All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 23, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:21
August 23, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I am Rush Limbaugh.
I am America's real anchorman, my friends.
I am America's truth detector.
I am America's fact checker, and I am a doctor of democracy.
It's great to have you here at the Limbaugh Institute.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbo at eibnet.us.
It's a new email address.
Don't use the old one.
You'll end up in the ether.
It's lrushbow at eibnet.us.
Okay, yesterday on this program, I happened to praise an aspect of Donald Trump's speech, one of his speeches over the weekend, in which he appeared to be reaching out to African Americans.
Now, the audience for that speech was largely white.
And my reaction to what Trump said, I will admit today, I'm not going to try to run from this, I was supportive.
I thought it was good.
And then I ran across a lot of other people who thought Trump blew it, who thought it was insulting, who thought it was stupid, thought it was dumb, and that he wasn't even reaching out to African Americans.
He was actually reaching out to white women.
This was the theory.
So what did Trump say?
Well, this was the speech where Trump said to African Americans, what have you got to lose by voting for me?
And then he characterized the way they live.
And I happen to think it was okay because this is what we're all told.
If you listen to Al Sharpton, if you listen to Jesse Jackson, if you listen to the congressional black Caucasians, if you listen to any interest group representing African Americans, what picture do they paint of life in America for African Americans?
It's pretty bleak, right?
I mean, the cops are wanting to shoot them all the time and put them in jail all the time.
They're unemployed.
They can't get work.
They're discriminated against.
Perpetual racism.
It's not a pretty picture, right?
I've always heard this portrayed.
I've always had life in America for blacks portrayed that way to one degree or another by black leaders.
And it's all part of the way black leaders convince black voters to vote Democrat.
If you vote Democrat, they're going to fix this stuff.
If they vote Democrat, they're going to make sure there isn't any racism anymore.
You vote Democrats are going to protect you from the cops.
The Democrats are going to protect you from evil corporations that won't hire you.
The Democrats are going to protect you from the evil racists and the bigots.
The Democrats are going to punish the evil racists and bigots.
The Democrats are going to make sure you have work.
The Democrats this, the Democrats that.
You can't trust the Republicans or Republicans don't like you.
The Republicans are racist, bigots, sexists, all that.
That is what a large percentage of African Americans are told.
That's what they think.
That's how they're raised.
And so Trump was, I thought, facing it head on, I was surprised to see so many people, conservatives, by the way.
Now, these are magazine and blog internet conservatives.
I mean, they just roasted Trump.
They just raked him over the coals.
It was a demeaning appeal.
It was negative.
It was apocalyptic.
And this is not the way to reach out to African Americans.
This is not how you do it.
And then they came along and said, and he wasn't even trying to reach out to blacks anyway.
They were saying Trump was very cynical, that what he was really doing was trying to make it seem that he cared about black people so as to soften the opinion of him that white women specifically have.
This is what I picked up on.
People, again, just people who were criticizing Trump's outreach to African Americans were saying, look, it wasn't even a black audience.
It's a white audience.
He wasn't really even speaking to blacks.
He was trying to demonstrate to white women that he's actually a nice guy and he actually wants the best for everybody.
And I thought, why do I think so differently about this?
Why did the way I processed what Trump said so differently than people who think like I do in a lot of other areas, who disagreed profoundly with Trump and his approach and thought it was demeaning and counterproductive?
And one of the reasons that what Trump said resonated with me is that I've always, not dreamed, but I've always imagined if I were a candidate, a Republican conservative candidate running for office and the effort required reaching out to African-Americans, I've often asked, how would I do it?
And I have even shared with you how I would do it over the course of the 29 years, 28 years, whatever it is we've been doing this program.
And it's pretty close to what Trump did, except I would make sure that there were blacks in the audience when I did it.
Say it frequently here as it is.
And I put it in the form of questions.
Okay, you're angry.
And you're angry at, and list the things they're angry at.
And I will base that on what I hear and what I see from actual African Americans and from their leaders.
And they're angry at the cops.
They're angry at the prison system.
They're angry at the judicial system.
They're angry at the housing market.
They're angry at the job market.
They don't think they get a fair shake.
And I wouldn't disagree with them.
I would simply ask, well, how come the people you've been voting for for 50 years haven't changed any of this when they've been promising to every four years?
