All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 27, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
September 27, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, folks.
It's great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh.
Talent on loan from God.
We are here at 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushball at EIBnet.com.
Okay, I want to go to the audio soundbites now, some audio soundbites, and we're going to be getting to your phone calls soon here in this half hour.
So those of you on hold, please stay there.
As always, appreciate your patience.
I want to start with this.
I was really jazzed.
I must admit, I was jazzed last night when Trump, and this was early on in the debate, even the drive-bys are including it.
Trump owned the first 20 to 30 minutes.
And if you're going to own a segment of the debate, it's not bad to own the first 20 or 30 minutes.
I haven't seen anything on ratings yet.
It won't be long before they do.
I mean, the drive-by is expecting a world record of 80 to 100 million people to watch this.
I must be, but the time the first hour was over, I was standing up doing other things.
I was listening with both ears while my eyes were, and I was getting new iPhones and playing around with some stuff on the new iPhones and doing some other things I hadn't been putting off.
I still had it, still had it on, but I wasn't riveted to my seat.
The first 30 minutes I was.
But when I heard Trump say this about presidential experience, Catherine's sitting right next to me, I just put my fist up there and went, yes.
Here's what happened.
Hillary, I just ask you this.
You've been doing this for 30 years.
Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now?
For 30 years, you've been doing it, and now you're just starting to think of solutions.
Well, actually, I will bring back jobs.
You can't bring back jobs.
Well, actually, I have thought about this quite a bit.
Yeah, for 30 years.
Well, a big point of mine has been sent all summer long.
Hillary Clinton's been doing this for 30 years.
And it struck me, you know, she's running for the Democrat nomination and she's running against the last eight years that she was a part of.
I mean, in order for Hillary Clinton to be elected president, she's got to find something wrong with the status quo, which she was part of, and she was, and she was ripping into the economy.
But just like last night, Hillary Clinton's been running on taxing the rich for 30 years, ditto her husband.
Hillary Clinton has been running on Trickle Down didn't work.
We tried that.
We tried that.
Trickle Down was a disaster.
We can't go back.
The Clintons have been saying this for 30 years.
Trickle Down did work.
Trickle Down is what everyday economic activity is anyway.
Reaganomics did work, and it's time that we headed back in that direction where the economy grew because it grew, not because the government was stimulating it in false phony names by just transferring money around.
We don't have any real economic growth now.
We've got real government growth.
And while we've got real government growth, here's Hillary Clinton for 30 years saying trickle down doesn't work.
The rich aren't paying their fair share.
All of this standard operating procedure, blue book playbook stuff.
But the realization that I have 30 years and she's still complaining about the same old things.
30 years and she is still proposing the same old things.
30 years and none of what she has proposed has worked.
And people talk about her experience.
People talk about her brilliance and all this other stuff.
To me, 30-year track record of nothingness.
How in the world can anybody look at her record and say there have been improvements in it?
If she botched healthcare, I could go down the list.
Anyway, I wanted to find out when I first started mentioning this.
So I had cookie to an archival search of the archives of this program.
And don't go back too far.
Just this year.
And the first known reference, May 31st on the show.
She's the smartest woman in the world.
She's the most qualified person to ever run for the presidency.
She's known and adored by Americans for over 25 or 30 years.
How can it be that she's struggling to find her footing?
And next one, July 29th, right here on this program.
To me, it doesn't make any sense.
I don't know what she can possibly be doing.
For this reason, she's been doing it for 30 years, and there's still a lot of suffering out there.
The Democrats tell us every day there's still so much suffering.
There's still so much poverty.
There is still so many obstacles.
What is she doing?
Why isn't there a rosier future?
Why isn't the picture better?
30 years, Mrs. Clinton, has been working for you.
And nothing to show for it but more complaints, more acknowledgement of distress.
Hillary feels your pain.
She knows exactly what you're going through while 30 years of telling you she's going to fix it and nothing's fixed.
Why is that?
So I was cheering last night when Trump brought this up.
I thought, because I think, obviously, since I've said it, I think it's a very persuasive point.
Now, we've got another mention of it all the way back on August 11th.
Now, this whole thing's five minutes.
I'm not going to run the whole five minutes here, me, but I want you to get enough of a flavor of this to understand what I'm really talking about here.
