All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 20, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:41
October 20, 2016, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha!
Hurry you!
So there's McCain.
I just saw a statement from McCain.
Ah.
You know, I this degree of purposeful dishonesty is getting really, really tough stomach.
And we've been putting up with this for 30 years, folks.
There isn't a person in the media or in the Republican Party, and if they're telling you otherwise, they're not being honest with you.
There isn't a person in the world who think Donald Trump last night said that he will not concede if he loses.
There's not a single person who thinks that's what he said.
And McCain's other saying, I I I lost you in 2008.
I didn't want to lose.
I didn't want to lose.
But I did.
And so I called up and I said, I lost.
You're my president.
I am not happy, but I lost.
It's not the Republican way, it's not the Democrat way, it's the American way.
And that's the way it's always done.
Well, Mr. McCain, Senator McCain, if you had found widespread evidence of voter fraud, what would you have done?
We we don't know.
Probably caved anyway.
The name of the party's cave, nickname Republican Cave Party.
Hell, I don't know.
I just I but the this this degree here of coordinated outrage, mock outrage.
This is all phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and roll outrage.
They are privately secretly gleeful because they think they've got a story where they can say Trump's such an idiot.
Look at how he stepped in it.
He's not qualified.
He doesn't deserve to be president.
He won't even admit that he's gonna lose.
He won't even admit that he is losing.
He won't even admit that he loses, he lost.
That's not what he said.
With so much evidence of widespread cheating on part of the Democrats that has already impacted Trump, he would be a fool.
Just like the Republicans were fooled to take impeachment off the table.
And for Mitch McConnell to promise Obama, you know what, we're not even going to oppose you in calendar year 2016, because we don't want to goof it up for our nominee.
I guess they thought it was gonna be Jeb.
And so they thought they were doing great things by not opposing Obama.
That the American people are gonna really appreciate the Republicans.
Yes, look, they're not even gonna do politics.
They're not even gonna oppose Obama.
I guess we should elect Jeb.
That's the thinking.
Now, if you're Obama, you said my guy, I can't believe what idiots these people are.
They're telling me that I've got green lights and blue skies and an unobstructed view of the future, and they're not gonna stop me.
What am I gonna do?
And he's doing it.
Okay, I got sound bites I gotta get.
Look, I could spend the rest of the hour venting on this.
Because I still, folks, even with all I've said, I haven't yet gotten to the meat of the bone on this.
I'm so livid about this.
But my better instincts are telling me to rein it in at this point.
Because I'm very, very close to being near the boundaries of profanity, and I refuse to go there.
It's a family show.
I'm just tired.
This is all of this is an insult to all of our combined intelligence.
Here we go.
This is Donna Brazil, a paragon of virtue.
Oh Donna Brazil.
Part of the Democrat National Committee that helped rig the game against poor old crazy Bernie.
And this we know.
Was it the Russians?
Yes, we think it was the Russians who unearthed the fact that Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz and Hillary were working together to screw Bernie Sanders.
They didn't even deny it.
Blabbermouth Schultz had a quit.
Brazil is accused in the WikiLeaks document dump of sharing debate questions with Hillary Clinton.
Something we can totally believe would happen.
Because they're not confidence.
They're not confident of Hillary in any public appearance.
So Megan Kelly, who herself joined in the unison of can't believe what an idiot Trump is last night, eventually left it and went to Donna Brazil and hammered her.
It was redemptive of sorts.
And we have uh a couple of sound bites here.
Set this up.
It's after the debate, Megan Kelly, Fox News talking to the current chairwoman of the Democrat National Committee, Donna Brazil, about the WikiLeaks release of hacked emails that shows she received a debate question for a Democrat primary debate in advance of the event and found a way to share it with Hillary.
Well, with the campaign.
You've got to hear her answer on this, by the way, if you can follow it.
It's a lot of noise.
It's in the pink room there after the or what do they call green room?
Spin room.
But you've got to hear this woman.
You've got to try to.
This is this is classic in how they obfuscate, deflect, deny.
It's it's a seminar in and of itself.
So she says you were accused of receiving a date debate question before a CNN town hall, where they partnered with TV One.
Then you had this question on March 12th.
The verbatim was provided by Roland Martin to CNN the next day.
So really the allegation is not that she got the question from CNN, that she got it from Roland Martin, who used to work at CNN and is now laboring away in obscurity at something called NY1.
I think they found Roland in the black hole that Don Lemon was looking for the Malaysian Flight 370.
