All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 5, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
September 5, 2016, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, I'm going to ask a question again.
I asked a question yesterday.
It needs to be asked a lot.
As we keep hearing even today, with the Clinton Family Foundation, what a great, great body of work they do there.
There's nothing to see there.
There's nothing to see.
All this interaction between the Clinton Foundation and State Department and just a bunch of people requesting access.
I mean, that's not any big deal.
What's a big deal wanting access?
That's not favors.
I mean, the drive-bys are filled with that theme today.
No, no, no.
Nobody sought favors.
They just wanted access.
Access is the favor.
For crying out loud, what's so hard about this?
Access, when you are an entity, a country, an individual, a member of Evil Corp, wherever you are, and Hillary Clinton's a Secretary of State, and you want to reach her.
And you know if you call the Secretary of State, that line, you call the Department of State, they're not going to put you through.
So what do you do?
You call the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, and then Cheryl Mills gets hold of Huma Abedeen Weiner, and Huma Aberdeen Weiner then tells Hillary, hey, such and such wants to talk to you.
And they say, yeah, yeah, that happened, but that's just access.
Access is the favor.
And to think that no favors have been done or promised is absurd, but the drive-bys are trying to say, it's just access.
It's the way of the world, they're saying.
And it may well be, folks.
I think it is.
I think this is a perfect illustration of what being a member of the establishment gets you.
This kind of access, this kind of favorable treatment, this kind of acceptance and the upper levels of power.
Greetings.
Great to have you.
El Rushbo, here behind the golden EIB microphone.
The telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, again, it's a new one.
It is lrushbow at EIBnet.us.
Hang on a minute here, folks.
My microphone boom is the latest piece of equipment here on the blitz.
One second.
There we go.
I got it.
Here's the question.
If they do such good work over there at the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, why is the Clinton Foundation not offering any help, any aid, any money, any food, any cell phones to the devastated, dare I say, white population in Louisiana?
Yeah, Obama's got it covered today after 10 or 11 rounds of golf.
Obama's going down there today.
Or is it Thursday that he's going?
Supposed to be in there today.
But, okay, within the hour.
Why didn't I, I should have suspected he would arrive during this program.
Of course that's what they would do.
Seriously.
So Obama's got that covered?
I mean, the Clinton Crime Family Foundation was all over Haiti.
They were all, I think maybe they can't make any money in Louisiana.
That's what the Clinton Crime Family Foundation is really all about, is securing donations, not making payouts.
Anybody figured this out yet?
You look at the payouts of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, it's not much.
The Clinton Crime Family Foundation is a way to support all of the members of the Clinton crime family and to have them travel around in the lap of luxury.
But I mean, we're hearing about what great charitable work has done there.
We're hearing about how compassionate the Clinton Foundation is, and yet here's Louisiana with record flooding.
You know, we know some people who have incurred some great damage down there, the fish god.
We have a friend, Kathy and Steve Abernath, that used to be at Brennan's in New Orleans, and Steve's the fish god.
I call him the fish god.
He raised tilapia.
And I went down, I visited the fish farm.
I'd never been to a fish farm before, so I went down there.
I landed in New Orleans, had to drive all the way across Lake Ponchatran to get to the fish farm.
And these tilapium, these giant, giant circular tanks, and anytime you would move, those fish would try to swim away from you.
They could see you.
And they were afraid of you.
We weren't going to do anything to them except eat them later, which I guess they knew.
And the fish god went on to tell me about he genetically modified them and changed the sex so that he would have more female tilapia laying eggs so that there would be more hatched and more fish to sell.
So when I found out he could change the sex of a tilapi, I started calling him the fish god.
So anyway, they had some damage.
The fish tanks didn't suffer any, but some of the buildings where their office supplies are housed had like three or four feet of water in them.
And there's all kinds of people who've had loss of home and everything they have is gone.
And they're largely white.
And you know that skin color matters in this country more maybe than it ever has.
And you know how everything has become politicized in this country.
Some people don't want to acknowledge or admit that.
But it has.
But it's a late, late arrival for the U.S. government on the scene in Louisiana, no matter who goes.
But I just, I do think it's a relevant question to ask about because, how about if Hillary did order her foundation to go do some work in Louisiana?
