All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 12, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
December 12, 2016, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Folks, we are living in the midst of a giant teachable moment.
This is how it happens.
This is how fake news takes root and becomes the narrative, becomes the daily script of the Inside the Beltway soap opera written by the Drive-By Media.
This whole business of Russia hacking our election is fake news with the imprimatur of intelligence agencies and the CIA, and it's brought to us by the same newspapers that took out, tried to take out Richard Nixon.
And if I didn't know better, I would say that they are trying to relive the moment and watergate Donald Trump.
Greetings, great to have you, Rushland Boy here behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Looking forward to having you hear what I have to say today.
And I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
We'll check the email as well.
That address, if you want to reach out via email, ilrushbow at EIBnet.us.
This is exactly how it happens.
All weekend long, I was doing what I always do.
I combine leisure work and leisure and work, and I'm doing show prep while engaging in leisure time activities and so forth.
Well, I will even, on the golf course, do show prep.
If you're playing with some slow people, have time to check the phone, maybe see something printed to the printer at work, and you're done.
As I got here today and began to assemble everything I've collected over the weekend, I ended up with two stacks.
Sometimes I end up with four stacks, and each stack is organized by either news type, be it hard news, heavy news, lighthearted news, or subject.
In this case, the two stacks are organized by virtue of subject and everything else, because the everything else only has got four or five pages in it.
And the other stack, which is the CIA and the Washington Post, New York Times saying that the Russians hacked the election, 90% of everything I printed over the weekend.
And I got here and I started organizing, and this is it.
This is exactly how it happens.
It's even though Trump has won, even though Hillary has been vanquished, even though the left has suffered defeat after defeat after defeat, the drive-by media is still there.
And they're still acting as they always do.
They are setting the agenda.
They are setting the narrative, establishing it, and they are determining what everybody talks about.
And today, because of this, I found myself asking myself, should I play this game today or not?
Should I treat this the way I've been treating it for all the years I've been doing the program?
And that is to react to it, to go on defense, to explain how the lies stack up here, to explain the BS.
And I think I've got no choice, and that's the, I don't know if it's a problem or if it's just the way it is.
Fake news is the order of the day.
Fake news.
A story first on Saturday and then on Sunday.
Washington Post and New York Times that intelligence sources, it turns out to be unnamed couple people, we don't know who, no specifics, alleging that the Russians left fingerprints as they hacked the 2016 election.
We are also told that the Russians hacked both the RNC and the DNC.
And one of the controversies is, why didn't Wikileaks use any of the stuff they got from the hack of the Republicans?
And that is being used to suggest that the fix was in from Russia against Hillary because they had equal data on the Republicans and they just decided not to use it.
There's one problem with that.
And we have audio soundbite support on this coming up as the program unfolds.
The RNC says it was not hacked.
Rinz, sorry, Reinz Priebus.
I got a little lazy pronouncing his name on Friday.
And I had two or three people I'm certain who are in Reince's orb send me an email saying, no, no, no, it's pronounced Reince.
Not Rinz.
I said, I know, I know.
I know it's Reince.
I'm speaking quickly, it just came out Rinz.
Is not trying to be funny or insulting.
I like Reince.
He's come by here.
We've had some chats.
So, no, no, no, don't misunderstand.
But previous, he was on Meet the Press with F. Chuck Todd yesterday.
And he had to almost scream at Chuck Todd three times before Chuck got it.
Chuck, we were not hacked.
We weren't hacked, Chuck.
And Chuck kept going.
And finally, Reinson, what are you not getting about this?
And Chuck says, it's not about me.
Chuck, it is about you.
And it's about everybody else in the media.
This story is totally about you.
It's about the New York Times.
It's about the Washington Post.
It's about everybody appearing on every cable network that'll take them from either of these newspapers or sympathetic to these newspapers pushing this false narrative.
One element of the story, a major element, has proven to be untrue.
The Republicans were not hacked.
So if you find a serious element of the story that isn't true, the rest of it ought to be held at arm's length and viewed with lots of suspicion.
But it's uncanny, folks.
The media is behaving according to type.
The media is doing the only thing they know how to do.
They are doing everything they can to take Trump out.
That's what this is about, folks.
And for those of you who think that the recount efforts and the intimidation of electors is sort of a screwball bunch of people over, it may well be, but they are trying to prevent Trump being elected.