And they gave him his own show when they found him in a black hole.
So here he is Brazil's answer to this.
Well, Kelly, since I play straight up and I'll play straight up with you.
I did not receive any questions from CNN.
Let's just be able to do that.
Where'd you get it?
Where did you get it?
First of all, what information are you providing to me that will allow me to see what what you're talking about?
You got the WikiLeaks released a March 12th Podesta email showing you messaging the Clinton campaign with the exact wording of a question asked at the March 13th.
Kelly CNN TV1 Town Hall debate.
Kelly, where did you get it?
You know, as a Christian woman, I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted because your information is totally false.
What's your email?
Well, Podesta's emails were stolen.
You're so interested in talking about stolen.
So you did not feel like you're like a thief that want to bring into the night the things that you found.
You're like a thief.
You want to bring into the night the things that you found.
It was stolen.
The Russians did it.
It was stolen.
Kelly, it was stolen.
What does she think?
Well, she's Kelly Megan.
Kelly!
Kelly, I'm telling you, as a Christian woman, I know what it is to be persecuted with stolen.
Where you get it?
Or well, I can't see it.
Where you get it?
You got it into the night.
This is classic.
So Kelly then says, okay, well, who gave you the question?
Megan, once again, I've said it and I've said it on the record, and I'll say it on the record, and I'll keep saying it on the record.
I am not going to try to validate falsified information.
I have my documents.
I have my files.
And as I've said repeatedly, uh CNN, and in the 14 years I was associated with CNN, I've never received anything.
I never get documents from CNN.
In that email, you offered the exact question that one of the moderators, Roland Martin, then proposed the next day.
I can only tell you one thing, because as you know, this whole episode is under criminal investigation.
A lot of those emails, I would not give them a time of the day.
I've seen so many doctored emails.
I see so many doctored emails in the middle of the night, middle of the night, uh persecution, and uh I haven't seen them, but I've seen a lot of them, and I don't know what you're talking about.
It's just it's it's it's classic.
I mean, you've got all the built-in defensive techniques.
As a Christian, I understand persecution.
It's stolen.
It was in the night.
It's it's under investigation.
You're thieving me, and you're demanding I can't even see what you got, Kelly.
So that's that's uh when now here's Trump.
this is this this really set him off.
This was in the debate.
Uh Chris Wallace, why is your immigration and border security plan, Mr. Trump, why is it better than your opponents?
We have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out.
We're going to get them out.
We're going to secure the border.
And once the border is secured, at a later date, we'll make a determination as to the rest.
But we have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out.
They're having a cow.
They're having a bad ombre here.
And that supposedly, you know, this social media has now apparently accrued this status of unimpeachability.
If something happens on social media, I guess it's gospel, and it is the new conventional wisdom.
And if if on social media there is rampant offense over Trump using some bad ombres out there, then Trump becomes a reprobate again.
A sexist, a bigot, uh, a misogynist.
All of these things, because we got some bad ombres.
This is, and this is the kind of talk that endears him to average ordinary people who talk this way, and furthermore, understand it.
Now, there was a part of the debate last night that that I was privately Yeah, right on, celebrating it, because it's a point that I have been making for many, many, many moons here on this program.
And Trump, I think, used it last the second time he's used it in these debates, and last night was the most effective.
It was a segment about their economic plans.
And after Clinton says that she plans to make it easier for businesses to use American-made products, Trump said this.
I asked a simple question.
She's been doing this for 30 years.
Why the hell didn't you do it over the last 15, 20 years?
And you do have experience.
I say the one thing you have over me is experience, but it's bad experience because what you've done has turned out badly.
For 30 years you've been in position to help.
And if you say that I use steel or I use something else, I make it impossible for me to do that.
I wouldn't mind.
The problem is you talk, but you don't get anything done, Hillary.
They got pretty close.
The point is that here she is running on all these ideas.
She's gonna do this, and she's gonna do that, she's gonna fix this, she got a plan for the kids, she got a plan to get rid of kids in the ninth month of pregnancy, she's got a plan here.
Everybody, she's gonna massive new economic plan, not gonna add a penny to the national debt, while Trump's will add 20 trillion to the national debt.
She once again runs down trickle down.
We've tried it, tax cuts to the rich, all he would have had to say last night, could you tell me why you're worth 20 million dollars for two years of speeches to banks?
Why anyway?
So he's his point is you have been promising for 30 years to do all this stuff.
And here we are, 30 years since you started, and you're still complaining that the same things need fixing.