And I would say, at some point, don't you think it's time to try something else?
Because the people that you are investing, all of your hopes and dreams, seem to be failing big time.
And I would say, seems to me that you're angrier today than you were four years ago.
You're angrier than you were eight years ago.
So voting Democrat actually isn't working for you.
And I would say that straight up, just as I am now.
And I thought this is essentially effectively what Trump was doing when he said, what have you got to lose?
What have you got to lose means, look, the way you are voting now to rectify some of these problems is obviously not working.
How can it get any worse?
What do you have to lose?
To me, it made sense because it is how I would go about doing it.
Then I find out that it is insulting to do that.
I read that it's insulting, that it's demeaning, that it's counterproductive, that it will in no way work.
And then I started reading how it's not that bad for African Americans.
I said, what?
I wish that were true.
Don't misunderstand.
But now I'm confused.
It's not that bad for African Americans.
So Jesse Jackson's exaggerating.
So Al Sharpton's exaggerating.
Black Lives Matter, they're exaggerating.
It's not as bad as Trump indicated.
It's not as bad as what we're told every day.
There isn't as much racism.
There isn't as much discrimination.
It's not that hard to get a job if you're African Americans.
It's not as bad.
It may be the first time in my adult life that Democrats and leftists in the media wrote of life in African American America that it is not that bad.
So I really, last night, yesterday afternoon, last night, I did some soul searching.
I wanted to understand how in the world could I be seeing this so differently than, well, I don't want to name any names.
It's not about them.
It's just about how in the world can I be seeing this so differently than people who I normally agree with on 70, 80% of other things.
So then I asked myself, well, okay, do they have an inherent built-in hatred of Trump that no matter what he does, it's bad.
And no matter how he goes about it, it's unprofessional and amateurish.
Are they part of the never-Trump crowd that no matter what he does, he can't succeed because he's not one of them and he's not sophisticated enough and he's not this or he's not that.
And I come across this Selena Zito piece, which reaffirms my interpretation of your large percentage of the Trump base.
I think they would think the same thing.
They would the point is that all the people that Selena Zito's writing about, people like me, we don't like all this racial strife.
And this is the United States of America, and we don't want people mad at this country.
We want them loving it like we do.
And we want it working for everybody.
We want the opportunity this country presents to be available to everybody.
We don't want to exclude anybody.
We're not class-oriented.
We're not the kind of people say, well, you're not good enough for us.
You're not good enough to live where we live.
You're not good enough to be in the clubs.
That's not who we are.
It may be who the elites are, but it's not who we are.
I guarantee you, the vast majority of people in this country don't like all this racial strife.
They don't like what's happening to the police.
They don't like the attitude that a lot of people have that America is a failure, that America's rooted in unfairness and it's unjust and immoral.
It's the greatest country on earth.
We want as many people as possible to see that.
And a lot of us believe that what's holding people back is nothing more complicated than the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party doesn't want people to be self-reliant.
The Democrat Party doesn't want people to be self-sufficient.
They don't want them to be individualistic.
They don't want them to be able to provide for themselves.
The Democrat Party needs as many people as possible, believing the deck is so stacked against them that they can't succeed unless the Democrat Party is working out for them.
And yet that begets the question: well, why then is life not getting better for you?
No matter who you are, black, white, Martian, you vote Democrat every four years.
Why are you still mad?
Why are you still complaining?
They have power.
They have power, power, gods of power.
They have been using extra constitutional power.
Why aren't things getting any better?
How come the Hillary Clinton campaign is basically made up of what's wrong after eight years of her and her party running it?
Why is this campaign not made up of things, how great things are now, and how much better we're going to make them?
Why is the Democrat campaign not that?
Why is it never that?
Why is every Democrat campaign rooted in detailing everything that's wrong, blaming Republicans for it, and then promising to fix it?
And the fix never happens.
And yet people keep voting for it.
And that's when you get into answers such as, well, they may be getting by on the fact that people think they're trying.
They have their good intentions and they have successfully destroyed the Republican brand so that no matter what Republicans say, they're not believed.
But I really was scratching my head late yesterday afternoon, last night, trying to fix this or understand this because I didn't see how it was demeaning.
Maybe somebody can help me out here.
Maybe some, I know we have a lot of African Americans in this audience.
