Rush Limbaugh Program - August 31, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 31, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:16

August 31, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Indeed, Buck in for Rush today on the EIB.
	Thank you very much for listening.
	If you want to call in, 800-282-2882.
	Got some spots on the phone lines for you.
	Ever wonder how these community organizers and leftist activist groups get funded?
	I know that there are some cutouts and we can talk about Soros and some of the other folks out there who write big checks and do that sort of thing.
	But I do wonder these groups proliferate.
	There are so many of them.
	Hard to keep track of all of them.
	And they have money to do things.
	They have money to pay organizers.
	They have money to print annoying signs that show up at protests.
	They do all kinds of stuff to hire legal counsel, to sue people.
	They have money coming out of their ears.
	They got lots of cash.
	At least some of them do.
	And when you look at where they're getting the cash, you might be surprised to find out that some of it, at least, is under the guise of helping you or the guys of helping people who lost money or lost value in their homes were adversely affected during the mortgage meltdown, the financial crisis some years ago, back in 2008.
	So this is what's going on.
	Wall Street Journal is doing some great reporting here, and it's a little bit, you get a little down the weeds, and then you find if you work your way through them, you go, oh, wait a second.
	So there's this government agency called the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group or the Rumbeswig, R-M-B-S-W-G.
	I don't think they probably use an acronym, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
	I used to be in government.
	We love acronyms.
	We'd have whole conversations in acronym.
	We'd make up acronyms for our acronyms.
	It was awesome.
	It was like just drowning in alphabet soup all the time.
	So they have this residential mortgage-backed securities working group that they set up.
	And it's a long, boring name.
	Always be concerned.
	Always be skeptical of government agencies that have long, boring names.
	You want to be like, why does this thing exist?
	And something like a working group.
	That sounds so innocuous.
	It's tough to get people fired up about a working group.
	What does it do?
	Well, when you look at it, it's supposed to be all about Main Street relief, right?
	Because if you buy into the official narrative of how the mortgage meltdown happened, according to most of the media, is that Wall Street got super greedy and Wall Street did really bad things.
	That is true, but the government played an enormous role in all of that.
	You don't really, when was the last time you heard about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac?
	You hear about that really anymore?
	About the erosion and then essentially the elimination of the lending standards necessary for mortgages for those institutions and then for any bank.
	And that that was all part of the home ownership society and that access to credit also became a social justice issue.
	Do you hear about any of that?
	No.
	You watch The Big Short, a very entertaining movie.
	I read the book as well.
	It's now available.
	I think the movie's now on Netflix.
	Oh, we're talking about some movies third hour, by the way.
	And there's no mention whatsoever, really, of any of that.
	You never even hear about the government in this, except to bail out the bankers at the end, because that's the part where everyone gets mad at the government, of course.
	You don't hear about the change in lending standards, about how this was policy.
	You don't hear that during the Clinton administration, for example, the federal government would sue banks, would sue banks if they were not doing enough lending in minority, minority-predominant areas.
	You would not hear this.
	Or you would not hear this now, I mean.
	They'll not discuss this.
	This is never a part of it whatsoever.
	But so they set up this group, the residential, because we've created this enormous boogeyman, right, of all the terrible stuff that Wall Street's evil, Wall Street's evil.
	Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, who's out there doing her best Bernie Sanders impersonation, let that one sink in for a second.
	That would be entertaining.
	I would pay to see it.
	She's out there doing her Bernie Sanders impersonation, talking about how Wall Street's bad.
	Meanwhile, the hedge funders and all the rest of them are throwing cash at her hand over fist.
	Can't get enough cash into Hillary Sands.
	And you wonder, hmm.
	It's almost like everybody realizes that this is just something that she's having to pretend to believe and feel in order to fool enough people to vote for her so that it could, of course, be business as usual for the very wealthy and the well-connected of the Democratic Party.
	That's really the modern mantra of the Democrats, right?
	The wealthy and the well-connected and the dependent and the underclass, they do well.
	Everybody else, everybody in the middle, they pay for it all in every sense.
	They're the ones that get the raw end, the bad end of the deal.
	But so the mortgage, the mortgage meltdown blamed on the banks, and the banks are the bad guys.
	Okay, fine.
	Banks did bad things.
	That's true.
