All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:28
December 14, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed on the program today by the host.
Documented to be almost always right, 99.8% of the time, according to the latest opinion audit.
Nobody else subjects themselves to an opinion on it, but I do.
And I do it fearlessly.
It's great to have you with us, folks.
The telephone number if you want to be here, 800 282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, L Rushbo at EIB net dot us.
And I have an email.
Dear Mr. Limbaugh, after the Russian hack story fades and the electors vote and Trump still wins, what'll their next move be?
We will still have 37 days to the inauguration.
I don't think they're going to give up the Russian hacking story.
But if they do, it'll be replaced by something else designed to delegitimize Trump.
I think the Russian hacking, when the New York Times puts 8,900 words, the uh front page story above the fold is 8900 words, and the Washington Post following, that of course means it's CNN and the LA Times and NBC and CBS will follow suit.
They take their lead from the New York Times.
This story's not going to go away anytime soon.
And here's what you need to remember about it, folks.
The Russians, and I want to make sure everybody hears me say this.
I am not denying that the Russians hack.
The TRICOMs hack.
We hack the Israelis hack, the Mossad.
Cyber attacks are common.
Nation to nation, cybersecurity is a big deal.
We have been told countless times of the efforts to hijack or to hack the Pentagon to hack the State Department.
Nobody's denying.
The way the Democrats are setting this up is that if you deny their allegation, they want it known that you're denying the Russians hacked.
Nobody's saying that.
What they're saying, what they're asserting is simply not true.
The Russians did not hack the election.
They want the low information crowd to believe that the Russians tampered with the vote somehow.
That's what they want people to believe.
And nobody, not even the New York Times is alleging that.
But that's what they want you to think.
Just to say it again, elections where votes are concerned, there are two aspects.
There's the balloting and the counting.
People cast their votes, and then people count them.
The exit polls don't count.
They're not official, they don't matter.
A hill of beans.
Except the Democrats are now trying to say that the exit poll showed that Hillary won.
Look at that's why everybody thought even at 9 p.m. on election night, Hillary's gonna win.
So the Democrats have tried this trick before.
The exit polls were right and the actual count was wrong.
It means the exit polls, people coming out were telling pollsters the truth, but whoever counted the votes cheated.
Well, guess what we found?
In the recounts of the three states where the Hillary campaign made it look like they had nothing to do with it, Jill Stein did, but was the Hillary campaign really buying and paying for this.
Trump expanded his count in two of the three states.
In Detroit, do you know what has been found?
More votes were counted than were cast.
Now who runs Detroit?
Not the Russians and not the Republicans.
The Democrats run Detroit.
So they have found some cheating.
They have found some, shall we say, irregularities.
More votes counted than were cast.
They're chalking it up to a machine error or a series of machine errors.
But it happened in Detroit, and the Democrats own and control and run everything in Detroit.
I mean, Republicans don't even live to tell a tale if they go vote there.
It just doesn't happen.
That's a bit of an exaggeration to make the point.
So the me what no, when there was cheating, The Democrats' fingerprints are on it is the bottom line, not the Russians.
Again, the Democrats are trying to make you think the Russians tampered with the outcome.
The recount that Jill Stein wanted in three states shows that Trump expanded his vote total.
And the count, the recount showed that the actual count was so close to what the recount was that there couldn't have been any serious cheating.
So here come the media, the New York Times, and the Democrat Party whining and moaning complaining about the Russians.
Trying to make you think the Russians hacked the election.
What the Russians supposedly hacked was Podesta's emails.
We don't know if the Russians hacked Podesta's emails.
We do know the Russians attempt to hack everything.
We do have some fingerprints of two different Russian security firms on a bunch of different hacks.
They are actually two different competing elements of Russian intelligence, if you want to know the truth.
And this has long been established.
There's nothing new.
The first story on this was way back in June of this, maybe June of 2015, in fact.
So there's nothing really new about this.
The Democrats are out of sorts.
This is the real reason they're out of sorts.
Because what was in the Podesta emails was largely true.
And it was hurtful and it was damaging.
But there wasn't any corresponding Republican dirt.
And so what the New York Times and the Clinton campaign, the rest of the media and the Democrats are essentially asserting here, is that the Russians monkeyed with the playing field.
And they made it unfair because they hacked the Republicans and they hacked the Democrats, but they didn't release anything they learned from the Republicans.
And that made it unfair.
And in that way, Putin wanted Trump to win.