Imagine the photo op and the goodwill she could get out of that here in the midst of a presidential campaign, and they're seeking not to do it.
And not just in Louisiana, but some other places too.
And I think the reason is because they don't want to establish the precedent that the purpose of that foundation is to pay out a lot of money.
You know, I don't know how many of you people have actually looked into establishing a foundation.
Anybody can.
Anybody can do it.
And a lot of people who do it do it as a means of making bulk charitable donations for tax deduction purposes in addition to whatever charitable work they want to do.
But let me just use a round number here, and I'm going to be fairly close to how this works.
Let's say you set up a foundation for $100,000.
And if that's what you put into your foundation, you'll get to deduct $100,000 from your taxes that year and whatever your income tax rate is.
But the kicker is this.
You don't ever have to put any more money in it, but you can.
And you can go out and ask people to donate to it.
You can run golf tournaments, anything you want to have people donate to your foundation.
A kicker, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
You only have to donate 10% a year from it to keep it qualified as a charity.
So you can hoard all of them.
Now, you, theoretically, you can't use the money.
Once you've put it in there, it's not yours anymore.
The only way it can be spent is for travel and expenses of the employees of the foundation, if you want to hire some, which is what the Clintons have done, or donating it.
But you can get a full tax deduction of whatever you fund that foundation that you've set up in a year, but you don't have to give it all away every year to get the deduction.
You only have to give away 5% or 10%.
It may not even be that much.
And this is why I say the reason I'm guessing that the Clintons have not set this foundation up to be on site at every disaster is that they don't want to establish the idea that the purpose of their foundation is to deal with charities.
They do it now and then, but that's not why they've set this up.
Their charitable foundation is a Hoover.
It is sucking things up.
I mean, the Crown Prince of Bahrain and $32 million.
And we mentioned this yesterday, and people say, What could he possibly expect to get?
Well, nothing from the foundation.
But if Mrs. Clinton either is Secretary of State or becomes president, well, then who knows?
And that's what it's for.
So the drive-by is running around saying, there's nothing to see here.
All they're doing is providing access.
There aren't any favors being done.
The favor is the access.
Great to have you with us, my friends.
The question again needs to be asked: why is the Clinton Family Foundation not offering help, aid, money, food, cell phones to the devastated population of Louisiana?
An accompanying story: Clinton rakes in $4 million while Louisiana drowns.
This is the Daily Caller.
Hillary Clinton has yet to set a date to visit Louisiana, which was recently devastated by historic flooding, but she managed to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions over the weekend.
She found time to go on Jimmy Kimmel's show, where she was, you ought to see the video.
She's so stiff and unfunny.
Like, Kimmel is talking.
Here's a classic joke that they set up, and she didn't blow it, but it's not executed well.
So Kimmel asks her what it's like to be a grandmother.
Oh, it's just wonderful.
I don't know where I'd be without FaceTime.
And Kimmel says, oh, FaceTime instead of emails.
The audience busts out laughing.
Hillary fakes like she's laugh.
Oh, ha ha!
Oh, points at Kimball.
Oh, you're funny.
Oh, you're, as though she's in on the joke.
And the drive-bys are heralding this.
They're saying Hillary's got the guts and the temerity going on there and has the ability to laugh at the circumstance.
But again, we have to keep in mind how the low information crowd, and it's the low information crowd watching this show, how they see this.
And they see this email thing being laughed about and made a joke of, and therefore can't be anything serious.
Because Kimball's audience, they're pretty sure that if this were a serious thing, Jimmy Kimball would be treating it seriously.
And he'd be trying to bore in there and get to the bottom of it.
But he's laughing about it with her.
So how big a deal can it be?
And then if you go elsewhere, it's amazing.
Folks, this is amazing.
I still don't know how to take this.
No matter where you go in the drive-by media, today, yesterday, last week, you can find near paranoia about this in certain Democrat circles.
You can find the Washington Post is paranoid about this.
Like the Politico has a story that this email thing, State Department Security, private servers, classified documents, there are leftists writing that they are worried this is going to hound her for the rest of her political life.
That she's never going to be out from under this.
And it's going to undercut her effectiveness, her integrity, her honesty.
And yet, nothing's going to happen.
Does anybody really even now think anything is going to happen?
Okay, so the latest is Huma Abedeen.
Guess what we found out?
Huma has been driving around with classified documents in the car.
And she came across a sex toy store, got something for her husband.
She got out.
She left the stuff on the front seat.
She left the classified documents on the front seat while going into the sex toy store.
I'm making that part up.
I don't know that she actually went to a sex toy store for her husband, but she went somewhere.
It might have been to a Kinko's, which she might have thought was a sex toy store.
It's actually a printing shop.
She might have gone in there.
Who knows?
But she left the classified documents front seat and she realized she calls somebody.
She says, you've got to get over there and get them out of the front seat.
You've got to put them in the trunk of my car.
Classified State Department documents on the front seat of the automobile being driven by Huma Weiner.
Where she called.
And still, there's nothing that's going to happen here.
I can't see it happening.
At least not in a legal judicial sense.
Whether this ends up actually affecting her in the polls or on election day remains to be seen.
You know, there's so many confusing things out there.
There's literally no energy in her campaign.
She doesn't draw flies.
She can't attract and hold a crowd whatsoever.
And when people do show up, they're bored silly.
When it's 95 degrees and every woman in the picture is wearing tank tops and shorts, Hillary is decked out like it's wintertime in Moscow.
She's got her Nehru jacket or Mao jacket on.
She's got long slacks, practically gloves.
I mean, it's the weirdest looking thing anyway.
And always standing under an umbrella or a tent to shield herself from the sun.
And yet, despite any, I mean, literally, despite any evidence of her popularity, she is leading in the polls significantly.
And then you go over and you look at Trump, and everywhere Trump goes, you can't get in.
The people that do get in are having a raucous good time.
There is excitement.
Trump does performances.
Everybody's excited and thrilled to be in there.
There's lots of energy everywhere he goes.
It is so big.
It is so exciting.
It is so much fun that Hillary protesters show up and try to cause trouble.
So you look at this.
You look at one candidate who can't draw flies and is not even trying to anymore.
Doesn't even do rallies.
Hardly does anything in public.
And when she does, nobody notices.
And she's leading.
And over here, the guy that looks like a rock star is losing in the polls.
And people are out there scratching their heads over this.
Not quite understanding it.
Selena Gomez, sorry, Selena Zito in the New York Post, actually by way of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
Great piece today that echoes some sentiments that I was making about Trump's crowd, his supporters, all the way back to last fall.
And it dovetails with the observation Robert Costa made in the Washington Post three weeks ago about the Trump base possibly made up of a whole bunch of people who have never voted or haven't voted in a long time and therefore are never polled.
And Robert Costa, Washington Post saying this is the thing that concerns a lot of Democrats.
How many of those people are part of the Trump crowd, really excited, all jazz?
How many of them have not voted maybe ever or only a couple times may show up and vote?
There's no way to find out.
There's no way to poll them because polls are likely voters, registered voters, and they're not found.
And then there's this, before we go to the break very quickly, UK Independent, women are genetically programmed to have affairs.
Women are predisposed by their genetics to have affairs.
The affairs are backup plans in case the guy with whom they're in a relationship with turns out to be a dud.
It's all about procreation.
It's all about life.
It's all about making sure that the species survives.
This is in women's genes, and they have affairs as backup plans in case Prince Charming turns into Prince Adolpho.
Mr. Snurdley, anybody you want to test the theory on?
Now, lest anybody think that I'm being prurient here, let me just share it with you.
Women are predisposed by their genetics.
For those of you in a real end, it means it's built in.
They are born with it.
Women are predisposed by their genetics to have it.
It means when they do it, you better not get mad at them because they actually can't help it.
It's genetically programmed in there to have affairs as backup plans.
What do you bet that this editor is a female?
What do you bet that whoever did the research is female?
And what do you bet they're in an unhappy relationship or have always been?
I mean, what would even spawn something like this?
Who would go looking in the genetic code to find programmed to have affairs?
And then the conclusion.
Why?
Well, backup plans.
Women need backup plans if their relationships fail, according to a research paper.
And this research paper is from the University of Texas.
Scientists at the University of Texas say they are challenging the assumption that humans have evolved to have monogamous relationships.
The University of Texas research team has put forward the mate switching hypothesis.
That's what it's called, the mate switching hypothesis, which says that human beings have evolved to keep testing their relationships and looking for better, long-term options.
The senior author of the research actually is a guy.
Well, that makes sense now that I think about it.
His name is Dr. David Buss.
And he told the Sunday Times of London that lifelong monogamy does not characterize the primary mating patterns of humans.
Breaking up with one partner and mating with another may more accurately characterize the common, maybe even the primary mating strategy of humans for our distant ancestors.
When disease, poor diet, and minimal health care meant that few people lived past 30, looking for a more suitable partner was necessary.
So you see, it's all in there.
It's all in the genetic code.
It's all built in.
It must happen in order for the species to survive.
As I say, anybody you're thinking you want to test this theory on, you might now have it open.
Okay, then there's one more thing here in this story of the University of Texas.
It's actually in the UK Independent about women being genetically genetically programmed to have affairs.
It also points out there's another measure that the researchers have, and that is that men with ring fingers longer than their index fingers are also predisposed to be promiscuous.
Those with ring fingers that are the same size are predisposed to monogamy.
And I imagine you're all measuring about now.
So let me see.
Let's see.
Both of them have longer ring fingers than their indexes.
So's mine.
I think this may be kind of flummery here because I bet everybody's is.
I'll bet everybody's ring finger is longer than their index finger.
It may be part of the gin.
Well, you're a woman.
We're talking here about men.
Your genes already have you established as having an affair.
We're now talking about men and whether they're predisposed to do it.
Okay, to the phones, we're going to start here with Brad in upstate New York.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Brad, are you there?
Brad in upstate New York testing.
123-321.
Are you there?
He is not there.
Doesn't matter.
He was only going to be a foil for what I actually wanted to talk about.
Subject line in his call took a he's not.
Oh, he is there.
After I've said he was nothing more than a foil, he is there.
Brad, are you there?
I am.
I'm in the middle of the day.
Okay, okay.
Okay.
Well, you were there probably on a long week.
Probably had a tech screw up in here that nobody knew until.
Anyway, so it says here that you were taking a long vacation through rural America.
What happened?
Instead of getting on the I-95, we took two-lane roads all the way to Myrtle Beach, and it took us three days instead of 12 hours.
But we saw Trump signs everywhere.
Now, I listen to you religiously.
My wife never does, but she listens to me.
You know, wait, wait.
Where did you specifically see the Trump signs?
People's yards.
A lot of them.
No, but in cities, in rural areas, where did you see them?
Rural towns, many rural towns.
So we went through Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, all on two-lane roads, except for the Chesapeake Bay.
And let me ask you this.
Were you shocked?
I'm not.
I use that as proof.
I told my wife.
I said, this is why Trump's going to win.
This is where the base is.
If they get out of their house and go vote, these are the people who don't get cold, and that's why the media doesn't tell us this.
Not only do they not get polled, they are routinely impugned and made fun of and laughed at.
Yes, they're ignored.
And ignored.
Exactly right.
So last night, her phone rang, and she said, who is this?
And they said it again.
And she said, yes, I'll answer your questions.
And it went on for 45 minutes, and it was a political poll.
And not only do I not know anybody in my 63 years who's ever been cold, there it is.
My wife gets cold.
I wanted to yank the phone out of her hand and answer the questions myself, but I was so proud of her.
Well, who was it?
What polling unit was it?
Do you remember?
I don't know that, but they were tied to one of our local Republican senators, George Amador, and they were asking Trump versus Hillary questions and Amador versus his opponent questions.
Okay, so it was a New York.
Well, yeah, okay, that would make sense.
Well, look, the reason that I wanted to take your call and use you as a foil to transition to another story here is I've got this column by Selena Zito.
And the headline, stumped by Trump's success, take a drive outside U.S. cities.
If you don't understand Trump's success, if you're one of these people that doesn't get this, take a drive, leave the city, go outside the city, and drive around and see what you see.
I remember making this point way all last fall in trying to explain to people who Trump's supporters were and what they found exciting about him and what about what he was saying they supported.
Everybody was trying to figure it out last fall.
It didn't make sense to anybody.
In the establishment, in the political circles of New York and Boston and Washington, it didn't make sense because to them, what Trump was saying should have disqualified him.