Maybe you can explain to me how it's demeaning to say, what have you got to lose?
Because all I'm doing is listening to what I hear.
I hear civil rights coalition leaders.
I hear Jackson and Sharpton and Farrakhan.
I don't care who they are.
I listen to them describe an absolute hellhole when they talk about life in America for African Americans.
They regale us with all the racism, with all the bigotry, with all the discrimination of prejudice in the legal system.
The cops, law enforcement, jobs.
It's just a negative drumbeat.
And they've been voting for people who've been promising to fix it for 50 years.
And they're just as mad today as they were 50 years ago.
But they're never mad at the people who do not come through.
They're never mad at the people whose promises are never realized.
So approaching them on that basis, hey, at some point, maybe do you think it might be try a different approach if you want to improve things for yourself and your family and your kids.
I mean, you look out across the country and you see a lot of success.
You see a lot of successful people.
You see, I mean, somebody's having it.
Somebody's finding it.
And it's not everybody that's got it pre-programmed by family connection or whatever.
I mean, some people are stumbling into success.
Why aren't you?
I don't see how it's demeaning, but that's what they said it was when Trump talked about it.
They said it was demeaning.
It was insulting.
It was insensitive.
And yet it was close to how I would go about it if I were a candidate.
Maybe this is an illustration of how I should never be a candidate.
I don't really know that business, and I don't really know what it takes or what getting votes is all about.
And it may be because I'm not accustomed to selling things for support.
So I don't know.
Back in just second.
Rush Limbaugh, Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Time to get back to the phones and go to Chicago.
Dave, great to have you.
Glad you waited.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Listen, the item on the genetics of women reminded me of a pet theory I've had for a lot of years, and that is that a lot of men are so dumb that they could be very, very happy in their relationship and cheat.
You know, jeopardize a relationship by cheating.
Whereas I think most women who cheat are unhappy in the relationship.
Wait a minute.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
I didn't understand the first half of that.
You think that dumb men can cheat.
A lot of men.
No, not dumb men, but I mean, a lot of men are dumb enough.
A lot of men are dumb enough that they would jeopardize a very happy relationship by cheating.
Oh, yeah, wait, wait, no.
Hang on.
There are a lot of men dumb enough that are in a very happy relationship that they'll screw it up by having an affair anyway, despite the fact that they're happy.
Yes.
And that's what makes them dumb.
Okay.
And then women, but you think women who have affairs are doing it because they're unhappy.
Many areas.
Okay.
All right.
Right.
But you think that women having an affair are having affairs are doing because they're unhappy.
They're not happy.
A lot of them.
Yeah.
A lot of them.
You know, you can't say everybody.
You know, I think a lot of women who have affairs are unhappy in the relationship.
Yes.
Well, that's basically what the researchers at the University of Texas say, that the affair is a backup plan.
Yeah.
The affairs are backed up if the primary relationship takes a dive and goes south.
Okay, so if men will have affairs even when they're in a happy relationship, what does that say?
I mean, what's the...
I don't know.
I'm not, you know, I...
I think obviously I've come to that over the years by watching friends.
Oh, so you know a lot of guys have had affairs then.
You have a lot of anecdotal evidence on this.
Yes, I have.
And watching on TV, watching the politicians and the movie stars weeping as they've been caught in a relationship.
Oh, wow.
You've got to throw.
You can't.
They cannot hear me.
We can't.
You've got to throw Hollywood out.
You can't compare what happens in business marriages to what happens in what you would and I would call actual love-based relationships.
Don't, don't, don't, don't make that mistake.
People who live their relationships in the gossip pages, that's a business.
And you can't start comparing how they do.
I mean, having affairs may be a way of promoting an upcoming movie.
You know, getting caught having an affair, getting caught in a bar at two in the morning with Scandaly Clan may be a way to promote your upcoming movie or to keep your name in the news.
So don't mix the two.
However, your theory is as good as anybody else's, except yours is not backed by science like those at the University of Texas.
I mean, women, it seems like they've got a built-in excuse.
They can't help it.
It's like God programmed them.
You are going to give birth.
You are going to make sure the species survives, even if you have to have an affair.
And I'm going to program it in your genetic code so that if things are not working out, you're going to go out there and sleep around until you are able to maintain the species.
That's their excuse.
That's what the research is saying.
It's – no, I did not see any – Usain Bolt took two girls back to the hotel from celebrating what?
His Olympic victory.
Okay.
Always got a girlfriend who took two women back to the hotel room anyway, and one of them was not the girlfriend.
You know, I shouldn't admit this because I hear, of course, Sam, I'm just, I'm you.
I'm a man of the people.
But I didn't watch one second of the Olympics.
I haven't even seen one second of replays.
I haven't seen, I don't know what Ryan Lochty did.
The opening ceremony, closing ceremony, I haven't seen a highlight.
I haven't seen live action.
I haven't seen a replay.
I haven't seen a split.
I haven't seen a still shot in a story on the Olympics.
I haven't seen one thing to do with it.
I probably shouldn't sound so definitive about this.
It has been pointed out to me that I did see A split second of the Olympics, and I commented on it on this program, and I had to acknowledge, yes.
It was the sad tale of the Japanese pole vaulter whose schlong flopping around destroyed his record-breaking vault.
And I did see the gif.
Somebody sent it to me in an email.
I saw it, and I described it on this program, and that's it.
Outside of that, I didn't see, I didn't read anything.
So, Hussein Bolt, yeah, what'd he do?
I assume he's a speechster, sprinter, right?
And anybody looking into doping yet?
I mean, was somebody, well, give them time.
You know, nothing's real anymore.
All right, fine, okay.
Just give it to fast, fastest man on the planet for the last three Olympics.
Right, okay, all right, fine, fine.
I'm look now.
I got people emailed, why, Rush?
Why didn't you watch?
I mean, it's the epitome of athletic.
No, it isn't.
Don't make me get into this, folks.
I really, there's just too much BS that you have to wade through.
You could put every night of the Olympics, what is it, 7 to 11?
What was it night?
8 to 11, whatever it was.
You could probably condense every aspect of athletic competition and do a 30-minute show and not miss anything.
Stretched out to four hours, mixed in with gun control commentary from whoever the moderate.
It's just, it's, it's just me.
Don't, don't get mad, and I'm not voicing my opinion on anybody else.
Look, I need to get back to the phones because I got Karen in Miami who's waiting.
It's great to have you, Karen.
Thank you for calling.
Hey, Rush, Rush, you're my radio crush.
I want you to know that.
But I want to get down to it.
What Trump did was expose the bare-naked truth about America, black America, and the so-called black keepers of America, and that they are not doing a darn thing for black America.
And because it came from him, you have people offended.
But it should be the same thing that should come out of the mouth of Jesse Jackson.
It should be heard by Al Sharpson.
It should be heard by Tom Joyner.
It should be heard by all the pre-profits.
Yeah, but the people, Karen, the people I'm talking about who ripped Trump over the coals are conservatives.
Conservative, conservative writers who are basically saying Trump was insensitive.
It was a stupid appeal.
He wasn't even speaking to blacks because they weren't in the audience.
It was tasteless and all this stuff.
So, what in the world did I miss about this?
Well, let me tell you why I disagree with that.
First of all, he had just come from Louisiana, and Louisiana was destroyed by Katrina, and you saw all the black people and the poor people and how they were upset with Bush for not doing enough.
And you have Trump coming off the plane from there.
So he had already had this pre-planned event.
What else is he going to speak about this speak from the heart?
Speak from what he sees.
That's why he had the conversation he had at the time and in Michigan, but about black America.
So it wasn't that he pre-planned to go out and talk about black America over in Michigan.
Again, I say what he said, they're just upset that he said it.
It came from him.
If those same words had come from Jesse or anybody else or Barack or anybody else, it should have, it never would because they're cowards.
But if it had come from them, it would be okay.
Well, exactly.
But the words don't come from them.
That's the point.
The words don't come from them.
That is my exact point.
The civil rights coalition leaders continue to make African Americans victims.
They don't speak of uplifting positive ways to improve life.
All they do is convince them that their current lot in life is something they're locked into because evil forces are discriminating against them and keep voting for us to make sure it doesn't get any worse.
Keep voting for us to look out for you.
And my only point is the people looking out for them aren't doing anything for them.
Now, wait, before you, I know what you're reacting.
Well, why should they?
People do things on their own.
Folks, they have been conditioned to believe the government's going to take care of them.
Millennials at this very moment, as we speak, millennials are being conditioned to believe that if government doesn't do something, then nothing is getting done.
There are millennials among us, as I speak, who believe that if government isn't passing laws, then things are broken.
Well, now you and I think the exact opposite.
When there's a government shutdown or a congressional recess, we breathe a sigh of relief.
It means they're not going to be passing any more laws which have further infractions and restrictions on our liberty and freedom.
Look at here.
This is a great piece.
It's in the Washington Times by Richard Ron.
Former Chamber of Commerce Hen Honcho back when the organization was conservative.
And his premise here, causing less harm by doing nothing.
And it's a great piece because it's a piece about climate change and global warming, but it's applicable to everything.
We live in a time where crises are manufactured every day.
We turn on the news, and every day is a new crisis.
Sometimes there's more than one.
And with the discovery of every crisis is the requirement or demand that government do something about it.
And that's just not how life is.
Let me read a portion of this to you to illustrate.
It has not only been a waste of money, it has actually done real harm.
Some trillions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars have been spent to combat global warming over the last 30 years.
Has the spending of all of that money reduced global temperatures from where they would have otherwise been?
No.
Not at least in any measurable degree.
The major governments of the world have undertaken a public policy which to date has cost far more than any benefit derived.
The rebuttal by the advocates of all of this government spending is to say that it's nothing more than a down payment on what needs to be done and the benefits will accrue to future generations.
Earlier this month, British scientist Valentina Zarkova and her team at Northumbria University in the UK, using a new model, predicted that a coming periodic reduction in the sun's radiation will soon lead to major global cooling.
By the way, I saw that story.
I saw that story.
And the one thing that the current climate change crowd does not put into their models, and let me stress again, there is no official data that shows a dangerously warming climate.
There is none.
Over the last 16 years, the Earth's temperature has remained steady.
It has not risen.
16 years.
The computer models, which is the only evidence there is for global warming.
This is so sad, it would be laughable otherwise.
There's no evidence of man-made global warming.
The climate's changing all the time, but we have nothing to do with it.
We're just along for the ride here.
We have nothing to do with it.
Climate changes in infinitesimal ways.
And by the way, in geological times, our lifespan, 85 years, is hardly visible when measured against the life of the planet.
We are nothing but specks of sand at the largest.
We have no impact on glacier creation, glacier melting, glacier expansion, glacial movement.
None.
But besides that, the only reason anybody believes global warming is computer models are predicting it.
10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, starting in 1980.
There is no evidence.
There is no data that the world is warming.
This is one of the most brilliant, effective hoaxes I have ever seen.
And I'm telling you who has bought it, hook, line, and sinker, is young people.
They have bought it because they believe the fear mongers and the crisis mongers that the planet on which we all live is not going to be habitable by the time they reach retirement age.
30 years, you talk about 1980, 30, 40 years.
We're about reaching some of that.
We haven't gotten any close to the predictions, but they, a lot of young millennials, they believe it.
They've bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
And they're scared to death.
They genuinely are.
The whole thing is a hoax.
So I see this story about how the computer models, by the way, the computer models do not factor anything to do with the sun.
Believe that?
The computer models predicting global warming specifically eliminate the sun.
You know why?
Because to include the sun, and the sun has cycles, high sunspot activity, low sunspot activity.
And when the sun is in a low sunspot cycle, it's not producing as much heat.
It's not producing as much kinetic energy.
It's going to get colder.
It's going to get cooler if it sustains.
And that's exactly what's happening.
So they don't put that in their models.
Their models are based solely on CO2, carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect.
Pure and simple.
All they do is predict the greenhouse effect 30 years from now.
Why do the temperatures have to?
I just saw a story this morning.
I forget where, that the Everglades and Miami are going to be underwater in 30 years.
And the story featured a bunch of scientists who have two troughs of water, one fresh water, one seawater.
They take the seawater and they pour it on plants.
Then they come back and see what happens.
Of course, the plants die.
And then they say, see, with rising sea levels, everything in the Everglades is going to die in 30 years.
I mean, it's intelligence insulting to the max.
Now, Ron's point is, Richard Ron, we could have done nothing and every wing would be the same.
We could have not spent the trillions of dollars that have been spent.