And that's the second leg of the stool that they are attempting to make people believe.
There isn't any evidence for it.
And even the New York Times and Washington Post stories say so.
There is no evidence linking any of the hacks to the Russian government.
The FBI and the CIA are at variance with each other on details of this.
The White House Office of National Intelligence does not believe what the CIA is saying.
There is no consensus.
There is no unilateral agreement as to what happened here.
So the media is often running, writing a daily script of the soap opera, creating their own narrative.
And that narrative is that Trump loves Putin and that's bad.
Putin is a bad guy.
Putin is a mean guy.
Trump is a bad guy.
Trump is a mean guy.
Trump loves Putin.
Putin loves Trump.
Putin was benefiting Trump by airing all the dirty Democrat laundry, and this is not fair.
That's the crux of the story.
And in this sense, they don't tell us why Putin wanted Trump to win.
When most people with common sense would think that Putin would like a lackey in office, like Hillary Clinton, who has been on record demonstrating her naivete and dare I say stupidity, the plastic red reset button with the Russians.
Never mind that the Democrat Party has up till now been in bed with Russia.
Russia was a common enemy of the United States.
And when a Republican was in the White House, any enemy of the White House was a friend of the Democrats.
If that meant Ahmed in his ad, if that meant the Russians, if it meant Putin.
But now everything's 180 degrees out of phase.
And what really has happened here, and this is the last time I'm going to make the point, but I've learned over the years, my friends, that Repetition is necessary if you want something to stick in people's minds.
And what really is going the irony, if you will.
What is it that we Republicans and conservatives for all of our lives have been, for lack of a better word, complaining about.
We complain about the unfair treatment we get to the media.
We say the media is biased.
We say the media favors the Democrats.
We see the media promotes the Democrats.
We say they are unfair to us.
They target us for destruction.
They take us out, they report things about us and ignore other things about the Democrats.
I mean, you get the drift.
The media is the Democrats.
The media is as big an enemy to us as the Democrats are when actually one and the same.
Well, isn't it kind of juicy justice that the Democrats are getting a dose of their own medicine?
Because that's exactly I mean, to strip it all down.
In this case, the Russians are the media, and the Democrats are the Republicans.
And the Russians are not treating the Democrats fairly.
So the Democrats are finding out what it's like.
When a powerful entity in their mind is treating one side differently than the other.
They can't handle it, folks.
They can't deal with this kind of adversity.
So they claim that this is why they lost the election.
How many Republicans, when they lose, actually blame the media?
How many?
I mean, really seriously and make a career out of it.
Very, very few.
When Republicans lose elections, they do start asking what they did wrong, and they come to the wrong conclusions.
They concluded they weren't enough like the Democrats, but nevertheless they start examining themselves.
What did we do wrong?
Democrats, no, no, no, no.
They didn't do anything wrong in their mind.
No, no way.
No way.
The Democrats can't do anything wrong.
They're liberals.
So somebody had to cheat them.
Somebody had to give them the shaft.
And that's what this is all about.
They're trying to make it look like it's much more with all these 9,000-word articles and all of these quotes from different intelligence agencies and people and all the variations and possibilities of the hack and all the computer terminology and the secret dark characters involved, but it is strip it all away.
And what they're upset about is that these John Podesta emails found their way to the public, and everything in them was accurate and true.
They never denied any of this stuff.
They still now are not denying any of it.
They had a lousy candidate.
They had an arrogant candidate who thought she couldn't lose.
They all thought, everybody in the establishment thought Trump, even on election night, was going to lose in a blowout.
They believed their polsters, and they thought Trump had no chance.
They thought Trump was a buffoon and a joke from the get-go, and that never changed.
They ignored every indication that Trump could win.
There were a couple of them.
Let me, in fact, let me find this right, because this will be a good way to end the segment.
I just have to find it to put it in the right stack here.
I've got two different stacks, and I hope I've chosen.
I didn't.
I chose the wrong one.
And it's basically Nate Silver, the 538 guy, who is, well, it's in the third stack, and I will find it after the break.
But he's basically doing a story.
Well, uh, if just this had happened and if that had happened, I would have been right.
If if if if this state had gone this way and this state of gone, I would have been right.
I mean, they're they're going to the ends of the world to explain how they didn't screw up, that circumstances beyond their control that they couldn't foresee happened, and nobody's really responsible for the loss.
It's just all these different things that just happened that nobody saw coming.
Anyway, I've taken a brief time out here, folks, and let's see, is that it?
