All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 3, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:56
October 3, 2016, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here back for another week.
As we slog through the muck.
That is the Democrat and media complex soiling another campaign for the presidency.
It's a repeat.
They did the same type of stuff to Mitt Romney.
Romney didn't know how to fight back, didn't fight back much.
We'll see.
We'll see how Trump deals with this and his uh and his surrogates out there.
Greetings, great to have you.
Rushlin bought 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, illrushmore at EIBNet.com.
So we have.
I'm sorry, did I say dot com?
It's that US.
I keep, you know, it's after what is it, 20 years of habit.
Sorry, dot com won't get you anywhere anymore.
It's L Rushbow at EIB net.us.
That's our new email address.
And I do check those uh during commercial breaks.
So that I'm sorry.
I probably make that mistake more often than the new cur.
The chef had to tell you about it.
You're sitting there listening to me every day and it goes my, you don't the chef told you about it?
The chef had to remind you that I'm screwing this up.
The chef who's not even here?
Ho, we guys work for the Trump campaign and on the side or what here.
I'm just kidding.
I'm just kidding.
Great to have you folks again.
Here we go.
800-282-2882 and the email lrushbo at EIB net.us.com won't get you anywhere.
We've had to change the domain and and uh shut that down.
Who's all betting on what I'm gonna start with?
What do you okay?
Now they're telling me out of the glass that they're betting in there on what I'm gonna start with.
What else is there?
What what are the possibilities?
What are you betting on in there?
Are you kidding me?
You think I would actually open with Kardashian?
Which you've now forced me to do.
You actually think that I would mention the robbery in Paris leading off the program.
What's the other one?
The Clinton Love Child.
So far that's a drudge exclusive.
The Clinton.
Oh, has the Daily Mail picked it up?
Okay, okay.
So but nowhere else.
I mean, they're avoiding that story like the plague.
Yeah, if you don't know.
Well, that's the natural starting point is Trump's taxes.
But my I have some questions about this.
Before we get started with the with the details, the illegal publishing of Donald Trump's tax return encapsulates and validates the reasons why an outsider absolutely must be elected president, if you ask me.
This is an act of illegality.
Donald Trump has followed the law.
Nobody in this is even alleging he broke the law.
He certainly hasn't been accused of it by the IRS or anybody else.
This is we're talking about 1995.
Donald Trump has followed the law.
The media broke the law.
The New York Times breaks the law.
Do you realize how much lawlessness is dominating the events every day in our country from illegal immigration to the Clintons illegal pay and play for their foundation to the Clintons illegal accepting payoffs and front money in advance of her being elected president and while she was Secretary of State?
Do you realize all the law breaking, the real illegality that we are dealing with every day, the breakdown of the rule of law.
And that's not the story.
Donald Trump has followed the law, the media has broken the law, and the illegal publishing of Trump's tax return, I think again, illustrates, validates, if you will, the reasons why an Outsider absolutely must be elected president.
The media may have worked with the IRS to break the law.
We already know the IRS breaks the law.
We know the IRS broke the law in denying tax exempt status to a number of conservative fundraiser organizations.
We know that Mrs. Clinton is routinely violating the law as Secretary of State with her email server.
And the lying that the FBI director documented that she engaged, not in her interview, but that she's lied to congressional committees, she has lied to the American people.
Mrs. Clinton will not release the transcripts of the speeches that she has given to banks, and I think we know why now.
When she goes out and speaks to Bernie Sanders supporters, she tells them that they're all wet.
She tells them that their hopes and dreams are unrealistic.
We weren't supposed to learn about that.
We weren't supposed to learn about the fact that she believes half of Trump's voters could be put in a basket of deplorables.
It's no wonder Mrs. Clinton doesn't go out and do what Trump is doing right now or was earlier.
He was having a sit-down with a bunch of uh military people, a bunch of veterans in an organization in Washington after having given a speech.
He'll talk to anybody who wants to talk to him any time, any day, about anything.
Mrs. Clinton can't afford to because they have to really ride herd on making sure she doesn't say things in public like she says in private, which slowly and surely are leaking out.
But the the breakdown of the rule of law, the abject lawlessness that is determining the future, determining the direction our country is traveling, and going.
It's time it stopped.
I mean, even the editor of the New York Times is Dean Biquette guy said he would gladly go to jail if somebody sent him the Trump tax returns and he published them illegally.
It's illegal for the IRS to share that information with anybody.
It's illegal for the Times to publish, but nobody's talking about that.
Listen to this.
This is Glenn Thrush writing at the Politico in a story headlined the week that'll decide the election, five things to watch in a week that'll likely pick a president.