There is nothing half-hearted about this as far as their desires and purpose is concerned.
They're seriously trying to do this.
And when I throw the word Watergate Trump out, I'm not doing so casually.
This is exactly what the Washington Post.
And Carl Bernstein, by the way, of Watergate fame, is back in the mix now saying that Trump is even worse than Nixon.
Well, that's like a dog whistle.
That's like code language because Nixon is the worst.
Nixon, everybody supposedly agrees.
Nixon was just, ooh, yuck.
Trump's worse than Nixon, according to one of the revered and respected Watergate journalists.
The other Watergate journalist, Bob Woodward, is who broke the story in the Washington Post about the intelligence agencies claiming that they have evidence that the Russians attempted to interfere in the United States election.
So the linkage to Watergate and its modus operandi is clearly established.
The two primary journalist players are actively engaged now, as is their newspaper, The Washington Post, and their compatriots at the New York Times.
Question is how many people are going to see this for what it is.
It's not going to slow Trump down.
The one different factor here is that Trump is not the Republicans.
And Trump is not acting scared.
And Trump tweeted last night, he watched the NBC Nightly News.
He tweeted it was embarrassing.
It was horrible.
It was bad.
Trump is not going to be deterred.
He's not going to be stopped.
He's not going to be intimidated.
And he's not going to be affected by this in terms of the way it makes him behave.
There's so much going on.
They're upset about Rex Tillerson.
They're upset about the fact that really what this is all about is they can't yet accept that they lost.
All of this is based on that.
It really, I mean, there degrees of depth in terms of their anger and dissociation and unhinged derangement.
But it's all about that.
They cannot believe they lost.
They all believed themselves when they cited their polling data and read their stories that Hillary had this in a lock.
And so it's something that they just can't accept.
So there has to have been some cheating because the American people would not have voted them down.
The American people were loving Obama and were loving what Obama was doing.
And American people love the Democrats and legal immigrants love the Democrats.
Everybody loves the Democrats.
This is just not, should have happened.
But as we will attempt to establish as the program unfolds, and I'm not going to ramrod this through you.
It takes some time going through this.
I've worked up a number of different ways to express my thoughts on this.
Plus, we have support audio soundbite-wise.
The Washington Post, the New York Times on Russia's interference in the election is total BS, and it is the definition of fake news.
Some hack somewhere in the intelligence community.
It may not even be the CIA, but it's, you know, there are a number of different intelligence agencies.
There's CIA, there's the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency.
State Department has its own little group of people.
They're intel people all over the place.
So we don't know.
But one of them decided to call Bob Woodward and fill old Bob's head full of notions.
So the Washington Post writes a totally anonymously and anemically sourced story that the New York Times immediately follows up.
And it becomes a huge story that attempts to delegitimize Trump's win, delegitimizes the election.
And now you've got all of these Washington Post people populating cable news networks, downplaying the FBI's conclusion, no evidence Russia did any such thing.
James Comey already addressed this in his Hillary press conference.
He said there was no evidence that Russia hacked anything, including her server.
Remember, he said there's no evidence the Russians even hacked Hillary's server.
Barack Obama on November 26th told everybody, grow up and stop whining.
He was talking to Trump.
Stop whining.
That's when Trump was Victorian.
Just stop whining about the election.
Stop whining about it.
Nobody interfered.
That's Obama.
Not all that long ago.
What they have is maybe some evidence that a hacker from Eastern Europe hacked the DNC emails.
That's it.
That's it.
But the New York Times and the Washington Post report that the Republicans were also hacked, and Reince Priebus says they were not.
They looked.
They've had people examining their computer systems for months.
They have not been hacked.
You think it's any coincidence now that Dingy Harry is demanding an investigation into this?
And as I checked the blogs, conservative blogs, they're all saying, why, of course, we need to investigate this.
Why?
This is an outrageous charge.
If there's something to it, we need to look.
So everybody thinks the proper thing to say and do is to acknowledge that this could be bad and we need to have an investigation.
If you are of the mind to stand, no, no, this doesn't deserve an investigation.
This is totally media fake news, made-up media fake news.
We don't need an investigation.
They're going to climb down your throat and they're going to try to destroy you because the meme, the narrative now is this is how it's always worked.