It's the only Yep, yep, that's everything I wanted to say.
We got soundbites coming up of your phone calls.
James Baker on Tillerson.
Some red flags, maybe, maybe, be right back.
Don't go away.
More proof that a special kind of stupid has infected everybody on the left.
Here's the Nate Silver story.
If the election had been held on a different day, Hillary might have won.
This is the extent to which they have lost their minds.
Well, yeah, if the election were in a different year, Hillary might have won.
If Trump had fallen down the steps of Air Force One before one of his rallies, Hillary might have won.
If Hillary hadn't been so stupid and gone to Wisconsin a couple of times, she might have won.
I mean, where does this kind of think?
Nate Silver still trying to explain, even after a month, how Hillary Clinton was upended by Trump.
Let's not forget that this guy on election day said Hillary Clinton had a greater than 70% chance of winning regarding any hypothetical outcome.
70% chance of winning.
At five in the afternoon, Hillary Clinton, 70% chance of winning.
How worthwhile was any of it?
You realize how much of the so-called gospel that is the left and the media has been blown to smithereens here, and they still don't know what hit them.
They have not seen politics like it's going to be practiced.
They have not seen action like it is going to take place.
Trump last night told these people that his cabinet gonna work so hard for you.
We're gonna work so hard for you.
Make no mistake.
He's being just completely honest about that.
The the the fact that this is politics in Washington, that's not even gonna be a factor.
These are just accomplished people gonna roll up the sleeves and start fixing what's broken, fixing what's wrong, and they're not gonna stop until they finish.
And people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are gonna be not gonna know what hit them.
And a lot of Republicans aren't either.
Here is Janet in uh Shiloh, Illinois, as we hit off on the phones today.
Janet, great to have you.
How are you doing?
I'm well.
Merry Christmas, Rush.
And um, I want to focus your attention on that New York Times piece because in it is why Trump got elected, and it wasn't because of hacking.
It's a little paragraph way, way down.
And it says that Obama knew about the hacks in 2014, but did not let not let anyone did not call out Russia because he needed Putin with Syria.
2014 comes after 2013 with the red lines.
When Obama backed down, and Obama was never dealing with a p from a position of strength after that.
We weren't winning anymore, as Trump kept repeating.
Trump kept saying we're gonna win again.
And he didn't call out the hacks.
A winner does not let an adversary hack you because you need the adversary.
And Samantha Powers, with what's coming out of the video coming out of Aleppo, the tweets coming out of Aleppo, the world is gonna see a human tragedy that we have not seen maybe since New York Two, okay?
And we didn't even see that stuff.
And we're not gonna the world is not gonna be able to process that the West sat by and let those people suffer.
And yesterday Boris Johnson held a two-hour thing in Parliament, and they decided at the end there was nothing else to do to alleviate the suffering.
Samantha Powers has been reduced to what she hated.
What she how she got to power, pun intended, was writing a book called a spy standard of genocide.
What has she been doing?
She's now been reduced to wagging her finger at the at Syria and Russia And Iran at the UN.
The UN has proven to be a joke to the people of Syria.
And Trump Trump might actually be able to help them, not till he gets into office.
And we just have to hope that the New York Times doesn't gin things up so badly against Putin, yet Obama throws some more soldiers in Chi Waka.
I know they threw in like three hundred over the weekend to Raka.
Well, that's ground zero for ISIS.
And that's uh I'll let you talk.
All right.
Well, I I didn't catch all of that uh because of the quality of the of the cell phone, but I'm I got I got most of it.
Um and there's no question that that Obama is hanging out to dry here in Syria and has been.
And and everything you said about this Samantha power and and this human crisis, this this near genocide that's going on over there, we see it.
It's happening.
There are people reporting on it.
But I I I if you said this, I have to I'm I'm not sure I heard you say this, but if if you think that the New York Times is spending all this time on the Russian hackery of the election to avoid covering this to avoid Obama, that's not true.
That may be an added benefit, but they're they believe this hacking stuff.
They're really trying to delegitimize this Trump victory.
That is front and center.
They're also trying to protect Obama from the incompetence of his foreign policy by ignoring the story where Syria is concerned.
Because his red line is the beginning of the actual mess that exists there.
Now hang on here, Jan.
I have to take a break here at the bottom of the hour.
We'll be back, and I just want to wrap this up with you when we get back.
So don't don't hang up yet.
Merry Christmas to one and all from all of us here at the EIB network back now with Janet in Shiloh, Illinois.