You want the opening paragraph of the story?
Here you go.
Sit down.
If there's one thing we've learned about the 2016 electorate, that's you.
If there is one thing we've learned about the people voting for the president in this country this year, it is this.
The Republicans could have nominated a mile-high mound of flaming medical waste, and between 38 and 43 percent of the American electorate would have voted for it over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Now, you might think it's a clever line.
I might think it's a clever line, but what it is is an attempt to dismiss and denigrate Trump by essentially saying that the opposition to Hillary is out there because anywhere from 38 to 43 percent of the American people are a bunch of bigots.
38 to 43 percent of the American people are a bunch of closed-minded whatever's.
deplorables, bitter clingers, what have you.
Because they would vote against Hillary Clinton no matter what.
Republicans could have nominated a mile-high mound of flaming medical waste.
So that is, and they're all over the place, folks.
That's just the latest indication of how you are thought of by the Democrat Party, by its willing accomplices in the drive-by media and the Washington establishment in general.
Just eye-opening.
Just it's all there for you to soak in and accept it.
Democrats build files to track Trump stain.
That's uh another political story with yet another reference to a mile high mound of waste.
Democrats aim to hang Trump around Republican necks for years.
Washington Post, a president Trump could deport freely.
This is a story designed to scare leftists, liberals, and pro illegal immigrant forces by suggesting that Trump literally could deport anybody he wanted any time and probably would.
An opinion piece, an op ed in the Washington Post, the most shocking part of Donald Trump's tax records isn't the $916 million loss everybody's talking about.
It's the illegal publishing of them.
The time.
The post doesn't say that, by the way.
That's that's really what is the most shocking part.
But it's not going to be the most shocking part to most people.
This same thing was done to Richard Nixon by Adam Klymer, then at the Baltimore Sun.
Nixon's tax returns were illegally leaked.
You don't know that story?
I will remind you of that story as it comes up in the stack of stuff.
I've put everything here in the in as much of a consequential or date timeline order as I can.
So we have just to establish the illegal publishing of Trump's tax return.
To me, it demonstrates why an outsider absolutely must be elected president.
What if it's your tax return?
You might be, so what Russia's Trump, you're running for president, you got expected most people release their tax return.
Yeah.
He's chosen not to.
There's no law says he has to.
Democrats seeking any evidence they can, seeking any advantage they can, because they don't trust Hillary to win this on her own, obviously.
So they willingly engage in illegality to do it.
And now they're being praised and high-fived, of course, by other media outlets and organizations for doing so.
But it's just a quintessential example of the corruption.
Corruption at the highest levels of our government and the media complex that we have to put up with and deal with every day.
Trump followed the laws.
The media broke the laws.
The media may have worked with the IRS to break the law.
The IRS and the media appear to have conspired to help a Democrat who herself is the most corrupt person to ever run for president.
She's not the best.
She's not the most qualified.
She is the most corrupt person to ever run.
But you know, and I know that President Obama and the Department of Justice will do nothing to hold anybody responsible or accountable.
There's a scandal here.
Everybody thinks there's a scandal.
The scandal has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
What do you mean, Rush?
He reported a loss of 916.
Yeah, nothing illegal about it.
Hillary used the same tactic.
The New York Times used the same provision in the tax law.
That's correct.
The New York Times and Hillary Clinton have both used the same provision.
Losses in one year carry over and count against whatever gains or income you show in succeeding years.
The scandal here has nothing to do with Trump, but that's not how it's going to be seen, obviously.
It's going to be seen because it is being reported as a Trump scandal.
He won't release his tax returns, and now we find out he declared this 916 million dollar loss.
Oh my God, this has got to be a scandal.
Just because you can't think in those numbers, just because people can't relate to losing 916 million dollars, does not mean that there is a scandal.
The scandal involves the IRS.
The scandal involves the New York Times and the rest of the media.
The scandal involves perhaps Hillary Clinton.
So we are up against crony justice, crony journalism, the illegal use of the IRS to punish enemies of Democrats, when to this day it is thought the only person that ever thought or tried to do that was Richard Nixon.
And he never did it.
He wanted to, but he never did it.
In fact, he ended up being victimized.
And I hear people say, well, why I guess this is it, the October surprise, Roche.
No, this is not an October surprise.
This is standard operating procedure.
When the Democrats in the White House, the standard operating procedure, when the Democrats and the establishment are running the show, corruption is on the ballot.
Not scandal, not conservatism, not what we wish, corruption is on the ballot, and it's all found under that capital D on your ballot.