I think Mrs. Clinton disqualifies herself on the very basis of her 30-year record.
30 years, nothing to show for it other than a bunch of accolades about how much she cares, how much hard work she has put into caring.
But seriously, 30 years.
Why do we still need to build roads and bridges?
30 years?
Why do we still need a job summit put together by the White House?
Why, after 30 years, and many of these years run by the Democrats, why haven't these ideas worked?
Why is Mrs. Clinton even needed?
Why aren't we reveling in so much joy and happiness and prosperity?
Why can't she just retire with the legacy of job well done?
Instead, we get a Hillary Clinton after 30 years in government complaining about the things she was complaining about when she was running as first lady, when she was handling bimbo eruptions and when she was handling Hillary care.
Why, after 30 years, is there not a shred of evidence that what she believes and what she has helped to implement worked?
And therefore, why is there such blind support for this woman who cannot point to a track record at any time in her 30 years to say, give me the full boat, give me the full White House, give me all the power, and I'm going to build on what I've done to date?
She can't even say that because there's nothing to build on.
We are in a permanent state of decline, and we're being told to accept it, that that's our new norm.
That our best days are behind us, and we can't hope to recapture them because our best days behind us were actually kind of phony.
Yeah, they were built on a false premise that we were a superpower, but we really weren't.
We were racking up all this debt.
We had to pay the credit card off.
Reagan ran up like crazy.
That's what they told us.
Why, after 30 years, can Hillary Clinton not point to anything in her career and say, remember when I did that?
Well, give me the full boat and let me really make it happen.
She can't do that.
Why?
Why is Hillary Clinton's 30th year in public office sound identical to her first year?
Same complaints, same acknowledgements of problems, same rotten people, same rotten corporations.
Why haven't they been put in jail?
Why haven't these evil corporate guys finally been punished for all of the drugs that they've put on the market that kill people and make people sick?
Why are they still roaming free?
Why is there still global warming?
Why is there still climate change for 30 years?
Hillary Clinton, the Democrats have been warning us and telling us that big corporations and people wasting energy are creating this situation.
We're going to destroy the planet.
Why, after 30 years, have we not turned that corner?
Why are we still at day one?
Why hasn't anything Hillary Clinton proposed that would solve any of these problems actually solved anything?
You realize they were warning us 30 years ago of climate change, destruction of the planet.
Where is all of the progress in saving the planet?
Why, after 30 years, do we have to give her the full boat in order to take the first step towards solving these problems?
I think the full public record of Hillary Clinton itself disqualifies her.
Her public resume is one of failure.
Now, she cares.
I don't know how much she cares.
They say she cares a lot, cares about kids, loves kids, done more for kids than anybody in America.
Show me the evidence and show me where caring accomplishes anything.
I care about a lot of things.
Doesn't get them done.
So why isn't her 30-year track record, her 30-year resume, why isn't it seen for what it is?
Abject failure.
Lack of any appreciable accomplishment in the areas of her agenda that she promotes and has been promoting.
Why has the only thing that's really changed in the last 30 years of Hillary Clinton being in public life, that she and her husband are now worth $300 million?
They've done pretty well.
Nobody else has that they've been trying to help or caring about.
How is it that's the single greatest thing of note about Bill and Hillary Clinton is their personal wealth accumulation in their 30 years in public life earning government salaries.
If you ask me, her political life is the greatest disqualifier of her candidacy that anybody could come up with.
Well, I said I wasn't going to play the whole thing, but I decided I would.
It sounded so good.
I said, why stop this?
Because that spells it out, folks.
That is it in total.
What I mean and have meant by 30 years, and what is there to show for it other than her wealth.
Anyway, I was happy to see Trump use it.
I think it's something he should keep using.
I think it's a winning premise, and it's just waiting to be developed out there.
Now, one other bite before we go to the break, and then we'll come back and get in on your calls.
I've got a bunch of stories in the stack that are the same thing as this soundbite.
This is ABC News.
Good morning, America.
Amy Roebuck is the news info baby, Anchorette.
And she spoke with a group of undecided voters about last night's debate.
And during the segment, Amy Roebuck and an unidentified voter had this little exchange.