The Republicans get intimidated into agreeing with whatever contention the drive-by media puts out.
In this case, it's the Russians hacked the election.
It could have been fraudulent.
The result could be illegitimate.
And of course, the Republicans on queue, oh, yes, Lindsey Gramnesty and John McCain.
Yes, right.
That's right.
We should investigate private hacks.
My campaign was hacked.
I heard it can happen.
Yeah, it can happen.
So everybody's now on board.
We need to investigate.
We need to roll up the sleeves and find out what happened.
And of course, who's leading this?
The Democrats are leading this and the media is leading this.
And the usual suspect Republicans are eager to sign on, hoping to show the media and the Democrats that they're mature and reasonable and all this.
The only guy still at this moment who's acting like he won is Donald Trump and everybody in his orbit.
This is how easy it has been for the media, working with the Democrat Party, to delegitimize any significantly good thing that happens that does not involve the Democrat Party.
But Trump is the difference here.
Trump goes to the Army-Navy game.
It's in Baltimore at MT Bank's M. You see this?
When Trump's introduced, he's up there in a box.
He spent time in two boxes.
He spent half the game over in Ollie North's box.
Ollie is a Marine, but he goes to the Army-Navy game, a Navy guy.
And somebody else's box, I forget some other major player, a guy that does deals.
That's who Trump likes, guys that do deals.
That's why he likes Tillerson.
Tillerson does deals, does big deals, mega deals all over the world.
Deal maker is a player.
Trump loves him.
He's a good guy.
I like Tillerson.
I make the name.
I mean, I just love Rex Tillerson.
What a great name for a guy running an oil company.
Anyway, 75,000 people at that stadium.
The vast majority of them give Trump a standing ovation.
100 protesters bought and paid for by communist-related organizations marching in protest outside.
What do you think a lead story in the media is?
The 100 people protesting outside the stadium.
And today the number's been elevated to 200 people.
I guess it didn't get enough bang for the buck that there were 100 people outside, 75,000 inside.
The 100 people outside protesting and carrying anti-Trump signs got all the attention.
And now their numbers have been elevated and inflated to the fact that there were 200 of them.
So there are even CNN.
I think it's Little Brian.
I'm not sure Little Brian.
So somebody at CNN even suggested maybe we need to do the election over.
Meanwhile, Jill Stein was just told to go pound sand for the third time, this time in Pennsylvania.
So the Electoral College is the only thing they've got left other than this.
Now, we need to have an in-depth, well, not that in-depth, but there's a couple of points I need to make about Intel agencies and how you deal with them if you are president.
I think Trump might have made his first big mistake in this.
Not an everlasting, damaging mistake, this little tactical error.
I'm not sure that I'm right, but I'll explain.
We've got a lot of things to detail for you here after having set the table.
But you see the pattern.
This is the tried and true media way of delegitimizing, destroying, impugning, discrediting Republicans for as long as we have all been alive.
This is fake news.
Just like the video at Benghazi was responsible for what happened there.
Look how that take hold.
Took only guy that did the videos in jail.
This is how fake news happens.
The Washington Post and the New York Times are the biggest perpetrators of fake news in this country today, and they're on display with it now.
I tell you, I cannot wait for this program to unfold because I'm going to obliterate these people today and their claims that this election was hacked, and that's why Hillary Clinton lost.
I'm just going to blow this to smithereens, and it's going to happen in the next half hour.
At least that's when I'm going to get started doing this.
My friends, who actually is trying to change the outcome of the election?
Well, I got an example.
Robert B. Reich, the former labor secretary for Bill Clinton, claiming that he's received phone calls from three electors who say they have doubts that Trump should be chosen by the Electoral College.
Rice says they are telling him they've been in contact with other electors who feel the same way.
The Democrat Party has mounted an all-out effort to have electors in the states, in some cases, violate state law and not vote for Donald Trump.
And you've got the Jill Stein recount, which has essentially been shut down anywhere she's tried.
Who is it doing this?
Who's actually trying to change the outcome of an election?
Who is claiming that it was hacked?
And who is claiming that everything is so unjust that we need to change the outcome?
It's the Democrat Party trying to change the outcome of the election.
It's the Democrat Party tampering with election results.
It's the childlike Democrat Party and the American left who simply can't come to grips with the fact that they were rejected and repudiated and blown out.
All right, Christmas to one and all.
The best of the Christmas season to one and all from all of us through the EIB network.
A little bit about this Washington Post story that started everything.
It's a third-hand account, a third-hand account, third-hand source that the Washington Post even acknowledges that wasn't the Russian government that did the hacking.
How many of you think, how many of you who have paid attention to this story all weekend long and this morning, how many of you think the story is that the Russian government hacked our election?
Vladimir Putin directed the Russian government to hack whatever they hacked.
What do you think they hacked?
What did they do?
Did they hack voting machines?
Did they hack paper ballots?
Did they hack the DNC emails of pedestrians?
What was that?
You don't even know because it doesn't matter.
The thing that matters, that what the drive-bys have put out there is that Vladimir Putin and the Russians hacked the election because they wanted Trump to win because Putin is scared to death of Hillary Clinton.
But he loves Trump because Trump's a lackey and Trump likes Putin and the Russians will be able to have their way all over the world because Trump is such an idiot.
That's the story, right?
That's what you know.
If you have just been a news consumer since, say, anytime Saturday through this morning, that's what you know.
That's what you think you know, that the Russians hacked the election.
The Russians.
That's not even what the Washington Post story says.
The Washington Post story acknowledges that it's a third-hand account that they're relying on, was not actually the Russian government that did the hacking.
Here is the actual passage: intelligence agencies do not.
I'm reading from the Washington Post here.
You listen to this and contrast it with what you have been told, what you have heard, seen, read in the news.
Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin directing the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said.
Those actors, according to the official, were one step removed from the Russian government rather than government employees.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Wait a minute.
So why does everybody think the Russian government had anything to do with this?
When the story, the newspaper that everybody's relying on this says that it wasn't the Russian government, that it was a third-hand source.
And what we're talking about here is the Podesta emails being leaked to WikiLeaks.
That's not tampering with the election.
By the way, not a single one of those emails has been denied.
Podesta, Hillary, you name it, not a single person has said anything in those Podesta emails that were leaked was not true.
That's not the point, Mr. Limbaugh.
The point, Mr. Limbaugh, these were private communications, Democrat strategists that they were leaked and not everybody knew what was going on.
Well, not first time something like that's happened.
But is that tampering with the election?
Some people might look at that as the truth being revealed.
What did we learn in these hacks?
We learned that it was the Hillary campaign buying and paying people to disrupt and cause violence at Donald Trump rallies.
We learned that a guy responsible for this, his name, we learned his name is Robert Kramer.
We learned he's married to a Democrat congresswoman from Illinois, Jan Schakowski.
And it was apparently so true that the guy quit.
The guy resigned in shame.
I mean, everything we've learned here happened to be true.
How is this affecting the outcome of the election?
Most people think when they hear Russians hack the election, that they tampered with the ballots, they tampered with there's two.
You cast ballots and you can't count them.
So what was the hack?
Did the Russians hack the counting process?
Did they hack the casting of ballots process?
What did they do?
Well, nothing because nothing has been alleged along those lines, but you wouldn't know it, paying attention to the drive-by media, the Washington Post or the New York Times.
The Post story has no evidence, nor do they have even an indication of any evidence that supports the claim that the Russian government tampered with our election.
That's from the paper itself.
Now, contrast that with what you're hearing.
They got their headline.
The headline has nothing to do with the details contained in the story.
The fake news was in the headline, and everybody ran with the headline and ran with the premise that the Russian government, from Putin on down, tampered with the election in order to sabotage Hillary Clinton.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
Reince Priebus took Chuck Todd to school yesterday.
Chuck didn't know it for a while.
We have, I think, three bites on this.
This is Meet the Pressed, Meet the Depressed, as it turns out.
F. Chuck Todd says to Reince Priebus, does Donald Trump have confidence in America's intelligence?
Of course, he has confidence, but we don't have confidence in the New York Times releasing a report of unnamed sources of some kind of study that itself in the Washington Post said was inconclusive to claim that because the CIA had hacked emails of the DNC and the RNC and only used DNC emails, that meant that Russia was trying to influence the election.
Because the other piece of this, Chuck, is that the RNC was absolutely not hacked.