Okay, so Trump's business lost some money.
We concede Trump's business lost some money.
Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, lost four people in Benghazi, including the ambassador.
Hillary Clinton loses people.
Trump lost some money, his own, by the way, not yours.
Hillary Clinton also lost some 30,000 incriminating emails.
Imagine if there was a carryover, a carryover write-off for dead ambassadors and colleagues, for broken laws and destroyed evidence.
The Clinton family wouldn't pay taxes for the next five generations if you could carry that stuff over.
But the real the real grating thing to me here is that losing lives, Benghazi, losing and destroying evidence, the email scandal, and who knows what other corruption exists with the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, these end up being resume enhancers for Democrats.
Whatever it takes to beat us, that is the unifying principle that keeps the left together, beating us.
We do not have such a unifying principle as evidenced by the split support for Trump.
We on our side simply cannot and do not unify to beat Democrats, to beat liberals.
They, on the left, unify.
They'll forget any grudge they've got amongst themselves.
They will unify to defeat us.
We are the number one enemy day in and day out, anywhere in the world they face, and they treat us accordingly.
We do not.
We're too busy trying to show them that we're not what they think of us.
So it's a pointless exercise.
The media, Barack Obama say Hillary's the most prepared person ever to be president.
Of what?
A mafia family?
What is she qualified to be president of?
Do you remember the emails from East Anglia, University of East Anglia, which was the first solid indication that we all got, confirming our suspicions that this man-made global warming story is a hoax.
The New York Times refused to publish those emails.
You remember?
The New York Times refused to publish those emails because they were acquired by virtue of a hack, which the Times said made them acquired illegally, which the Times said prevented them from telling the story of the climate change hoax.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Now what they are trying to do with the comments of Mayor Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, who commented on Trump and his tax returns and the carryover loss of 916 million dollars.
This too is classic.
I folks, I have no feel for something.
You and I know, and the places, a lot of places that we spend time and read and consult.
There is a consensus, a huge consensus that the media has reached a new low.
I mean, even some members of our establishment, even some in the Republican establishment, in the conservative media who are standoffish to the media because they consider themselves to be part of it and friends with other members are commenting on how the media today has reached a new low, literally the bottom of the barrel, literally so low that when they look up, they see the gutter.
That, and it's countless professional people who are saying they have never ever, everybody's known the media's biased.
Everybody's known the media is a bunch of leftists, but never before are saying have they seen the media so publicly throw away every pretense of journalism in public with smiles on their faces and with pride,
just abandon all concepts of journalism, integrity, fairness, objectivity to throw in with the Democrat candidate.
They've never seen it like this before.
It still remains to be seen, however, dot dot dot.
Not only, ladies and gentlemen, did the New York Times not publish the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia, it's in the UK.
If you're new to the program, those emails were emails between scientists and researchers.
And the emails clearly demonstrated how they were faking data.
Doctoring data, when they produced data that damaged their premise that man was causing climate change, they discussed how to alter the data, either in the historical record or current results, so as not to disrupt their premise that humanity and the advancement of life is causing climate change.
Somebody at East Anglia got fed up and sick and tired of reading about all this because they knew what was going on.
They knew of the fakery, they knew of the fraud.
They knew that this consensus of scientists, there's no such thing as a consensus in science, anyway.
So they hacked the emails at East Anglia to prove, and there were scientists in the United States that were caught up in this.
Anyway, the New York Times refused to publish any of them on the premise that they were illegally acquired via a hack, and that means we can't touch them.
We can't publish them, they're illegal.
Instead, do you know what the New York Times did?
The New York Times and the Washington Post began an investigative project to learn the identity of the hacker.
The New York Times and the Washington Post wanted to track down the hacker who hacked the emails at the University of East Anglia so that he could be held up to public ridicule.
They wanted to accuse him of lying.
They wanted to accuse him of making it up.
They could never find the guy.
But that's what they tried to do.
Now imagine if things were similar here.
The New York Times being presented with the three pages from the Trump tax return of 1995.
If they were engaging in the principles, high principles, time honored principles, journalism, which nobody believes anymore, then they would begin an investigation into who sent those pages to them.
They would want to find out who put them in a manila envelope and mailed them to one of their reporters.
And they wouldn't stop until they found out who it was so that they can hold them up for public ridicule.
Except, of course, that's not what happening.
What's happening is the Times wants more.
Now, as I was saying before the break, folks, we have a bifurcated society.
We have varying degrees of our population being informed.
Some are rank amateur idiots.
Some are oblivious.
Others are greatly up to speed on things.
We don't know the numbers.
We do know that for the first time in our lives, there's practically a unison of agreement on our side of the aisle, even among establishment media types that are Republican and conservative generally don't attack the drive-by media because they don't want to be ridiculed by them.
They want to be considered Part of the club.
They're going after them too.
There is an overwhelming acknowledgement now that never has the media so publicly abandoned what its job is.
It isn't media anymore.
It is literally a Democrat Party campaign organization.
Now the question is I know where media ranks in these surveys we get of American people explaining and uh ascertaining how much of each industry they respect.
And we know that in all of these surveys, the media ranks near the bottom when people express their support for or their disgust with or their respect for an institution.
The media is at the bottom.
Okay, fine.
You have the Trump story here.
How many of you really think that our take on this is going to be the majority take?
Versus how many of you believe, despite most people thinking the media is at the bottom of the barrel in respectability, how many of you think the majority of people are going to believe it?
Are going to think Trump has somehow engaged in a scandal here, are not going to know or not going to accept what the New York Times has done and how illegal this is.
How many of them do you think will say it may be illegal, but I'm not looking past it?
Because look at Trump, look at all the money he lost.
I can't ignore that.
Yeah, but there isn't a crime there.
Doesn't matter.
My my question just despite how many people say they don't respect the media, and despite how many people realize the media is as biased and committed to the Democrats as ever.
How many people will choose to ignore them?
That's what we don't know.
But that's that also is the big factor in this campaign because Trump is not of Washington.
He's not of the establishment.
And he has attracted interest precisely because of that.
And so what are the odds that a larger number of voters than ever before will realize what's going on here and not fall for this?
Because the people that support Trump already know and already despise what the Washington establishment and the media complex has become.
This is the kind of thing that the Democrats do on every Republican candidate.
Four years ago, it was Harry Reid saying he had a friend who told him that Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes.
He had no proof, he had no evidence, and the media didn't care.
They simply reported it as Harry Lee, Harry Reid alleges.
And then they went off and asked Romney about it.
And it ended up hurting Romney.
There's no question in my mind it did.
As did the idea that Romney didn't care about animals because the dog on the roof of the station wagon during the family vacation.
They succeeded in destroying Mitt Romney despite every allegation they made being untrue.
And they are repeating the process now with Trump.
How many people are going to believe it now?
Will Trump lose any support because of this?
I don't think that's going to happen because I think people supporting Trump in large measure are doing so because they've reached their maximum disgust level with stuff like this.
Their sophistication is such that they are not going to abandon a candidate under attack like this.
They're not going to let this work, but as always, we don't know how many of them there are.
This Nigel Farage from Great Britain, again that ran the Brexit effort, is uh is claiming that American polling is going to duplicate British poll.
The British polling did not find all the opposition to the UK Staying in the European Union.
The media in the UK thought that the vote was going to resoundingly be to stay in the European Union.
And on the day of the election, they were shocked and blown away when a majority of people voting wanted to get out of it.
The Brexit vote won.
And Nigel Farage is saying the same circumstance exists here, and the same result is going to happen.
I don't know how he knows.
Well, he doesn't know, it's just his opinion.
All I know is I'm sick and tired of this kind of phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and roller, obvious character recession, and they didn't work.
I'm tired of it working.
I'm sick and tired of it working.
I'm sick and tired of the corruption winning.
I'm sick and tired of the fraudsters getting away with it because not enough of the American people know enough or care enough to react to it in the right way.
Or for whatever reason.
Because this corruption is destroying every institution and every tradition that has defined this nation and its greatness.
And it sets out to destroy anybody who wants to maintain those traditions and institutions or strengthen them.
And I'm like you, I'm fed up with these people prevailing.
But this is what the left has wrought.
Now, about this tax return business, I think, again, a little perspective might be helpful here.
What is this tradition of candidates releasing their tax returns anyway?
I mean, when, when did that start, or what is its purpose?
Well, its purpose is to tell a lie.
Its purpose is to show that candidates are no different than you and me.
Its purpose is to show that candidates are honest, that candidates pay their taxes, that uh candidates this or bad, but it's it's all a show.
It's all puzz and PR and spin and so forth.
It's also the kind of thing that only benefits long-serving politicians.
I maintain to you that if you are in politics, you are going to structure your finances in such a way that your tax return looks a certain way.
I submit to you that if you are a lifetime or longtime member in politics, you're going to do everything in your life to pass muster if it's exposed to the public, including your tax return, which in politics it is because the tradition is that candidates release them.