Why haven't you been effective?
And what she does, she always pivots and goes back to the children's defense fund.
Well, he started working in the 1970s for a women and children, the children's defense fund.
And of course it's supposed to, that's magic.
You're supposed to question nothing further after that.
Mrs. Clinton cares about women.
Mrs. Clinton cares about children.
Yeah.
And then he nailed her on this partial birth abortion.
You realize there is no Republican candidate that's had the balls to go after any Democrat on that issue face to face like he did with her last night.
Never.
It has never happened.
Even though the Republicans may be loyally pro-life, they still they they they they pull back, but he just took it to her about he turned the abortion, you know.
I let me ask you a question.
When Chris Wallace asked this abortion question, then you people start cringing.
Oh no, that's oh geez, every time this Comes up, we get smoked.
Oh my God.
And he turned it to partial birth abortion on a dime, which was either brilliant or instinctive or a combination of the two.
Because she had no defense for what he was alleging, and she didn't even try.
Her only defense when he brought up, they want to rip babies out of the womb a day before they're born, a week before they're born, and she doesn't deny it.
All she can say is, I have seen these women.
I have met these women, and I'm telling you it is one of the hardest things.
I'm telling you it is one of the most difficult things.
And she's therefore on record as supporting partial birth abortion last night.
And I will guarantee you that's the last thing anybody on the Democrat side ever factored would happen.
That's why she wasn't prepared for it.
And it was, I don't know, as I say, either brilliant or instinctive or a combination of the two, but to take that question of abortion, which has traditionally been a nail in a coffin for a Republican candidate, turn that around to a winning issue for him, a losing issue for her.
And you'll note that nobody in the drive bys is talking about that exchange.
They don't want to go anywhere near it.
And then she lied about Planned Parenthood and all these mammograms they do and all these pre-cancer.
They don't do a single mammogram, folks.
They do not do them.
They don't do checks for cancer.
Their solution to everything at Planned Parenthood is an abortion.
She lied through her teeth.
I don't know if Trump knows that or not.
Most people, you know, no, great work.
Mammograms care for women.
They don't do anything of the sort.
They harvest baby parts and sell them.
We now know that.
But the partial birth abortion thing, he turned it around on her.
And she didn't have a denial, and the drive-by's aren't talking about it.
And it's things like that in a debate.
You'll never hear any public reaction, no polling on it, but could have a huge impact.
We'll never know.
We won't know until the election.
Here one more.
No, I gotta go to break.
Let me take a break so I have a little bit more time on the other side.
Be right back, folks.
Don't go away.
Let me ask you a question.
Why do we have early voting?
Seriously, why do we have it?
We already have absentee voting.
If you're not going to be around on election day, you vote absentee, why do we have early voting?
Whose idea was that?
And what's the what's its purpose?
What's so we already got it, we've already got it, we've already got, we need to help the elderly.
But we've already we've already we've already got absentee ballots.
What's why do you need early voting?
I mean, it's just as inconvenient to vote early as it is absentee.
We already have absentee ballots, you can't show up that day.
Uh, or if Roland Martin's standing in line, you can't get around him, then there's all kinds of other things you can do.
You can you can do absentee voting.
Why early voting?
What the hell is that?
Where's early voting?
Mentioned the Constitution.
And by the way, where's it written in the Constitution that a loser has to automatically concede for the sake of the Constitution?
Where does it say that the Constitution?
Doesn't say that in the Constitution?
Really?
Is that right?
Here's Trump.
This is F, you know, they they they had barely come to grips with the fact that he's out there calling uh illegal immigrant bad guys ombres.
And then, sound bite number 22, then he had to say this.
Chris Wallace, will you, as president, consider a grand bargain?
A deal.
Wait a minute.
Uh a deal that includes both tax increases and benefits cuts to try to save both program Social Security Medicare.
That's part of my commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy.
My social security payroll contribution will go up, as will Donald's, assuming he can't figure out how to get out of it.
Uh, but what we want to do is to replenish the social media.
Such a nasty trust fund.
Such a nasty woman.
She is a nasty woman.
You know, why are we not allowed to say that just because she's a woman?
We're not allowed to criticize Obama because of his race.
And I thought feminism made us all the same.
We're all equal.
Everybody's a tough guy now, so why can't we criticize women?
He's a nasty woman.
She is a nasty woman.
And by the way, this is this is another area here on this.
When this entitlements question came up, to me, this was one of the biggest hanging curveballs that Trump missed, and I don't even think he swung at it.