He should have been disqualified after he made his opening statement after getting off the escalator on June 16th.
And then he should have been disqualified after he said what he said about McCain.
And so all of these experts are pulling their hair out, trying to understand this.
And they're not getting even close.
And I spent all last fall and winter trying to explain it to them.
So this column by Selena Zito, it buttresses exactly, Brad, what you saw.
Let me give you some highlights here.
If you drive anywhere in Pennsylvania from the turnpike to the old U.S. routes to the dirt roads connecting small towns like Hooversville with bigger small towns like Somerset, you might conclude that Donald Trump is ahead in Pennsylvania by double digits.
Large signs, small signs, homemade signs, signs that wrap around barns, signs that go from one end of a fence to another, dot the landscape.
And they dot the landscape with such frequency that if you were playing the old-fashioned road trip game of counting cows, you would hit 100 in just one small town like this one, meaning 100 Trump signs.
In Roughsdale, Pennsylvania, I'm pretty sure I saw more than 100 Trump signs, writes Selena Zito.
She writes for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, by the way.
It's as if people here have not turned on the television to hear pundits drone on and on about how badly Trump is losing in Pennsylvania.
And it's not just visual.
In interview after interview in all corners of the state, I found that Trump support across the ideological spectrum remains strong.
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, people who've not voted in presidential elections for years, and they have not wavered in their support.
Two components of these voters' answers and profiles remain consistent.
They are middle class, and they do not live in a big city.
They are suburban to rural, and they are not poor, an element that I found fascinating until a Gallup survey last week confirmed that what I've gathered in interviews is more than just freakishly anecdotal.
Now, let me pause in this to point something out.
If you do pay attention to the drive-bys, if you watch the news, cable news, I don't care what network, I don't care what you watch or read, what you're going to hear from mainstream media types about Trump supporters is that they are almost all white, they're almost all poor, many of them are unemployed, and they do not have any college education.
That's how Trump supporters are at present characterized.
And that is wrong.
That is not, there may be some in that group that are Trump supporters, but Trump supporters do have college education.
Some of them are highly intelligent, educated.
Some of them are doing quite well financially.
They're not all poor.
They're not all stupid.
In other words, the drive-bys want you to think that Trump's support base is deliverance.
And they're doing this on purpose.
So Selena Zito travels around Pennsylvania and says, this does not dovetail at all.
And she says it's overwhelming.
And keep in mind, these are people who have not voted in presidential elections in years.
And don't forget Robert Costa in the Washington Post telling Charlie Rose how scared he is that these are the people make up the Trump base and they're not polled because they're not likely voters.
They're not registered voters because they haven't shown up to vote in a long time.
And so they're and there's 70% of the population that thinks that the country's headed in the wrong direction and 50% of the population doesn't vote.
And he's speculating that if these people show up in any significant numbers at all, it'll be a shock and total surprise and it'll totally blow the polling out the window.
So Miss Zito here is claiming she's found this, but she's buttressing what she found.
This is anecdotal.
Her report, what she found, all the Trump signs, who the people who put them out are, the supporters of Trump that she spoke to.
Nothing scientific about the way she gathered the information.
It's called anecdotal.
Then she came across a Gallup survey last week that confirmed what she found anecdotally.
And this Gallup survey is incredible.
The Gallup analysis that she came across is based on 87,000 interviews.
Now, it's not a presidential poll because Gallup doesn't do presidential polls anymore because they haven't gotten close enough in recent polls.
So they pulled out.
So they survey other things.
And 87,000 sample, 87,000 interviews over the past year.
And the analysis shows that while economic anxiety and Trump's appeal are intertwined, his supporters, for the most part, do not make less than average Americans.
And they are less likely to be unemployed, meaning the picture the drive-bys are painting of the average Trump supporter is all wrong.
And it's not just what she saw on her trip through Pennsylvania, but the Gallup survey confirms it.
Trump supporters, for the most part, make just as much or more as the average American.
Of course, you have throughout New York and Washington, those salaries are not normal because of the demographics and the makeup of those two cities.
The study from Gallup backs up what many of her interviews across Pennsylvania have found, and that is that these people supporting Trump are more concerned about their children and their grandchildren.
And boy, do I, I don't care who I run into that's a Trump supporter.