Janet, I just need to ask you, you know, every caller this week, last week, the week before that, we're in a fourth week now.
Every caller gets a brand new iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 plus, if you'd like one.
Would you?
Yes.
Okay, which is generosity is incredible.
It's just it's incredible to what you do from the child who loses a parent in War II, getting a call or a phone, thank you.
Well, you're you're very kind to say I preach that.
But what w which one would you like?
The seven or seven plus?
The big one, please.
The big one.
And and what who's your carrier?
ATT.
ATT, so pick a color, any color.
And by the way, I know I've steered everybody to black.
I I've it's just that the the the jet black was the for a time impossible to get, and I, as a powerful influential member of the media, had some.
But man, the the gold ones, the rose gold, or they're they're they're all beautiful.
The rose gold.
And Russ, one more thing.
I agree with you completely about the New York Times.
There's another component they want to demonize this Putin to blame him for Syria.
Uh demonized Blue.
Yeah.
Uh of course it's all about protecting Obama and his legacy and his reputation.
And it's a tough thing because the guy's incompetent.
Oh.
And and so everything is designed to to cloud that and obfuscate that.
Now, Janet, hang on a minute, Ms. W Yeah, yeah.
And a 24-7 subscription uh the website and all that.
Now hang on, Janet, so that you can uh Mr. Snurley get your address.
Get this to you.
Now I want to go back to her original call.
I feel duty-bound, folks.
It was a little bit in the weeds, but I want to tell you what what's going on here with the assertion she was making about Syria and and Putin and the New York Times and hacking and all of that, because this is um well, the opportunity is there, and I I just don't want uh her her call to have many of you scratching your head saying, what the hell was that?
So here's my best attempt at explaining it.
There is a quote in the New York Times.
Mr. Obama was briefed regularly on all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret he did not name Russians publicly for their hacking, nor did he issue sanctions.
There was always a reason.
Fear of escalating a cyber war and concerns that the United States needed Russia's cooperation in negotiations over Syria.
See, Aleppo is blowing up.
So it's another Obama foreign policy disaster.
And with the hacking story being the focal point of the New York Times, because believe me, folks do not doubt me on this.
This New York Times story on hacking and the Washington Post story on hacking, it's not to cover up what's going on in Aleppo.
If that also happens, that's a little bonus.
The express purpose here is to de-legitimize Trump's win and further delegitimize his presidency.
If they can, they will impeach Trump.
They've already let us know.
Carl Bernstein's already out telling us that Trump is worse than Nixon.
Do not doubt me on this.
They are fuming.
They are angry.
They feel rejected.
When people don't vote for them, they blame the voters and they blame everybody else.
And so all of this, this story on this hacking is all about how Trump cheated with Putin.
Putin aided Trump.
Hillary didn't have a chance.
The election was rigged.
The election was hacked.
The Russians hacked.
This is what they want people to believe.
Now, in the midst of all this, as we have launched our attack on ISIS, here comes Aleppo in Syria just in flames.
50,000 civilians this morning before the program began were trapped, after many thousands of others have already been summarily murdered and wiped out.
So the New York Times is in full Obama protection mode.
And this paragraph, Mr. Obama was briefed regularly in all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret.
He did not name Russians publicly.
There was always a reason, fear of escalating a cyber war, and concern the United States needed Russia's cooperation and ongoing negotiations with Syria.
So translation of this.
Hey, New York Times tell us Obama knew that the Russians were screwing Hillary all the way way back.
And he did they were hacking.
This is BS, folks.
This is absolute, this is just another series of lies.
And Mr. Obama knew.
He knew all along.
And they regret now that Obama didn't call the Russians out a year and a half ago.
But Obama didn't do it because he was afraid of escalating cyber war.
And we needed Putin in our negotiations with Syria.
A senior State Department official, still with the New York Times here, said we'd we'd have all these circular meetings in which everyone agreed that you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard, but it didn't happen.
And because we knew what we had to do, we should have pushed back, we should have pushed back long before the campaign began.
So the Russians escalated cyber attacks again.
They broke into systems not just for espionage, but to publish or broadcast what they found, known as doxing in the cyber world.
So the White House is in a CYA mode.
We all knew it.
We knew what was going on.
And we regret we didn't call the Russians out earlier.
Meanwhile, none of this happened.
There wasn't any hacking.
Do you realize WikiLeaks, who is the source for everything in the Podesta emails, is saying the Russians have nothing to do with this.