With all these politicians running for president, you look at people the Clintons, Obama, uh John Kerry who served in Vietnam, McCain, Biden, Dole Bush, all these people, lifelong politicians structure their financial lives in such a way that when it's presented on a tax return, doesn't look curious, different, strange.
In other words, they have people, advisors, accountants, whatever, who build their financial lives on the basis that this is what you need to be able to release to get elected and not have it hurt you.
Well, Donald Trump has never structured his life that way.
He has never structured his tax return, he's never structured his income expense report.
He's never structured the way he manages his finances as though he was going to be a candidate someday.
In other words, he's been real.
With all of these politicians running for president, what we find out is that their primary source of income is the salaries paid to them by taxpayers.
We find that's their primary source of income, which is 150,000 a year, 165,000 a year, that's their prime.
Now, Romney, of course, not part of this because he was independently wealthy before he became a candidate, but that's my point.
If you don't have a tax return that looks like the standard ordinary everyday politician with an income based on your congressional or Senate or whatever salary, then there are immediate red flags that are immediately held against you.
And I might add the Clintons, despite only being paid whatever 400 grand for president, Zilch for First Lady, 170,000 when she was Senate, whatever secretary is, despite earning literally meager amounts of money, they somehow have 300 million dollars now.
Now we know how.
And nobody looks askance at that.
Nobody thinks that's odd.
Nobody thinks there's something you can Trump with a loss of 916 million.
People think, my God, oh my God, oh my God, scandal scandal.
Why is there no scandal with Hillary Clinton earning 22 million dollars in two years, doing 20 minute speeches, primarily to banks, the transcripts for which she will not release.
Why is that not the scandal?
Why is there no scandal associated with the entire Clinton crime family foundation?
The Clinton Global Initiative.
All of these people from around the world who have donated, quote unquote, to the Clinton Foundation.
We know what's going on.
They're making investments in Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State or as an eventual president.
Why is there no scandal there?
Well, there is, it's just not looked into.
Because they have a standard ordinary everyday tax return, like every politician alive has.
And a politician's tax return, which is the result of how a politician structures his life for it to be seen by the public in an unharmful way, is not the way a Donald Trump is going to have structured his tax return or his business life.
Because he never expects to release it publicly.
He never expects to be a candidate, so he never expects to have to phony things up or have to try to make himself look like he's just one of the crowd when he never has been.
I'm a little long here.
I've got to take a break.
But you get my drift here, folks.
Hi.
How are you?
Welcome back.
Now let me cut to the chase.
My point is that this whole business of politicians releasing their tax returns is a scam in and of itself.
And it is designed to keep outsiders from running.
It's designed to keep nonpoliticians from running.
I think having to reveal your tax returns is one of the primary reasons why people don't run.
And politicians have this gamed up and ginned down.
They know how to prepare their tax returns, structure their lives so that their only income appears to be their congressional salary.
There's nothing super special on it until they leave office.
Then all of a sudden you find out how much land they own and or when they're so incumbent entrenched they can't possibly be beaten like Harry Reid.
I really believe that this whole tax return business is part of the scam that the establishment has put together to keep outsiders and non-politicians from running.
And furthermore, it allows the media to demonize private sector candidates as rich and evil people.
And people that you can't trust, when their tax returns show anything outside the norm.
Anything, doesn't matter what it is.
It could be that they've made a lot of money.
It could be that they've had a lot of losses that equal write-offs.
This is exactly what they did to Romney.
Anybody that has a tax return like Romney that utilizes any law applicable and thus looks complicated to come compared to your average politician.
Remember, that's the measure.
That's the standard.
The outsider's tax return is measured against Congressman X, Congresswoman Y, is going to by definition look more complicated and different.
Particularly if that private sector person's been successful.
It's going to look different in primarily one way.
It's going to show much more income.
And it's going to show probably, well, I don't know what the deductions are.
But it is designed, in my humble opinion, to create the exact circumstance they've got now.
The tax return of a private citizen businessman in business for decades.
A 21 year old tax return is now being used to disqualify or try to disqualify Trump on the basis that it doesn't look like a politician's tax return.
Well, hell's bells, that's exactly right.
That happens to be the objective.
Comparing any politician's tax return to Trump's is just going to be a joke.
But when the media is the arbiter, there's no way a guy like Trump or anybody on the outside can prevail and win, because they're going to be dissed big time.
I'll tell you what else to keep an eye on.
With this hurricane coming, the media is going to shift to it 24 7.
Now that they've got the story established that Trump's scandal tax returns shift to the hurricane, probably tonight or tomorrow.
And very little else is going to permeate.
My guess.
Well guess.
▲
Export Selection