The problem with that is, by not spending the trillions of dollars, a whole bunch of junk scientists and a whole bunch of research outfits wouldn't have received grants either.
And so they might be living in poverty, or they might not have jobs, or they might have had to go out and get real jobs instead of writing fake, phony papers predicting dismal results 30, 40 years down the line.
But Ron's point is, no matter what, it's R-A-H-N, by the way, is how you spell his name.
For many decades, it has been known that a decrease in sunspot activity is associated with lower temperatures.
Ms. Zarkova argues that we will soon enter a new Maunderminium, which refers to the period from 1645 to 1750 when the sun's surface ceased producing its heat-releasing magnetic storms during the last couple of weeks.
Since the release of the new study, the debate has been quite fierce between those who believe that solar changes trump carbon dioxide and vice versa.
Remember, climate science is not a unified field of study like quantum physics.
It's a combination of many different disciplines from the people who study tree rings, ice cores, atmospheric gases, cloud science, solar output, and CO2.
And then there are people that study sunspots.
The thing you have to know is that the global warming fearmongers do not put sunspot activity into their models at all.
They simply predict future levels of CO2 and they create mass crises results.
The overall point, though, is if we hadn't done anything, everything would be as it was.
We haven't changed the temperature at all with trillions of dollars.
We haven't changed the temperature at all by determining people can't live here, can't live there, can't drive that car, can't produce this much CO2.
We've had all kinds of restrictions on behavior, all kinds of restrictions on liberty and freedom, all designed to save the planet.
And nothing we've done has made one iota's worth of difference.
We haven't reduced the temperature, which we must do if these clowns are right.
The temperature got to come down or we're cooked.
We haven't done diddly squat.
The point is, and this is, I think, is what most of us as conservatives believe.
Just the less government does, particularly with imaginary crises, the better off everybody's going to be.
But man, have they done a good job with this?
They have created so much belief that these crises every day, every week are real and that only government can fix it and only emergency action, which means government has to get bigger.
You have to earn less because your taxes go up.
It's the only hope we all have.
Can't tell you how it enrages me.
Suzanne, Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Great to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, hi, Rush.
Megan Dittos from Rainstone, Louisiana.
Thank you very much.
I just wanted to let you know, first of all, I just wanted to say how glad I am you've been agreeing with me for all these years.
I appreciate knowing that.
I've been listening to you since I was a freshman back in college since 1988.
People stick with this show.
This is the amazing thing about it.
I'm so thankful, grateful to you.
Thank you.
I used to have a bumper sticker that said Rush is right.
Still am.
Yes, you are.
Listen, I wanted to comment on Hillary's screeching last night on Jimmy Kimmel.
He asked her about, you know, the 30,000 plus emails, and then he said, you know, what's with the now 15,000 emails?
And she made such a slight about that.
She said, you know, what's a few more?
And I think that that was like her screeching when she was in front of that congressional hearing and saying, what difference does it make?
You know, when she passes that off.
Harry is.
Hang on here just a second.
I want people, Suzanne, hang on, just grab audio soundbite number 12.
Here is the exchange on Jimmy Kimmel live last night that she is talking about.
My emails are so boring.
And I mean, I'm embarrassed about that.
They're so boring.
So we've already released, I don't know, 30,000 plus.
So what's a few more?
So at the end, you're not concerned that there's going to be something that Donald Trump is able to use against you, that the Republicans, that comes in at the last second.
But he makes up stuff to use against us.
So if he would stick with reality, I wouldn't have a worry in the world.
So you think, Suzanne, that when she said, hey, look, I've already released 30,000.
What's a few more?
That's no difference.
What difference does it make?
That's exactly right.
And I think that it's so insulting to the intelligence of the United States citizens that she could just slide those off.
15,000 emails, Rush.
Mike, look, my question about this is, where did these come from?
I mean, we've been told all this time that every email is accounted for.
She deleted 30,000.
They found 33,000.
They've gone through them.
And yet here's 15,000 that nobody knew existed.
Why was the investigation closed if they still had this many?
Yeah, the emails are from people she wrote to.
Emails that were thought to be gone, deleted in the ether.
These are emails of people that she wrote to, people, emails she sent.
Not hard to figure out.
All right, folks, fastest three hours in media.
We got two down, one to go.
▲
Export Selection