	Banks got bailouts.
	They shouldn't have.
	All right, we can go past that for a second then into there's a lot of political momentum behind certain groups here.
	There's a lot of open territory for leftist politicians and perhaps even some attorneys general to make a bit of headway on the issue.
	And so what do they do?
	They create this residential mortgage-backed securities working group, which, as the Wall Street Journal says, is a coalition of federal and state regulators and prosecutors created in 2012 to identify, investigate, and prosecute instances of wrongdoing in the residential-backed securities market.
	How many bankers do you know of, mortgage brokers, bankers, all the how many do you know have gone to jail?
	No, they're not going to jail because then they'd actually be upset.
	Then there'd be problems, right?
	Then Hillary, if Hillary actually hated Wall Street as much as she pretends to, then maybe you would see prosecutions of bankers.
	You're never going to see prosecutions of any bankers.
	I mean, not really.
	One or two guys here or there for insider trading, and that's just to sort of set an example for the rest.
	But they will shake them down for cash.
	That's what this is really about.
	You see, that's when the government shows you what it's all about.
	They pretend that it's about justice, right?
	We're going to hold them accountable.
	Actually, we just want them to write us a fat check.
	What's the difference between fraud that's $1 million and fraud that's $100 billion?
	Well, the people that commit $100 billion of fraud, they pay fines.
	The people that commit $1 million of fraud, they go to prison for a long time, right?
	And in the case of Wall Street, we see this playing out over and over again.
	So they create this group that's supposed to right the wrongs of the past, right?
	This is classic social justice leftist narrative stuff, right?
	We're going to help Main Street by going after Wall Street.
	So what do they do?
	They create this group of all these different investigators, prosecutors, and they start getting settlement money.
	This is the Justice Department now.
	This is the Department of Justice, that same Justice Department that found nothing worthy of prosecution in Hillary Clinton's whole email scheme, by the way.
	That one, the one that the Justice Department, you know and trust.
	That same one.
	They've announced this past April a $5.1 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs, a $3.2 billion settlement with Morgan Stanley.
	Citigroup paid $7 billion.
	JPMorgan, $13 billion.
	Bank of America, $16 billion.
	And there are other banks as well.
	It's all reported on the Wall Street Journal.
	So many, many billions of dollars from the banks.
	And you'd say, okay, Buck, but the banks were crooked and Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar for its obligations to AIG, and it's because of Paulson.
	And I saw that movie, too, and all this other, right?
	I mean, you could say all this stuff.
	And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a lot of it.
	But this money is supposed to help, as they say, Main Street.
	It's not just money that they're taking from the banks to punish the banks.
	That's certainly part of it.
	It's money that is then going to go to help the people that were hurt in the mortgage meltdown, right?
	But that's where this all really falls apart.
	That's where it starts to get very interesting.
	The Wall Street Journal's analysis of over 80 beneficiaries from Bank of America settlements shows that they received, on average, more than 10% of their 2015 budgets from the banks.
	So some of these places are getting a really serious chunk of their operating budgets from these bank settlements.
	But now is where you bust out your shocked face for me, right?
	Are you ready to just be like, oh, no way, Buck?
	No way.
	The money's going to leftist activist groups.
	Wait, but I thought it was supposed to go to Main Street.
	I thought if you lost your home because of shady mortgage practices, they're going to hold Wall Street accountable.
	Hillary's all about Main Street.
	I mean, she lives pretty far from Main Street.
	She likes mansions and private jets.
	She's a private jet progressive, but she was going to give the money to the people, right?
	That's what was supposed to happen here.
	Big shakedowns of the banks to give money back to those hurt by the banks.
	No, that's not what's happening.
	What kind of groups are getting this money?
	Oh, I don't know.
	$1.5 million to La Raza.
	That's one for you.
	The National Urban League, you go through this and you see, wait a second, there's all of these groups that are favored by Democrats, these community organizer groups.
	Some of them do voter registration.
	Some of them do, you know, whatever, community organizers and activists and all that, whatever they're up to these days.
	And it even gets a little more blatant than that.
	Illinois' Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan got $22.5 million from Morgan Stanley.
	You know, again, this is all the DOJ and this consortium from the Rumzebiger Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group.
	They get this shakedown.
	They get this $22.5 million from Morgan Stanley, and it goes to drumroll her state's pension funds for public sector unions.
	Public sector unions.
	Look at that.
	Oh, I wonder who that helps come election time.
	So you mean that banks, which people say are Wall Street, but actually most of the banks are in Midtown Manhattan, but that's a side note.
	That the banks down on Wall Street are going to help Main Street when really politicians just view this as a slush fund for their own interests.
	That's what this is.
	And by the way, do you think there's a lot of money?
	You know, is any of this money from the banks going to end up with groups that tend to favor limited government, constitutionalism, would use such horrendous terms as, quote, patriot in there?
	I know patriots, scary stuff.
	You'll recall that the IRS specifically targeted groups with patriot in the name because we can't have any of that patriotism around here.
	Scary stuff.
	Do you think that money is finding its way to right-leaning organizations?
	Of course not.
	Because all of this sort of social justice rhetoric you hear from the left about the banks is a dodge.
	It's a smokescreen.
	It's not what they're really doing.
	They have created this boogeyman of Wall Street as they take donations.
	And Hillary is a fantastic example.
	Look at all the money.
	She was, we got $25,000 I see here, a ticket for a fundraiser out in the Hamptons.
	Hello, everybody.
	Jimmy Buffett performing with Paul McCartney and John Bon Jovi.
	You know, let me tell you something.
	A lot of Wall Street people, not a lot of folks are paying $25,000 a ticket who aren't big-time private equity hedge fund managers, the sort of top of the heap on Wall Street.
	They're hanging out in the Hamptons, so they're generally speaking going to be, unless they're flying on the private jet, New York City-based.
	So they love Hillary loves these rich Wall Street types, loves them.
	Who else is going to pay her $250,000 for a 30 or 40-minute crap speech?
	You heard her speak.
	You think anyone's paying her $250,000 because it's such moving oratory?
	I don't know.
	Pericles, she is not.
	So this is what we have to deal with.
	This is one of the perfect examples.
	You're going to hear all about this, by the way, between now and the election, how much Hillary cares about Main Street and how much she cares about the middle class.
	Meanwhile, middle class is getting crushed by Obamacare.
	Middle class is supposed to get help from organizations like this using the force of law, DOJ, shaking down banks.
	And you could be like, yeah, maybe they should shake down the banks.
	I don't know if you're in favor of that or not, but I know you're not psyched about them giving Acorn-like groups and La Raza and whoever else cash from the banks to make sure the Democrats get into office, which is exactly what they're doing.
	Even shoring up their public pension funds with the cash they take from the banks.
	That's how they play the game.
	You should keep that in mind.
	Buck Sexton here in for Rush, 800-282-2882.
	We'll be back in a few.
	Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
	The Democrats can never find enough private sector entities to shake down under the guise of, I don't know, social justice, writing historical wrongs, you name it.
	If you got cash, they want it.
	It's the one thing that government's really good at taking your money.
	They'll find a way to do it.
	They're very effective at that.
	They'll find you.
	You may recall some months ago, I was thinking about this because we were just discussing the sort of shakedown of the banks, and you have New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman as a part of that.
	You have more on Mr. Schneiderman and shakedowns.
	And I have to hat to Holman Jenkins over the Wall Street Journal, has been doing great work on both of these issues, both of these areas.
	So there was some months ago this effort underway to get ExxonMobil to start shelling out cash because it was basically, what did you know about climate change and when did you know it, you know?
	Because they were lying about climate change, about their climate change projections or something.
	This was supposed to be yet another shakedown.
	You had attorneys general from Massachusetts, the Virgin Islands, and New York State.
	What's up, Virgin Islands?
	Why you got a hate?
	What's that all about?
	That was not cool.
	Yeah, they realized it's like, yeah, sure, we'll get it on this scam, right?
	They're like the guy who's going along.
	He's like, he's going to be a part of the bank robbery, but he's just going to sit in the car.
	He's not going to actually go into the bank.
	They were like, yeah, we'll come along for that.
	Why not?
	So, yeah, that was supposed to.
	And you had Attorneys General from Vermont, Maryland, and Virginia, Connecticut.
	They were all sort of considering or supposed to be or supporting this in some way.
	You had 15 states total, according to the New York Times here.
	And the idea was that essentially Exxon was lying about climate change, and it was time to hold Exxon accountable.
	And people were like, wait a second, how can that be, that's going to be criminal?
	So if Exxon says we think this is, if Exxon says we think that climate change is X and a bunch of climatologists say it's Y, now you're going to hold them criminally liable for fraud and demand money from them.
	Well, that, I can tell you, I can pass along to you happily, is falling apart now.
	That's going away.
	It's collapsed.
	And again, Holman Jenkins, high five over the Wall Street Journal.
	New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's investigation of ExxonMobil for climate sins has collapsed due to its own willful dishonesty.
	The posse of state AGs he pretended to assemble never really materialized.
	Now his few allies are melting away.
	This was all under the guise of the hashtag, hashtag ExxonNew.
	And this was supposed to be, it was supposed to be like cigarettes, right?
	That they internally knew one thing and were publicly saying another, and they were going to throw out all these subpoenas and they were going to go after Exxon.
	You know what they were going to do with this money, by the way?
	They were just going to give this to environmentalist groups.
	This is how they play the game, right?
	They find a private sector entity.
	They find some sort of quasi social justice or socialist or Marxist or collectivist entity on the outside that's a nonprofit.
	And they're like, we're going to take from you and we're going to give it to them so they have more resources to demand more money from you.
	But this time it looks like it's not going to work.
	But yeah, they were criminalizing.
	They were effectively here criminalizing climate change, not even necessarily denial, but disparity between what you internally think as a company versus what you're externally saying.
	These people are losing it.
	They are losing it.
	But unfortunately, they're in positions of power and actually can take you, turn you upside down, and shake the change out of your pockets.
	So the government always exceeds in that.
	So Schneiderman, AG of New York State here, once again, overplaying his hand.
	800-282-2882, Buck Sexton here in Full Rush Lumbaugh.
	The show is flying by, but we have a lot more.
	Stay with me.
	Indeed, Buck is back with you now.
	We are also joined by Kim Strassel.
	She's a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and also author of the fantastic book, The Intimidation Game, How the Left is Silencing Free Speech.
	Kim, great to have you on again.
	It is so great to be here, Buck.
	So you wrote a column recently.
	The U.S. Department of Clinton, you said the latest email showed that Clinton, that the state and the foundation were one seamless entity.
	Take us through how that is the case.
	Yeah, this is what's important over the last week is that we finally, finally came to find out why Hillary Clinton had a private email server.
	And that kind of got lost.
	The mainstream media didn't focus on it or didn't have the brass to call it out.
	But look, all of the focus has been so far on national secrets, security, whether or not she mishandled classified information.
	And that's very important, and she ought to be held accountable for doing that.
	But what it misses is that she obviously didn't set up this private server in order to spill American secrets.
	She set it up for another purpose.
	Now we have Huma Abeddin's emails.
	Huma Abadin, of course, one of her closest aides who worked with her at the State Department.
	She too had her email correspondence on a private account on Hillary Clinton's server.
	It's finally come out, and we find out that, in fact, the reason she kept this private server is because it was handling Clinton Foundation business, the same Clinton Foundation business that she promised back during her confirmation hearings that she was going to distance herself from.
	They've been claiming ever since this came out that, well, there's, of course, and this is classic, with the Clintons, they have a celebration when they either can say, well, there's no smoking gun or there were no criminal charges filed, which is a pretty low bar on, I think, both sides when you're talking about a presidential candidate.
	I mean, not once, but twice now, it seems.
	Hillary Clinton avoiding criminal legal jeopardy is cause for celebration inside the Clinton camp.
	But the appearance of corruption is bad enough or should be bad enough, I think, to give a lot of voters and a lot of people across the country some serious concerns here.
	She was meeting with people who were disproportionately donors to the foundation, wasn't she?
	Oh, yeah, we have all kinds of evidence of that now because of the Abaddon emails.
	We know that Doug Band, who was a senior executive at the Clinton Foundation, was in constant contact with Huma Abidin when she was at the State Department.
	And just by an aside, by the way, Huma Abidden managed to somehow pull off a deal where she worked both at the foundation and at the State Department simultaneously.
	But we have, for instance, emails with Doug Band saying, hey, can you get a meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain with the Secretary of State?
	You know, and by the way, he's a big supporter of ours.
