken, knowing that the United States will pay money.
Here's the next problem.
What about other hostages that we have overseas or anybody taken in the future?
Is the government going to ante up the money there and there and there?
If not, which individuals do we say we're going to allow to simply fester overseas and which ones are we going to pay for?
That's the problem with doing this.
In the case of Obama, by lying about it initially, in fact, lying about it for months when they said that this was a scheduled payment, it was only recently that we learned that it was in cash and an airplane, which is not the way international transactions normally occur, that we were able to learn the truth about all of this.
The debate that we're having here is something that should have occurred at the time that the payment was made, and we can evaluate these things.
But you are right.
Every American now, and even let's suppose Obama is telling the truth a little bit here, which he's not, but let's just suppose for a moment he is, and that the money was scheduled and its connection to the hostages was only secondary.
That's not how terrorists are going to interpret it.
They all think now the United States of America pays tens of millions of dollars when hostages are taken.
Why wouldn't they then take hostages and call up Obama and say, hey, send over another jet load full of cash?
They have endangered all Americans by doing this.
It's very very reckless what they did, and they never level this with us in doing it.
Thank you for the call, Bill.
One point that I want to make on that.
Everyone knows in the world that we live in, you've got to deal with CD characters around the world.
There are back channel negotiations that go on, and people can be given things in exchange for doing things for us, and I'm not naive enough to think that we don't have to do this.
This, however, was money sent by the United States government.
And a negotiated deal with our government that got right over to the Iranians.
It was not only a terrible public policy decision, it was something that he knew he needed to cover up, and then lied to our face about.
Biloxi, Mississippian Tim.
Tim, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, thank you so much for taking the call.
Thank you.
Listen, I wanted to talk to you about the lying, and you kind of hit on it earlier that you know we we started accepting that it's okay back in the 90s.
But uh just out of curiosity, I'm I'm not a psychiatrist, but I do have a couple of psychiatrist friends, uh clients of mine.
I went to them over the last couple of weeks, and I didn't want them to know anything was political.
So I told him that I was talking about my son.
And essentially I laid out exactly the pattern of behavior that we see out of Hillary Clinton.
Lying, lying despite the fact that, you know, there's visual evidence right there in front of you, and then lying about the line, and and and asked him, I said, you know, what's the deal?
What can I do?
And uh, and actually both of them were very concerned.
They said, Well, and this is a commonality between the two of them.
They few different thoughts, but but essentially they said, You're you heard the term and you're familiar with the term sociopathic behavior.
And I said, Yeah, and they said, Well, you know, that's that's uh indicated by a lack of compassion, uh, a lack of accepting responsibility, a lack of caring about anybody's well-being beyond their own.
And and at a minimum, your son is exhibiting sociopathic behavior.
And I said, Well, is that considered a mental disease, a mental illness?
And they said, Yeah, in extreme cases it is.
And one of them went on, he said, Listen, he said, it could be it could be something else, particularly if he lies when he's caught, if he lies about the lying.
He said, That actually crosses over.
He said, if you really he may have convinced himself that he's telling the truth about these things.
In other words, he legitimately believes his own lies.
If you're raising is whether or not Hillary has a disorder, as opposed to just lying because it's a tactic that gets her through the moment or gets her through this week and moves her and moves her forward.
I don't know what the answer is.
Clearly, she's got all sorts of issues.
There's no denying that.
As to whether or not it's sociopathic behavior or just overt cynicism, do consider this.
In the case of most liars, the type that your psychiatrist friend was talking about, the lying becomes self-destructive.
It causes you interpersonal, you lose interpersonal relationships, you lose your job, you can't be trusted by anyone.
Let's be honest about this.
In the case of Hillary Clinton, the lying has worked.
So if it's a tactic, it's been rewarded.
She is right now apparently the favorite to be the next president of the United States.
That's something that we need to sit back and swallow about what we're allowing to happen here.
Her lying has worked.
Had she told the truth about Benghazi when it happened, who knows?
Maybe Obama would not have been re-elected, and she would have been blamed for mismanaging it.
Had she told the truth when the emails came out, yeah, I let all of our national security information float around on some cockamami server that was being run out of my house in New York and being routed through a main server in Denver, and I didn't care about it because I just wanted to keep things.
That probably wouldn't have worked.
Their tactic is to lie, lie, lie, lie.
When the truth comes out, act as if it's old news, and then lie about the fact that the lie has been revealed.
The reality is, whether she's a sociopath or not, that lying has worked for her.
She might be able to lie her way right into the presidency of the United States.
Mark Belling in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling setting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I've tried to tie together the whole media frenzy over the Ryan Lochti and the other three swimmers apparently either embellishing or totally making up a story about being robbed in Brazil of two of the Americans have paid fines.
The third one's about to do so.
Lockheed himself is putting out a statement.
He doesn't really admit that he lied, but admits that he regrets saying what he's saying.
The fact of the matter is, though, that the Brazilian authorities never bought it, and they were extremely aggressive in exposing the lies.
If only we could bring those Brazilian authorities to Washington, replace Comey and the FBI and send them after Hillary Clinton.
Get the Brazilian police on Hillary Clinton and her lies, they'll nail her.
▲
Export Selection