The Russians are not where we got this.
We got this from an inside source at the Democrat Party.
And the New York Times, if you read all 9,000 words, you will find that they don't have any evidence that the Russians did this.
It's just a bunch of circumstantial things coupled with bias and prejudice.
And it's quotes from nameless intelligence officers opining and telling us what they think, but there isn't any evidence.
There's no evidence that Podesta was hacked by the Russians.
And certainly not by the Russian government.
Even the Washington Post makes clear that if there was Russian involvement, it can't be traced back to the actual government.
Well, that's where Putin is.
This is such a snow job.
This is such a smokescreen.
Everybody now in CYA most the purpose of this aspect of the New York Times story is Obama knew.
He's so smart, he's so brilliant.
He knew.
And they rolled the dice.
They didn't want to make the Russians even madder than they were, and they Needed Russia in Syria, so they let it go, and it came back and bit them.
Here is the next paragraph in the New York Times.
Well, it's analysis.
If Obama had said the Russians were hacking the DNC, let me just tell you, that wouldn't have stopped the Russians.
Even if Obama had gone against his instincts.
The Times tell us that Obama knew it, but rolled a dice and the White House didn't say anything.
This is how they get themselves off the hook, by the way.
Now we knew about it, we just didn't say anything.
Well, I'm just here to tell you if that if Obama had said the Russians were hacking the DNC at any stage in the Democratic.
Can you imagine that?
Ladies and gentlemen, uh, press Congress, I just discovered that uh Vladimir Putin and Russians uh have been busy hacking the Democrat National Committee are working with the Trump campaign.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama had gone out and actually admitted that?
Do you realize how incompetent the Democrat National Committee and Obama would have looked if they had publicly accused Russia of successfully hacking them?
So they didn't.
Everybody would have just laughed at him.
I mean, the media might have been outraged.
People would have laughed at this.
But the Russian government wasn't involved.
The New York Times says so, the Washington Post says so.
And that's why Obama himself has never said they were.
All Obama has said is that we need to have an investigation.
Obama has never said Putin was behind this.
Harry Reid can say it, Nancy Pelosi can say it, a bunch of elected Democrats can say, but Obama's not saying it.
Just as he said they weren't involved back in November.
On November 16th, Obama said there was no evidence that Russians had hacked anything.
People have forgotten that.
New York Times is saying what the point of their story is that if Obama had just spoken out, the hacking would have stopped.
Which is laughable because the hacking wasn't the Russians.
Whoever sent Podesta that fishing attack.
If Obama goes out there, the Russians have been discovered to have been hacking a DNC, uh headquarters.
The whoever the kid in the basement in the pajamas is, that's actually did this, would have been laughing his pajama clad butt off and would have ramped up his efforts.
That's why I said opened the program.
These people look childish, they look pathetic.
They it it's just they look like losers.
Whining little children, trying to act like one of the greatest offenses against humanity has ever taken place here.
With the defeat of Hillary Clinton.
Be right back, folks.
Now look at in that New York Times piece today.
That 9,000 word piece, 8900, there is a picture of a file cabinet from the Watergate era.
Do not doubt what's going on.
Here's Dingy Harry.
Russian hacking as big a deal as 9-11 and Watergate.
Harry Reid says Russian hacking during this presidential election is as significant as the 9-11 terror attacks and the Watergate scandal and call for a special commission to investigate.
Now that is that's just deranged.
To compare John Podesta's emails going public with 3,000 Americans being murdered.
And to compare it to Watergate, make no mistake what they're doing.
But folks, I think they're going to be left in the dust.
They still don't know what's in them.
They're trying to stop Trump the ways they have always succeeded in stopping other Republicans.
There's a big difference in Trump in previous Republicans.
They have a strategy known as surrender.
When the media starts coming after them and the Democrats come after them, the Republicans come, oh, okay, okay, okay.
Trump says what?
What?
And just keeps plowing ahead.
And then impugning them and laughing at him, making fun of them with his tweets and so forth.
I think.
Well, I don't want to get too far ahead of myself here, but I I think we living here at a time where we have the distinct possibility of many Of the tried and true Democrat tactics that have been so successfully used to stymie and destroy Republicans being blown up and right back in their faces and exposed as pointless and worthless.
These are techniques and tactics that are explicitly designed to take down politicians and people of that mindset and mentality, and that is not Trump.
Trump didn't even have a political record that they can focus on and run against.