	So that is just Doug Band flat out saying, this guy gave us millions of dollars and you need to arrange for him to get in to see the Secretary of State.
	And we know that that meeting happened.
	We have the Foundation reaching out and asking for big name Foundation donors to get into a lunch the State Department was having with the Chinese president and asking to be seated moreover with Vice President Biden.
	We're still not clear whether or not that happened.
	But the requests were pouring in.
	And I think to me, reading through all of these Abidden emails, the extraordinary thing is just the familiarity between Band and Abidden.
	These are not emails in which people even bother to say, hello, Mr. Band, or formally yours, or goodbye, but these are just guys who are clearly working for the same enterprise, Hillary Clinton, and they just send these two or three word emails back to each other constantly, all about joining schedules and keeping track of Hillary's business.
	As somebody who used to work for the federal government, Kimberly, and dealt with the ethical constraints and regulations they put on the rest of us are insane, especially inside the intelligence community.
	I know in your book, The Intimidation Game, you talk about some of the witch hunts that were underway in Wisconsin, trying to get at Scott Walker and using the John Doe laws there to do these dawn raids on people because of the possibility of collusion between a campaign and outside entities.
	In fact, there was one woman there who was criminally prosecuted for using her phone inside of a government building.
	I remember the case.
	That was up in Wisconsin as well.
	It seems like for everybody else, the laws aren't just harsh.
	The laws are instituted in such a way that the partisanship of all of this becomes very obvious, right?
	I mean, it seems like the left is willing to use ethical constraints or ethical boundaries to hammer people on the right, and it's always a one-way street.
	And Hillary, to me, is just the biggest example of that.
	Yeah, extraordinary.
	Look what they did in Wisconsin, which you just mentioned.
	Look what they did with the IRS.
	Look what they've done to free market groups in terms of Senate investigations or boycotts of companies.
	And yet now I think is indeed the time to take another look back at James Comey and what he's allowed to go on here.
	He obviously faced a great deal of criticism for letting her skate on this question of mishandling classified information.
	But I think in light of these Abidden emails, he needs to get called out on something else, which is, look, the FBI was clearly in possession of all of these emails showing this back and forth between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.
	And I can tell you, this is the same FBI that has gone out of its way in recent years to pursue these almost overzealous public corruption cases.
	I mean, think about all the different names.
	Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, Bob Menendez up in New Jersey.
	And they brought these prosecutions on evidence that's far less startling than what we see in these emails.
	So here the FBI is sitting on all of this information, and it just doesn't even bother to pursue it.
	It's kind of an amazing thing, and he ought to be asked about that because that certainly has not been his modus operandi in the past.
	Jim Comey is the sort of guy who will pursue his targets down any rabbit hole he can get them on.
	And if Hillary Clinton were being treated like a normal citizen, you can bet that there would be a very sweeping investigation at the moment into questions of pay-per-play.
	The Bob McDonnell case is fascinating to me, by the way, because there you have the Clinton sort of escape hatch with all this stuff is you can't prove.
	I mean, you can insinuate, you can draw a pretty clear analysis of it, but you can't prove she did X because she was given Y, right?
	Essentially, unless we have Hillary with a brown paper bag full of cash under the table on video, nothing's actually going to happen.
	There's nothing to see here.
	McDonald never did any official act when he was in office on behalf of the businessman that had given him sort of loans and other gifts, never took any official act.
	He just hung out around him.
	It looked gross.
	The state of Virginia chose not to bring any charges.
	Federal prosecutors went after him and his wife, by the way.
	And yet the Clintons, there's nothing.
	Yeah, and by the way, the court had to overturn that in the end.
	And I want to be clear that I'm not in favor of overzealous prosecution.
	But what I am in favor is equal application of investigations at the very least to discover whether or not there has been a crime committed or at least try to pursue that.
	Add to this, too, Buck, and this is the biggest irony of all is, you know, when Bob McDonald did this, they had to go searching for evidence, but at least the evidence was there.
	You know, they didn't, I mean, meaning that they had things that they could go looking at to try to find out if there had been public corruption.
	One of the reasons that Hillary Clinton can stand there and say all innocently, well, there's no proof that I did anything wrong, is because she deleted 30,000 emails that might have otherwise shown what she'd done.
	Not only did she delete them, I mean, I think this is also an important act.
	You know, she didn't just click the delete button.
	Maybe you could say that's fine.
	She used a special program specifically intended to overwrite the data so it would be irretrievable even by the FBI.
	I mean, you look at what she did with with official public records that we know these are official public records.
	And you compare that to the penalties that somebody would possibly face under some of the what the Dodd-Frank regulations about the destruction of.
	I mean, if you work in finance and you destroy the wrong papers, you can go to prison for like a decade.
	Oh, for your life, forever, forever and ever.
	But, you know, this goes back to your point.
	The Clintons' bar on whether or not they can be held account to anything is whether or not they committed a felony and that it can be proved.
	I mean, it's an extraordinary bar, low one, as you say.
	When, in fact, if you just step back from this, what we do know is that this is a woman who said she was going to sever ties with the foundation, and she didn't, who said many statements about her email and her server, which we know were out and out lies, who clearly conducted Clinton Foundation business on the side while she was there.
	We know that donors had access to her, and she deleted emails that clearly were related to work.
	These are all things that ought to be a disqualifier for office.
	But because the media often is always making excuses for her, it's extraordinary reading the New York Times and other places that keep saying, well, look, there's no real evidence she did anything wrong here.
	And they keep talking about how, well, the Clintons probably ought to sever their ties a little bit more with the Clinton Foundation.
	All of that is missing the bigger point about what we've already caught her doing and how it ought to be a disqualifier.
	And how is it that they can say and write in the same paragraph, say in the same sentence, the Hillary Defenders, whether it's the New York Times or any of the other outlets that are out there, that nothing unethical was really done.
	But yeah, maybe now she should stop taking all those donations from foreign countries.
	If foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation were, if they're bad now or will be bad soon in the future, they were bad before.
	Yes.
	And moreover, this idea that it's okay to do it if and only when she wins the White House, that's in essence like saying, get your checks in now, folks.
	Hurry up.
	Your last-minute chance to influence the future president of the United States.
	I bet the Clinton Foundation right now can't even keep up with all the donors that are trying to get their dollars in.
	Yeah, they got to get in while the getting is good.
	That looks like the case.
	Kim Strassel is on the Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
	You can read her latest, Wall StreetJournal.com.
	And also, check out her book.
	It's out now, The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech.
	Kim, always great to have you.
	Thank you for calling in.
	Thanks, Buck.
	Buck in for Rush, 888-282-2882.
	So much more show and some more time.
	Stay with me.
	Buck Sexton here in For Rush Limbaugh today on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	Someone explained this one to me.
	Riddle me this one.
	30 Benghazi-related emails have been recovered from Hillary's server.
	They were not in the batch she turned over to the State Department.
	You know, I just mentioned this before.
	I was trying to find the name of the program used.
	Remember what Hillary's whole thing of what you mean wipe it like with a cloth?
	No, not with a cloth, with a program that specifically overwrites data such that it can never be recovered.
	I mean, this is the sort of thing you would do if you were running, I don't know, some kind of an espionage operation.
	You know, you'd want to make sure that you left no trace.
	Really into making sure nobody could.
	But the server was secure, they say, but they had to use the special program to erase all the stuff.
	But nobody hacked into it, but somebody hacked into it.
	But no foreigners hacked into it.
	But we don't know if they hacked it.
	So you go down this thing and you're like, this is all.
	What a tangled web Hillary weeds when first she has practice to deceive.
	And she's been doing that for about 30-some odd years now.
	Probably longer, really.
	30 Benghazi-related emails.
	Many of you, I'm sure, work for companies where you have to keep email.
	And at some point, perhaps there's either there'll be some kind of a lawsuit or just for purposes of disclosure, discovery, I don't know, whatever.
	I mean, I've been in places where this has had to have been done.
	You do keyword searches, right, through your emails to find something.
	Hey, can you get me?
	I'll get me all the stuff we've got on Anikot Steel.
	And Wall Street reference, you got the movie, not the bad guys.
	Great movie, by the way.
	That was before Oliver Stone was.
	Yeah.
	He's made a Snowden movie now, too.
	He's got to stop with this stuff.
	No, I am not going to go see that.
	No, it's really important that Edward Snowden make sure that he.
	Well, see, the thing is, they'll tell you on the one hand that he's released all this.
	His defenders will say he released all this information that was necessary for transparency.
	And then you'll say, well, wait, what did he release?
	I'm like, oh, we can't, you know, he released a very small percentage of what he has.
	Anyway, that's all.
	I don't believe any of that.
	And we don't need releasing anything about any foreign intelligence operations, any collection in foreign countries is not a constitutional issue.
	It is treason.
	It is very, very bad.
	I know, it's crazy, right?
	Who would have thought?
	And I got distracted.
	They were talking about, oh, Oliver Stone.
	Yeah, he had made some decent movies back in the day, Wall Street being one of them.
	Anyway, you're looking for emails about anything.
	You do a keyword search.
	The easiest way to make it just sort of pop up.
	And you would think, you'd think that anything with Benghazi in it, if you're Hillary Clinton and you're like taking it upon yourself to be the arbiter of what is work-related versus what is personal, if you're separating out those two things, I feel like Benghazi is going to be something where you're pretty clearly in the work category, right?
	It's not like, hey, what's up?
	Party in Benghazi next Thursday.
	Who's coming?
	Like, I'm pretty sure if Benghazi's in the email, it had to do with your work as Secretary of State.
	Therefore, it should have been turned over.
	And I think it's pretty obvious.
	You know, I don't think she's writing emails to Hillary at any point in her presidency.
	It's like, hey, I hear Benghazi's lovely this time of year.
	Maybe we should, you know, all go on vacay.
	So 30 of those emails now found, despite the fact that Hillary tried to wipe the server clean, not with the cloth, but with an advanced erasing program, a program meant to make sure they would be irretrievable.
	Why would somebody do that?
	Why go through all the trouble?
	If they're unclassified, if they're, you know, if it's NBD, no big deal, nothing to see here, you'd think that maybe you just sort of let them sit there on your server like all the rest of us, unless you got something to hide.
	And very clearly, Hillary has all kinds of stuff that she's trying to hide here.
	All sorts of things that she doesn't want the public to know about.
	Here's what's depressing, though.
	I'm going to have to strap in for this one.
	It's going to make me sad.
	This is going to give me the sadness on the inside.
	No matter what they find in Hillary's emails, Democrats won't care.
	A lot of independents won't care either.
	No matter what.
	It doesn't matter.
	We could find an email.
	Next week, email could come out.
	Hillary saying, oh, they gave millions to the foundation.
	I'll push this through in the State Department right away.
	That could happen next week.
	Maybe you'd see like a 2%, 3% drop in the polls.
	Maybe.
	I don't know.
	Maybe not.
	Because Trump is such a racist.
	Oh, God, he's so racist.
	That's all anybody cares about anymore.
	There's nothing that could be found in Hillary's emails.
	I mean, I think there are people even, and some of them have jobs at places like MSNBC.
	There are people who, you know, Hillary could be like, hey, what's up, foreign dictator?
	Here are the nuclear codes just in case you want them.
	People will be like, but I mean, was he really going to use them?
	It's not like he had access.
	You know, it doesn't matter.
	It just doesn't matter.
	What's up, Mullahs and Tehran?
	Let's all be friends.
	Check out this batch of sensitive diplomatic information that you would love to read.
	People would be like, hey, it's just Hillary doing business.
	She's a business lady, you know?
	And so charitable, I might add.
	So charitable.
	She cares so much about the children.
	Anybody who believes that, don't listen to anything else they say.
	It's a good rule of thumb.
	Buck Sexton Infor Rush.
	Much more.
	Stay with me.
	Buck in for El Rushbo today here on the EIB.
	We're going to be talking about some pop culture, some movies, and some other fun stuff coming up here in the third hour, which means it's a great time if you don't want to have a big fight about Trump, never Trump, maybe Trump.
	Or if we just want to sit here and talk about how terrible Hillary is, you want to talk about some other stuff.
	800-282-2882.
	It's not Friday, but it'll be sort of like an almost like open line third hour.
	We'll be taking a number of your calls as we go through.
	We have some fun guests joining as well to talk about a fantastic film and a wonderful initiative to create more fantastic films.
	How's that for a promo and a segue and all that other radio talk stuff that we do here?
	All right.

▲