Number one, we had the FBI in the RNC.
We've been working with the FBI.
We had intelligence.
Let me ask you experts here.
Wait a minute.
No, no, no.
Hang on, Chuck.
No.
The RNC was not hacked.
Well, then why was he involved?
When the DNC was hacked, we called the FBI and they came in to help us.
And they came in to review what we were doing and through our systems, went through every single thing that we did.
We went through this for a month and we were not hacked.
So wait a second.
If we were not hacked, and that is absolutely not true, then where does that story lie?
That's a great question.
Because the premise is in this story, and the New York Times picked it up, that the Russians hacked both the RNC and the DNC, but that they unfairly only used data from the DNC.
And then that's there.
And it proves that the Russians had, and they wanted Trump to win.
And Priebus is telling.
No, no, Chuck, Chuck, you're laboring under a false conclusion.
We were not hacked.
Which means the story is wrong about that, which ought to raise questions along the lines of what else in the story might be factually incorrect.
Chuck Todd, still not getting it, though, continued.
Not a single person connected to the RNC was hacked.
No Republican vendor who had interactions with the RNC network was hacked.
You guys have had a very specific denial that the RNC's network wasn't hacked.
That doesn't mean Republicans associated with the RNC weren't hacked.
That doesn't rule that out.
Do you rule it out?
Categorically rule number one out.
So you see what Chuck is doing there.
So Priebus in the first bite.
Now listen to me.
This is an object lesson in how this works.
You learn this, you'll learn to spot it down the road.
You won't need me to explain it to you.
So Priebus points out unequivocally and categorically to Chuck Todd that the RNC was not hacked.
This doesn't compute for Chuck because Chuck has conducted this interview under the auspices, under the, well, according to a belief that both parties were hacked, but that the Russians only released Democrat hacked data and therefore were wanting Trump to win.
So Priebus is, no, no, Chuck, we were not hacked.
That destroys the entire premise and narrative that Chuck and the drive-bys have come up with.
So after Priebus says we weren't hacked, Chuck, Chuck says, really?
Not a single person?
No Republican vendor?
Nobody that prints pamphlets and bumper stickers?
You mean not a single person that does anything with the Republicans was hacked?
Not a single person all across the country.
That doesn't mean that Republicans associated with the RNC weren't hacked.
He's desperate.
He's desperate to have his audience believe that Priebus is lying.
When Priebus says the RNC wasn't hacked, Chuck says, oh, come on.
Maybe the guys that printed your bumper stickers were hacked.
Maybe the guys that printed your pamphlets.
Maybe the guys running your phone back.
How could you be sure, Reince, that you weren't hacked?
And Private Priebus maintains they were not hacked that the FBI came in.
So Chuck still is not quite understanding what's going on or he does and is trying to salvage it.
Here is the next and final bite.
I don't know why you're so hot about this.
I mean, the fact of the matter is you should actually be happy that the RNC wasn't hacked.
Well, no, I'm not.
The RNC was not hacked, Chuck.
I don't know of any employee on any of their own Gmail accounts that was hacked.
So what I'm trying to tell you is the RNC was not hacked.
Number one.
That was the specific allegation that was made in the actual New York Times article.
The article didn't say affiliates of the RNC.
No, wait a second, Chuck.
The article said the RNC was hacked.
So don't be defensive with me.
I'm refuting the specific fact that was made in the article to create this entire firestorm.
And the specific fact, as we've been told by the FBI repeatedly, including two days ago when we checked back with them about this issue, repeated the fact that the RNC was not hacked.
So you tell me where this story is at.
Why would the press run with something that wasn't true?
Because they're creating fake news.
They create a false narrative that both parties were hacked, but whatever was learned about the Republicans was not used because the Russians didn't want Trump to lose.
They wanted Trump to win.
And so with Priebus telling Chuck Todd, no, no, we weren't hacked, it destroys their entire fake news narrative.
This destroys it.
So Chuck's getting frustrated.
You heard him say, wait a minute, this is not about me.
It is, Chuck.
That's the whole point.
It is about you.
This whole election was about you.
It continues to be about you.
And everybody else in the media, it is totally about you.
And what's becoming clear is that the media is incapable, folks, of changing.
They're not even able to practice deceit.
They only know they're one way of destroying Republicans, and they're engaging in it again here.
And that's not speaking lightly when I say they're trying to watergate Trump.
You got Bernstein involved.
You got Woodward involved.
You got both newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Trump's not even in office yet, and Bernstein's out there saying that Trump is worse than Nixon.
And the Russians hacking the election?
It wasn't that long ago the Democrat Party loved the Russians.
The Democrat Party loved the Soviet Union.
I'm going to remind you: we were the first to quote-unquote break the story years ago of Ted Kennedy working with the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan in an election.
The Democrat Party and the Soviet Communists, the Russians or whatever, they have been blood brothers.
And they were as recently as, don't forget Obama telling Dmitry Medvedev, you tell Vlad, this is in fall of 2012, you tell Vlad, be patient.
I'll have a lot more flexibility after I beat Romney and win the election.
He's talking about getting rid of our nuclear weapons arsenal.
This is the regime that's been in bed with Putin.
This is the regime, Hillary Clinton with a cheap plastic red reset button.
I must take a brief timeout, my friends.
We have much more straight ahead here on the EIB network, just kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence right here.
Okay, I want to ask some questions about Vladimir Putin and his competence because the Democrats and the drive-bys are claiming that Putin involved himself in our election illegally.
He interceded, and his desire was for Hillary Clinton to win.
He wanted Trump to win.
He wanted Trump wanted Hillary to lose.
So I have some questions about things.
We know here from the WikiLeaks dump about Democrat meddling.
Robert Kramer previously explained hiring at $1,500 per person people to disrupt Trump rallies and cause violence.
Donna Brazil giving the questions to Hillary in a series of debates.
But I have questions about this.
Did Vladimir Putin secretly persuade Hillary Clinton to take off most of August?
Did Vladimir Putin tell Hillary, don't, you don't need to go to Wisconsin?
You got it in a bag.
You don't need to go to these blue-walled states.
You own them, Hillary.
Don't waste your time.
In fact, Hillary, you don't even need to campaign.
Just sit there and recuperate.
You don't need to even leave your house, Hillary.
Did Vladimir Putin drug Hillary Clinton, causing her to collapse into a van and have a seizure on 9-11?
Did Putin secretly tell Trump where to go and do his campaign right in the middle of the urban core?
Did Putin tell Trump to make a pitch for votes based on an economic message of jobs, jobs, jobs, and make America great again?
Did Putin do all that?
Did Putin come up with Trump's campaign slogan?
Did Putin secretly cut a deal with that babe on Saturday Night Live to portray Hillary Clinton to millennials as an unlikable, power-hungry, humorless robot politician?
Did Putin tell Trump, go out there and spend all kinds of money and hold all these rallies?
You do all these rallies and just get thousands of people showing up at these rallies.
You just keep shouting, make America great again, make America safe again.
Did Putin secretly fund Robert Kramer?
Did he make Obama meet with Kramer and Black Lives Matter all those times in the White House?
Did Putin run out there and tell the Democrat Party to base their election on transgender bathrooms and same-sex marriage and Black Lives Matter and the cops deserve to be shot and all the other things the Democrat Party stood for?
Did Putin do that?
Was Putin responsible for the campaign strategy of the Democrat Party?
Was Vladimir Putin responsible for Donald Trump's campaign strategy?
Did Putin secretly influence this election so Donald Trump would put a bunch of warrior generals in positions of high responsibility in the U.S. military?
You telling me that Vladimir Putin wants a bunch of George Patton-type people in our cabinet?
You telling me that's what Vladimir Putin wanted and he cheated this election so that that's what Trump would do versus a woman who would continue the disarmament policies of her predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama, who thinks that the nuclear arsenal of the United States posed the greatest threat to freedom in the world and so we had to downsize?
You think Putin wants a Trump and all these great military guys?
Or would he have preferred to have Hillary who was going to disarm the United States anyway?
This Putin, I'll tell you folks, he's one sneaky, ingenious SOB the way he pulled all this off.
He had to be a brilliant guy for the Clinton campaign to be so special, kind of stupid, the way they lost this election.
Did Vladimir Putin tell Hillary Clinton to pile up all those votes in California in New York instead of focusing on electoral battleground states?
When did Vladimir Putin tell Hillary Clinton to call half the country deplorables?
▲
Export Selection