So they have to focus on this.
Somehow the election was cheated and taken from them.
It's a, it's a, you, you, you wait.
Thank you.
This has the potential to leave these people so far in the dust that they're not even going to be seen.
They clearly do not yet know who Donald Trump is, why he won.
They don't know why they lost, and they're not interested in finding out.
They want to focus on this cheat business.
The only thing they can do when they do lose is de-legitimize.
They got away with it with George W. Bush.
Florida recount, Supreme Court stopping the count, go forward.
Everything about Bush was illegitimate.
After 9-11, one week passed, starting their attacks on Bush as incompetent, the whole Iraq war.
It took him five years, but they got his numbers down to 30% in the approval.
Category.
The people that elected Donald Trump do not in any way think this is illegitimate, nor do they think he is.
And there's more of them.
I don't care about this popular vote garbage.
There are more people eager to see what happens here with Trump and excited about it than there are by far ringing their hand.
Why do we lose?
It's it's going to be exciting.
It's going to be fun to watch these people try their 35 and 40-year-old tactics.
The only tactics they know, and I think it's possible they're all going to blow up in their face.
I'm hoping so.
We'll see.
Here is uh J.R. Is it JR?
In Columbus, Ohio.
Jarrell, great to have you.
How are you doing, sir?
Uh doing well.
Mega Merry Christmas Ditto's rush.
Same to you, sir.
Thank you.
Okay, so here's my question.
Did you feel the same when Trump won the election as you did when Reagan won in 1980?
Uh well, you on balance, yeah.
I mean, I uh in both cases, uh maybe even a little bit more so with Trump.
Uh but yeah, I was everybody I remember when Reagan won was ecstatic, and it was and they were ecstatic for many of the same reasons.
The polls all had Reagan losing, the last poll had Reagan losing by nine.
Um we were in terrible economic circumstances.
Uh so yeah, re Reagan's Reagan's win was huge, and the media was up there all upset.
What happened to the polls?
Why'd the polls get it wrong?
I'm a little older now, and I've got a lot more maturity, and I know a lot more than I knew in the 1980s.
And this is this is a this is a bigger earthquake, precisely because Trump's not from the political system.
Hmm.
Well, thank you.
What about why did you want to know that?
Well, because I was 13 when Reagan won, and my children are 13 and 14, and they ran in my bedroom at two in the morning jumping on my bed.
Well, you know, there are there's some differences between 1980 and now.
Back in 1980, there are only three networks.
Ah, yeah.
And I f CNN was just getting going, I think.
Now your kids can't escape.
Thirteen-year-olds back then, uh, if they didn't watch the evening news, they didn't see news.
If they didn't watch the 6.30 or 7 p.m. news, they didn't see news.
Today it's it's uh it's a much younger people have much more access to that kind of hard news than you did when you were 13 back then.
So I but still I uh the the emotion is similar to answering the question.
Now, what kind of iPhone 7 do you want?
A seven or a plus?
Oh, Rush, thank you.
Uh a seven would be just terrific, and and and thank you so much.
You're well, iPhone 7.
What?
Uh what who's your carrier?
Uh T Mobile.
T Mobile.
Right on.
Okay, now here's what's going to happen.
Do you have a color preference?
Uh black.
Okay.
I'm going to send you an iPhone 7 in in black, and it'll work on T Mobile.
It might have, I don't know without opening it, might have an ATT SIM card in it.
No matter if it does, this phone will work on either ATT or T-Mobile.
These phones are unlocked.
That means what what kind of phone do you have now?
An iPhone 4.
Uh some SIM phone.
SIM card's too big.
You couldn't swap.
So take care.
Take your phone, your iPhone 4, and this new one to the ATT store or T-Mobile store, and tell them that the new phone, the 7 is a gift.
Okay.
And that it might have an ATT SIM card in it, but you know that it'll work on T-Mobile, and they should set you right up, okay?
Awesome.
Also a uh prescription subscription.
Well, it may be a prescription for something.
Uh Rush 24-7.
One year from the website in the newsletter.
Hang on so we get your address and get this stuff out to you.
We'll be right back here, folks.
Don't go.
All right, regarding our last caller, I think I think safe to say that this, the Trump win, is the biggest upset victory, maybe ever.
Certainly in my lifetime.
It's the biggest upset.
So the emotion that's attached to that is is going to be profound.
The Reagan win was huge for many of the same reasons, but it wasn't the big upset that this was.
▲
Export Selection