In fact, I can add something to that.
No matter who I run into that doesn't like Hillary, not everybody's a Trump supporter that doesn't like Hillary.
A lot of people don't like Hillary.
The people that don't want the Democrats, the people that don't want Hillary, whether they're for Trump or somebody else, are concerned about their children and grandchildren because the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Now, while Trump supporters in Pennsylvania do happen to be overwhelmingly white, their support has little to do with race.
It has more to do with a perceived loss of power.
That's another thing the drive-bys are lying to us about.
They're painting the average Trump supporter as a white, poor, uneducated, racist bigot.
The Gallup survey of 87,000 people doesn't show this at all.
It shows people that are not concerned with race.
They're concerned with power and their loss of it.
And I will explain what that means right after this.
Hey, we're back.
Great to have you.
El Rushball behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Okay, country-class people, as opposed to ruling class.
Selena Zito here in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, when she says that the people that support Trump has nothing to do with race, has a lot to do with the perceived loss of power.
It's not power in the way of Washington or Wall Street, not power in the sense of boardrooms, but power in the sense that these people have and see a diminishing respect for them and their ways of life, their work ethic, and their tendency to not be mobile.
In other words, these people, here's the truth of this, folks.
I think this really gets the nub of it.
30 years ago, people like this determined the country's standards in entertainment, in music, in food, in clothing, in politics, in personal values.
And then the blue laws went to hell, and that opened the floodgates.
And this is not an exaggeration to say that people like Selena Gomez found, these Trump supporters, they determined what the standards were in entertainment.
It was you didn't say or express cuss words on TV because these people wouldn't watch if you did, and they would turn it off.
And they represented the majority of thinking in the country.
Politics, personal values, the whole thing.
They used to be the backbone of America in many regards.
Now, the things they believe in are routinely laughed at.
The things they believe in are made fun of in movies, in books, in television shows.
They are mocked.
They are called racists and bigots.
And it is in this sense that they feel they are losing their power.
It's not so much power as it is respect and dignity.
The places where they live lack economic opportunities for the next generation.
They know that their children or grandchildren will never experience the comfortable situations they had growing up because all that's out the window now.
These Trump supporters are not the kind you find on Twitter saying dumb or racist things.
Many of them don't even have the time or the patience to engage in social media.
They are too busy working.
They're too busy living life in real time.
Call them the silent majority, the silent number, whatever.
And we're going to find out in November just how many of them there are.
We're going to find out in November how many of them show up and vote.
We're going to find out a lot of things in November because I guarantee you these people are not being polled.
They're not being reached.
And in an even greater sense, the people responsible for polling and the editors and producers of major media networks, they're not interested in these people.
These people are passe.
These people are the bitter clingers now.
These people are the old-fashioned fuddy-duddies who modernity has passed by.
And so nobody's interested in their opinions.
Nobody cares what they think of the latest movie.
Nobody cares what they think of music today.
Nobody cares what they think of fashion.
They don't register to vote.
They haven't voted much for a whole bunch of reasons rooted at disenfranchisement.
So they are out there lurking.
And every presidential year comes along and they stay home because it's more the same.
They don't have a political party.
The Tea Party maybe was a vessel for them.
But Trump has come along and has ignited them.
Trump has come along and re-energized them.
And that's who they are.
And they are not the filthy swill and swine on Twitter.
They are not causing disruptions at rallies.
They're not malcontents and protesters starting fights at Hillary events or any of that.
They don't do any of that.
So we'll find out.
These are voters intellectually offended watching Obamacare crumble because they knew six years ago what it was.
They knew it was government overreach.
They never expected it to work.
Nobody listened to them when they told them that it wouldn't.
They're the same people who wonder why Obama hasn't decided to stop playing golf for just a day and go to Louisiana.
So it's a great piece.
We'll link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
And I'm sure it'll be up there.
Coco here.
Well, it's Coco Jr. today, but Coco Jr.'s passed.
So it'll be up probably before I'm even through saying this.
Back into segments.
Okay, here you go, folks.
The head honcho of the European Union, Jean-Claude Junker.
Sure, he doesn't pronounce it that way, but I'm going to.
Says that borders are the worst invention ever.
Head honcho, European Union, Jean-Claude Junker.
▲
Export Selection