Is not the current situation, condition, social security and Medicare, is that not a classic example of how the establishment, our betters, the elites have totally, totally screwed something up.
And how many campaigns of your life have you heard candidates of both parties promise a fix for the social security system?
And everybody's got a plan.
Every damned candidate has had a plan.
And yet it remains unfunded, biggest part of the budget, no end in sight, no solution has ever worked.
If there's anything that justifies the candidacy of an outsider to fix one of the biggest messes in this nation's budget, it's these two entitlement programs.
And she is exhibit A for being disqualified, if you ask me.
Let me check this alert here.
Ah, rain within five minutes.
Greetings.
We're inside, not going outside, doesn't matter.
Welcome back, folks.
Um more one more uh bit of commentary on the debate and back to your phones, and this is early on in the debate, the question on the Supreme Court and nominees.
And it was classic.
Now Trump's answer was great.
Trump's answer was related to and focused on the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.
And he retreated to a safety zone, which is the second amendment, which was good because she really doesn't have a say on it.
Democrats are between a rock and a hard place, and they hate the Second Amendment, they want to get rid of it.
But if they come out and say that, they will lose elections.
So they have to lie, as Hillary did last night.
I'm for the Second Amendment.
I've been upstate in New York, and I've seen those weird things these guys use when they hunt, and I'm not opposed to that, but the Heller decision and toddlers in Washington, and I'm protected children, and I think it's horrible and toddlers have nothing to do with the Heller decision, DC, not about children, not about toddlers, toddlers, the words not mentioned Trump didn't know.
Could have noked it.
But before that, when Hillary described, in answer to the pregunta from the debate "Hombre, El Cristo Wallace,"About the kind of judges she looks for, she didn't define judge.
She listed the qualifications for a community organizer.
She listed the qualifications for a social agitator, a social justice warrior.
This was one of those occasions where even though Trump was this was one of his best answers, he could have blown her out of the water and been educational at the same time.
Here is what Mrs. Clinton said.
Crooked Hillary said, you know, when we talk about the Supreme Court, fake smile, it really raises the central issue in this election, namely, what kind of country are we going to be?
No.
Well, she's right about that, actually, but not the way she means.
What kind of opportunities will we provide our citizens?
Supreme Court's not about that.
Supreme Court is the law.
And their cases are not about opportunities being provided for our citizens.
What kind of rights will Americans have?
We already have them.
I mean they are enumerated.
And then their rights that Mrs. Clinton doesn't like.
American people have too many rights.
There's too much freedom.
Government doesn't have enough rights in her mind.
Government's too limited.
Constitution limits the government way, way, way too much.
And I feel strongly that fake smile.
The Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people.
Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.
Now, sadly, this characterization of the purpose of the court has been bought by way too many ignorant, low information American citizens.
Because it sounds good.
Class warfare always sounds good.
Taking action against the rich and the powerful and making them pay for what they do.
It always sounds good.
But that's not the job of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court standing on the side of the American people.
Supreme Court adjudicates the law.
Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of things and other things.
In fact, the con the Supreme Court's gotten way out of focus, in my opinion.
That's for another day.
My point here is that she went on to say, for me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that'll stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community.
That'll stand up and say no to citizens united.
A decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our system.
She's not only using that money, she has been accused of illegally coordinating with that money.
Citizens United equals super PACs, essentially.
And it allows people that used to not be able to contribute to contribute on the basis that money is speech.
And the Democrats do not like free speech.
And that's not an exaggeration.
My friends, it is not an exaggeration, and it's not an attempt to go overboard to get your attention with something.
It's not an attempt to be outrageous.
They do not like free speech.
They do not like criticism.
Citizens United was the reason she hates it is because central to it was a movie that was funded by donations from certain people that was critical of her.
She doesn't think the movie should have been made, and you shouldn't have seen it.
And she thinks the government ought to have the power to eliminate they go after Trump, saying he wants to expand libel laws.
Mrs. Clinton and the Democrat Party want to limit what you can say.
Now, they can't because of the free speech clause in the First Amendment, which is very clear.
The government shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.
And it literally is about political speech.
You can say anything you want about politics, a candidate, and the government cannot stop you.
And they hate that.
Since they can't go after speech, they go after proxies for speech.
And the number one proxy for speech is money.
Money equals speech.
People get together and they donate to organizations so that a pile of money can be used to create a message that can be broadcast in mass as part of a political campaign.
It's entirely legal.
The Supreme Court said so in Citizens United.
Money equals speech.