We've got our group of undecided voters here behind me, so let's see a show of hands.
How many of you made up your minds who you're going to vote for based on last night's debate?
One, two, that's it.
I have to ask.
What's it going to take to decide?
Less celebrity, less Kardashian out of Trump, and less Bernie, less liberalism out of Hillary.
What she was amazed at is the debate didn't change anybody's minds.
Remember now, the drive-bys are looking at this as Hillary hitting a grand slam.
She took Trump out last night.
They're hoping largely, and many of them think it actually happened.
It may take some time to show, but she just, she demonstrated it.
She is so good at this.
And he's a rank amateur and so forth.
And they think that he just embarrassed himself.
And I've got a couple stories in the stack, focus groups that thought Trump won.
There are only, there's only one snap poll that shows Hillary won.
All of the other snap polls, internet polls, professional, whatever, every one of them have to debate last night.
Trump the victor.
Big time.
Only CNN's poll shows Hillary a big winner.
And the drive-bys can't figure it out.
They can't.
And Amy Roebuck here was stunned that only two people changed their mind last night in their focus group at ABC.
I'm telling you, the disconnect is big, and the gap of understanding between the people in Washington in the news media, the New York, Boston, Washington corridor, and the rest of the country, that gap is widening.
And I'll have a quick time out here.
We'll get back and get started with your calls and your thoughts on all this.
Okay, we'll start on the phones in Glastonbury, Connecticut.
Mike, welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Great to talk to you again.
Megan Dittos from Hillary's Basket of Deplorables.
Thank you, sir.
I'm just calling to touch on the point you made earlier about when the drive-bys see Trump on the defensive, we see him attacking.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, I agree with that, but I also think we feel like we're being directly attacked by Hillary when she goes low at Trump.
You know, when she makes snarky remarks like Donald Trump lives in his own reality and flat out calling him racist, or how about that phony smile she was putting on all night?
Well, that's a good.
Look at, no, no, that is an excellent point, by the way.
And I think this is worth making as well.
Hillary is not attacking Trump alone.
When she goes after Trump in these deplorable ways, she is by definition attacking everybody that supports Trump, and that's millions of people.
Look, her negatives and her unpopularity and her dislikability numbers are sky high.
This woman is not adored universally or otherwise.
She is highly suspected.
And she is not respected in any way, shape, man, or form.
And so these insults that she throws out are directed at Trump supporters.
Now, there's a way if she wanted to attack Trump and exempt his supporters, she could do that.
But she doesn't because she means to.
She's already said that half of Trump supporters go in a basket of deplorables, and the other half of Trump supporters just too stupid to know any better.
The government has left them behind the government, this, but they're just too stupid to know how much the government's actually trying to help them and so forth.
I mean, what she said, I think, is much, much more condescending and insulting than anything Romney said with that 47% remark of his.
But it's for this reason.
And again, I'm going to make this point because I think it's crucial to understand.
One of the first early themes of the post-debate analysis last night was, my God, did you see how Trump was on defensive the whole time?
Oh, my God, did you see what Hillary did?
Hillary turned the tables totally.
Hillary was offense and Trump, the big braggart and the ogre when Trump was on defense.
And Trump's supporters see Trump attacking when others see him on defense.
He may be attacking from a defensive position, but he's attacking.
He doesn't just roll over like Republicans have tended to do for many of the recent past years.
He fights back, chews back, claws back, what have you, defending himself, his supporters, or what have you.
And there's a whole slew of Republican voters who haven't had anybody fight back for themselves or their voters in a long time.
So it's not the negative that drive-bys think it is.
It is interesting to watch them analyze this stuff.
Yeah, Trump lost a point here when he did.
That's not how people watch this.
What do you mean Trump lost a point?
Well, did Trump lose a supporter because he didn't mention something that was a hanging curveball that Hillary sent him?
It's not the way people score and watch these things.
Anyway, I appreciate the call, Mike, very much.
It's Kevin in St. Louis.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
I thought Donald Trump did great last night, considering that he's never had a one-on-one debate like that before.
You know, he defended himself.
He answered the questions.
He had thoughtful answers on solutions he was going to give.
And I really thought he did great.
Versus Hillary, who has a political lifetime of experience at this?
Yeah, I mean, she's an actress, basically.
She does these rehearsals, memorizes what she's going to say, and she doesn't have any solutions.
Well, no, that's the point of my 30-year note.
What solutions?
All she's got is the same list of complaints and problems for 30 years.
But it's interesting.
You want to cut Trump some slack and maybe give him some credit because here he entered a business that he has no experience in.
He did something for the first time last night that nobody's done in a long time and held his own, and you think that's a big deal.
It is a big deal.
And now he's got a flavor for what to do next time, and they'll just be even better, I think.
Well, that's interesting, too.
See, I guarantee you the drive-bys are not going to see that.
There may be some Fox people that might see that and praise that.
But I guess that's a good observation, too, to characterize how Trump supporters saw this last night.
I appreciate that, Kevin.
We.
Coming right back.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
L. Rushbowie, your guiding light.
Here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the phone number, 800-282-2882.
Rick in Cedarville, Michigan.
You're next.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Time listener since the first Gulf War.
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Ben, I appreciate you.
I really did feel that Donald Trump was playing robo-dope with Hillary.
I thought he came out strong.
And really, he doesn't want to peak too early.
He's got a couple more debates to go.
And I saw during that debate that she was starting to lead with her chin.
I started yelling at the TV saying, come on, get her.
And he wasn't taking it.
But I really think that she's going to offer it up again, and he's going to get stronger as things go on.
Well, you know, it's interesting.
I don't know that Trump was playing Ropa Dope, but I do think the second half of what you said is true.
I do think now that what has transpired here is that Hillary and her supporters out there on the left are getting all cocky now.
You got to understand, they were in panic mode leading up to the debate.
Hillary had, depending on where you looked, a nine or 12-point lead coming out of her convention.
It was going so great that she pulled out of Colorado.
Well, now Colorado's back in play and she has pulled out of Ohio.
She suspended her advertisement in Ohio.
So they were in panic city.
And of course, Hillary had the medical incidents, the seizure, the near collapse, the coughing spasms, which could erupt at any time in the future.
So that last night they think, because they'll listen to the drive-bys, it's an incestuous group of people, and she'll listen to what they say.
And they're going to conclude that, okay, we're back to normal.
This guy can't keep up with me.
This guy's a pretender.
This guy, we won this thing going away.
I don't think Trump was playing Ropa Dope.
I'll tell you what I think.
I just, when we were told that Trump didn't rehearse, he didn't rehearse.
I really don't think he did.
I don't think he does.
I don't think it's not who he is.
I don't think they sat him down, and I don't think they put him in this format.
I don't think they rehearsed or replicated anything.
He probably said, look, I've done these.
How many debates do we do in the primaries?
I know what's happening.
So there may be some Trump supporters unhappy that he wasn't a little bit quicker off the draw with what they think are hanging curveballs that could have been just knocked out of the ballpark.
But there are two more debates.
You know, remember the first debate between Romney and Obama?
Let's revisit this for a second because it's interesting to note the way the drive-bys played it.
The first Romney-Obama debate, there was real concern after that debate that Obama didn't show up.
I mean, he was there, but he was detached.
He didn't look interested in what was going on.
Romney was smoking him, and the drive-bys were all in a Twitter and in a panic after that first debate between Romney and Obama four years ago.
But instead of reflecting that, you know what the drive-bys said?
They said, you know what?
Maybe Obama is smarter than the rest of us.
And maybe Obama just decided to look like he's not taking it seriously because who is this Romney guy anyway?
This Romney guy doesn't deserve to be up here with me.
Why should I waste any time preparing?
So they gave Obama the excuse that he was smarter than anybody.
And he was conveying by his detachment and his lackadaisical attitude, his lack of interest, that he didn't even think Romney had any business being.
And he, Obama, he, it was beneath him to even do that.
And then after that, they started talking about how Obama was also brilliant because he came off as authentic.
He wasn't overprepared.
He wasn't prepared at all.
He wasn't scripted.
He just did.
And they found every which way they could to praise Obama.
And if you remember, folks, that first debate, it was bad.
Because if you remember, you were a Romney supporter.
Remember how up you were after that debate.
And then remember in the next two debates, when Benghazi came up and a couple of, and Romney didn't touch them, remember how mad you got?
You didn't think Romney didn't know it.
You didn't think Romney was unprepared.
You just figured, why the hell isn't he going there?
And people concluded that Romney thought he did so well in the first debate that the strategy then became to play it safe in the next two, to basically go into what they call a football prevent defense.
Go ahead and let the other team gain whatever ground they want, but don't give up a score.
And that's what they thought Romney was doing, and they got mad because he wasn't taking it seriously and go in for the kill.
Now we have somewhat of a reversal of that.
And the drive-bys are not saying of Trump what they said of Obama.
They're not finding ways to praise Trump.
They're not finding ways to find anything positive about Trump.
We knew this is a rig game.
We knew that the referee is on the side of the Democrats because the referee, whoever the referee is, is a Democrat first and a so-called journalist second.
I mean, we know that Lester Holt, he did not challenge Hillary once last night.
He did challenge Trump six or seven times, got into argument.
The Iraq war, did I not tell you yesterday, too, on this, that the Iraq war is one of the most important biggest deals to these Democrats.
And I'm sitting there watching this last night.
Can I share this with you?
I'm watching Hillary go after Trump by accusing him of supporting the Iraq war, and he didn't.
Now, as an aside, I thought Trump went just he got way too much time saying, go talk to, go talk to Neil Cavuto, go talk to Sean Hannity.
Nobody called Hannity.
Nobody, he got, that's when I think he really was on the defensive and not attacking, and he just wouldn't drop it.
But see, even in that circumstance, knowing Trump as I do, he is a winner.
He thinks of himself as a winner, and if somebody's going to lie about him, he is going to hit back until he thinks he's fixed it.
He's not going to put up with it.
And that's what he was doing last night.
She was lying about him.
He didn't support the Iraq war.
But anyway, the real point was, I'm watching this thing and I'm looking at the TV, my mouth wide open.
I said, what is this about?
You voted for it, Mrs. Clinton.
Trump wasn't even in public life back in 2002, 2003.
There was nothing Trump could have done one way or the other, no matter what he thought about it.
You voted for it.
I don't know why Trump didn't say.
I think he was too busy focusing on himself.
He's got to find a way to take a little bit less of this personally.
But regardless, she voted for it.
That's the main reason that she had an opponent in the primaries.
The two reasons that Bernie Sanders gave her fits was the Iraq War and her association with Wall Street.
Wall Street owns Hillary Clinton.
Wall Street has bought Hillary Clinton and whatever policy consideration she can give them if she gets elected.
They have bought her already.
That's what all the speech income is really all about.
And she sits up there running against Wall Street as though she's trying to convince her supporters that the big banks, they're evil and she knows it.
Then she went on what caused the economic collapse 2008.
It was the subprime mortgage crisis.
Trump didn't mention that.
I mean, there were, like I say, two or three examples where he just had a, if you don't like hanging curveball, he had a giant softball.
He could have swat a beach ball throwing in his way.
He could have swatted out of there.
But that was then.
And this is now.
But I just, I know what these people are going to do and how they're going to do it.
And Trump ought to too.
He ought to know Lester's going to be biased.
He ought to know Lester's going to argue with him, whoever the debate, the moderator is next time.
With possible exception of Chris Wallace, who's going to moderate one of these things.
But other than that, it's going to be what we got last night.
Anyway, there's two more of these things.
And as was demonstrated back in 2012, Obama was thought to be in big trouble after that first debate.
And he wasn't, was he?
That first debate didn't end up hurting Barack Obama at all, did it?
I know he had incumbency on his side, but still, he was horrible that first debate.
It didn't matter because there were two more.
And there are two more here.
Same story.
Back with more after this.
All right, let me make a couple of more observations.
I want to go back to our first caller who mentioned Hillary's condescending smirk and smile and her attitude.
Folks, this is potentially huge.
And the drive-bys are going to miss it entirely because they don't look at things like this.
They measure these debates by what people say.
That is how they score all of this.
And they miss the old creed.
People rarely remember what you tell them, but they never forget how they make you feel.
Hillary Clinton does not and did not last night inspire feel-good.
She doesn't have it in her.
She was condescending.
She was rolling her eyes at times.
She was clearly insulting Trump by looking like she thought he was an idiot.
People notice this stuff like Al Gore sighing throughout the first debate he had with George W. Bush.
And every drive-by inside the Beltway establishment member is going to miss all of this because they judge these debates on words.
Rhetoric.
Who has scored the most points?
Who got in the best zingers?
Who's by tonight?
Nobody's going to remember what anybody said specifically.
They're not going to remember any zingers.
There weren't any good zingers.
There was nothing memorable last night in terms of what was said, but there was everything memorable about how people were made to feel.
Attitude and personality is measured by demeanor and appearance.
And I'm just telling you with that grating smirk, Hillary clearly communicated her arrogance, her hubris.
Even Colden Powell talked about her hubris.
Her contempt and her viciousness.
On the other hand, let's look at Trump and Trump's body language.
I saw Karl Roff today say that early on Trump was, his hand gestures were fine.
His fists were not closed and all that.
Then later when he started pointing, he started pointing at her.
And that's off-putting.
He didn't say this, but it's close to like Rick Lazio crossing the stage and asking Hillary to sign a piece of paper.
It was a little bit.
But for the most part, Trump stayed within his boundaries.
He stayed in control.
He appeared unflustered.
He might have gotten defensive and mad about some stuff, but he was not flustered.
He had a reassuring presence and a confidence.
He had a nonverbal communication that has been Trump's major strength from the get-go.
Alpha male.
Would you not agree with this, as Mr. Sturdley recognized alpha males easily is one.
So I don't know.
I'm going to take a wild guess here that the post-debate polling is going to surprise people.
And let me see here.
Right here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, UK Daily Mail, majority of snap polls right after the debate show Trump won by a landslide despite CNN's overwhelming victory for Hillary.
We had a CNN poll.
We had a CBS poll.
Time magazine poll.
Cincinnati WCPO, San Diego Tribune, Slate Magazine, Las Vegas Sun, Variety, NewJersey.com, Michigan Life, Fortune, CNBC, Breitbart.
In every one of those, Trump wins from 51 to 76%.
Hillary's top number is 49%.
Her low is 19.
Las Vegas Son, Trump, 81, Clinton, 19.
Only in the CNN poll did Hillary win 62 to Trump's 27.
In the drudge poll, it was 81.5% for Trump and 18.5% for Clinton.
And a McClatchy news service story.
Presidential debate surprise as Clinton wins polls but loses votes in swing state.
Kay Roberts and Jay Erdley were leaning toward Hillary Clinton before Monday night's debate, but by the end, they had both pulled away from her.
John Kocos and Hank Federer were undecided going in, potential Clinton bankers, but at the end, they'd ruled her out.
Indeed, while some polls said that Clinton won the first general election debate with Trump Monday night, she may not have won actual votes.
She may have even lost some, at least in the battleground state of North Carolina.
That's where this story was about these four people that wanted to vote Hillary after the debate.
They backed out.
And then Selena Zito, again, writing for the New York Post, how Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats in Pennsylvania.
And here is Ken Reed.
Ken Reed, just the guy at the bar in Youngstown, Pennsylvania, watching the debate, quoted as saying, that Clinton came across as either smug or as though she was reading her resume, adding there was nothing on her resume that reached his life.
He says, I'm a small businessman, a farmer.
I come from a long line of farmers and coal miners.
The policies she talked about tonight ultimately either hurt me or ignore me.
Yeah, that's the whole point of my 30-year comment.
Another pull quote from this story.
Democrats here are more traditional in their values.
They are pro-gun, pro-life, pro-coal.
Something today's Democrat party has left no room for.
Selena Zito works in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
She has been basically studying and analyzing the state of Pennsylvania outside the cities.
And she has written frequently here of how Pennsylvania outside the cities is pulling for Trump in a surprising way.
And another story here.
So we'll see.
And again, here's this guy.
Clinton came across smug, reading her resume.
It's robotic.
Drive-bys don't see any of that.
They see Queen Hillary.
They score these things and judge these things in ways that you do not.
It is the fastest three hours in media.
And we still have, I've got some audio soundbites I want you to hear.
And I, of course, am not through with my analytical commentary and opinions.
My fact-checking, as it were.
So, hang in her beat tough, sit tight.
▲
Export Selection