The Democrats, since they can't eliminate speech, they can't, they couldn't succeed at that.
No, even the low information crowd would stand up and oppose that.
But going after proxies, going after substitutes for speech, money, particularly when you're going after the rich and the powerful.
While she's in bed with them, making speeches to them, they're paying her 250 to 350,000 dollars for 20 minute speeches.
She nevertheless goes public and condemns them and criticizes them.
When she doesn't really mean it, they are the lifeblood of her campaign.
The banks and all these big time rich people from Hollywood, Silicon Valley, you name it, are the mother's milk of her Campaign.
They are the money.
She just doesn't want Trump to have it, or any other Republican to have it, or any average citizen to be able to bundle his money with other people's money and create an ad or a campaign.
So instead of going after speech, they go after proxies for speech, and money is the number one proxy.
And the third thing they did to eliminate free speech is used the IRS to deny Tea Party groups tax exempt status to raise money to spend on message-driven campaigns.
And that's how they attack free speech.
But when you look at this in total, we need a court that stands up for the gays, for women's, for transgenders.
Oh, we need that's not the purpose.
The Supreme Court is not about social justice.
Supreme Court's not about social warfare.
The Supreme Court is about the constitution.
It is about constitutionality, it is about the law, and it's bare simplest.
It's about the law.
It is not about the Democrat Party agenda.
But that's what it's become.
That's what the whole judiciary has become that because that's the kind of people they have put on various courts as judges.
And every liberal justice on the Supreme Court is a social justice warrior first and a judge of the law second.
And if they get one more, then they will have effectively corrupted the Supreme Court.
If they get another Elena Kagan, there's no business being there.
If they get another signorette signorita sotomayor, if they get another Briar, who may be one of the absolute worst.
Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg, if they get uh another one of these, then we don't have a Supreme Court, folks.
You know as well as I do.
People already think the court is there to become the final word on controversial political questions.
So everybody looks to Supreme Court as the final word on abortion or immigration or what have you.
That's not what it's for.
It was never intended to be such.
It's just another institution that has been corrupted and is facing total corruption, depending on the outcome of this election.
Here is Mary in Hamden, Connecticut.
I'm really glad you waited.
I appreciate your patience.
Hi.
Oh, no problem, Rush.
Thank you so much for having me on.
You bet.
I wanted to talk about something I think you mentioned briefly, but not many people are talking about the fact that Hillary divulged a national top secret information by giving our nuclear response time on live television during the debate.
Mm-hmm.
Um, you know, I know a couple of articles have been written about it where people are speculating, basically, and you know, doing an analysis trying to figure out about how long it would take, but to my knowledge, it has never been actually known what that time frame was.
And Hillary is not a reporter.
She's not somebody who did some research and is hypothesizing.
She was Secretary of State and one of the few people that would have that information.
She killed bin Laden.
She killed bin Laden while Trump was out there building buildings with Chinese steel.
Oh, yeah, I know.
She was carrying the gun, too.
Right.
Exactly.
I'm pretty sure she did that single-handedly.
Obama was in a golf course.
She killed Bin Laden.
Oh my God.
Well, all the more reason that her saying that means a lot more than some obscure written article by some newspaper hack that not many people see.
Well, millions of people heard the Secretary of State give our response time.
Well, it it turns out this has been fact-checked, uh, Mary, by Snopes.com.
And by the way, all the fact-checkers have been proven corrupt.
The fact checkers are part of the Democrat Party, the media coalition with the with the Democrat Party.
Snopes.com.
Uh says that this is not true.
And they find some radical peacick who founded something called plowshares, who tweeted that it's widely known that it takes four minutes to spin a nuke response up.
This is not a secret.
We've known this for a long time.
So Snopes says, well, these fact checkers, fact checkers.
Hillary didn't divulge anything that we haven't known for a long time.
Takes four minutes.
From the time the order is given to spin something up and be able to launch him asilo for submarine, what have you.
I've never heard it.
And whether it's known or not, it it's it's kind of haphazard to have it just cavalierly announced like this.
Especially within the context that Trump unqualified to make the call on something like this.
You know, Donna Brazil could have maybe used life lock.
Russians out there hacking Roland Martin stuff, getting her questions, passing it on to Hillary and so forth.
Yeah, you never know.
Anyway, folks, that's it for another busy, exciting broadcast day from the Excellence In Broadcasting Network.
The nation's most listened-to network and program.
Only one program on the network.
It can only handle one and it's mine.
Open line Friday tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection