Rush Limbaugh Program - December 15, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 15, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:48

December 15, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	They keep trying to suck us into this.
	And folks, I've got no choice.
	I gotta get sucked in.
	I gotta let the suckers succeed here in order to obliterate what they're talking about.
	But I still resent it.
	This whole election was hacked thing is a full-fledged joke.
	And get this.
	There's a new poll out from the Fox News channel.
	Fifty-nine percent of the respondents said that all of this had no impact on the election.
	The Democrats are gonna look at that and they're gonna start pulling their hair out because everything is boomeranging on them.
	You realize that?
	While it may look to you like the Democrats are carrying the day here because they're defining the narrative and what everybody's talking about.
	Don't forget who won the election and who lost.
	And don't forget who was rejected.
	And don't forget who was repudiated.
	Obama, Hillary.
	It was an electoral college landslide, folks.
	She was sent packing, as was Obama and his agenda.
	And that hasn't changed.
	The American people's minds haven't changed.
	They don't regret the way they voted.
	So all this stuff that the Democrats are doing is really boomeranging on them.
	The media is aware of it, but trying to hide that, and they're getting more angry by the day that what they're trying to do isn't working, so they're intensifying the effort, and that's where we are.
	Greetings and welcome.
	It's great to have you, Rush Limbaugh here at the EIB network.
	Another three hours of broadcast excellence.
	Something's wrong, folks.
	Something is terribly wrong.
	Mr. Snerdley brought me the evidence today.
	I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
	A printed copy of a story from the hill.com.
	The headline, Limbaugh, no one can prove Russia hacked the election.
	I said, what's the big deal about this?
	He said it they reported inaccurately.
	There's no snark.
	They don't refer to you as conservative.
	Blow hard.
	They don't refer to you in any kind of derogatory term.
	They really just quote what you say, and that's it.
	I said, let me see that.
	So I grabbed it and I looked at it, and I've got it right here.
	And Snerdley's right.
	This is not good, folks.
	I mean, they're reporting on me accurately.
	This is not normal.
	They are, they are, there was there is no snark.
	There is no reference or there are no allusions to how I am off on a wacko conspiracy theorist tangent.
	All they do is record it, is report me and quote me accurately.
	That I pointed out, nobody's alleged that the Russians actually hacked the election.
	To hack the election, they would have to do one of two things.
	They would have to hack the way people voted or hack the way the votes were counted.
	That's how you hack an election.
	If you even can.
	But nobody's alleging.
	We've had three recounts, and in all those recounts, the original count was pretty much confirmed.
	They're hidden in any evidence whatsoever to suggest there was any kind of fraud.
	Jill Stein bye bye, Hillary Clinton bye-bye.
	No, what they're alleging is, uh, ladies and gentlemen, that the Russians stole the election.
	That whole narrative hinges on the preposterous supposition that millions of people voted for Trump instead of Hillary because of what they saw in the Podesta emails.
	Now, never mind at the time when the Podesta emails were being reported on, and the drive-bys did.
	They reported on them.
	I mean, it was it was too juicy not to.
	But while they were reporting on the contents of the Podesta emails, the drive-by's the media was assuring everybody that there was nothing to see here.
	There was nothing new.
	That the Podesta emails revealed nothing of any real importance.
	Let me do a little pop quiz.
	How many of you, if I had you on the phone right now, could answer a question.
	What do you remember that was in the emails?
	You got 10 seconds.
	10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 432.
	What do you remember?
	Can you remember?
	Can you cite for me one thing you remember from the Well, Snerdly, you can't because you're a nerd.
	What What do you remember?
	Okay, how they dissed their own donors, made fun of- yes, yes, of course.
	But my point is that that not enough of that could have happened for the election to be affected by it.
	That's and so, and now here's the latest news is that Putin was directly involved.
	Yeah, it came all away from the Politburo.
	It came all away from the Kremlin.
	Putin himself was involved.
	And now Josh Ernest, White House press secretary, oh, is the media in a dizzy over this.
	Remind me.
	Remind me, press briefing.
	That's all you gotta say.
	Josh Ernest is out there saying Trump was in on it.
	Trump knew.
	Trump was urging Putin to hack the Democrats.
	It's a laugh, a bull joke.
	Everybody, well, I'm sure many of you remember, but what happened was Trump cracked a joke in a debate about the missing 33,000 Hillary emails.
	There were 33,000 that she had deleted of the 60,000 that were on her server.
	And she told us there's nothing to see there, but Hillary's wedding and yoga classes and the wedding reception and the registry.
	There's nothing to see there.
	But late in the campaign, there were all kinds of allusions to the fact that somebody had those 33,000 emails that was going to release them, but it never happened.
	So during the debate, Trump cracked a joke.
	Maybe the Russians could find them.
	That's all they've got.
	They're taking that because a people are humorless.
	The people on the left have no sense of supposedly the greatest comedians in the world and the finest minds in the world, but they have no sense of humor, and particularly if you're laughing at them or mocking them.
	So Trump comes out and says, maybe the Russians can find him.
	So immediately the drive-by's translate that into Trump urging Putin to continue hacking the Democrats.
	There's no way.
	Trump was making a joke about it.
	The White House is now running with that is the source.
	That's the Trump comment that Josh Ernest and all the Democrats are using to say that Trump knew about the hack and was encouraging Putin to do it when the truth of the matter is, and we revealed this yesterday, Barack Obama knew the hack was going on all the way back in September of 1950 of 2015.
	The New York Times, the Bible, the gospel.
	The New York Times, the Bible and Gospel of the Left had the story yesterday.
	It was in a story about Syria, actually, in part.
	And we should we had a caller about it.
	So I went into great depth after the caller to make sure people understood what the caller was talking about, and then that story, and we learned that Obama and the White House had known of Russian attempts and desires to uh impact or affect the election.
	Obama sat on it.
	He didn't do anything about it.
	And the reason he didn't do anything about it is because he didn't want to irritate the Russians, because needed the Russians with whatever his policy in Syria happened to be, which is also blowing up on him.
	So Obama knowing about it from September 15th of last year, has become Trump knew, Trump urged, Putin was involved.
	I'm telling you, they're flailing, folks.
	They are flailing away.
	They are in wandering, desperate search for anything they can grab onto to give them any sense of hope that what happened didn't happen.
	They are desperately trying to convince themselves they were not summarily blown out.
	They are trying to convince themselves that they were not sent packing.
	They are trying to convince themselves that they actually won this election, that the American people still love them.
	The American people still prefer them if it weren't for this cheating that the Russians did.
	But again, nobody can prove the Russians hacked the election.
	The only thing that can be said is that, and by the way, I don't even buy the fact that Russia is involved in the WikiLeaks dump of the Podesta emails.
	I'm at a point, folks, where I don't believe anything.
	My My first gut reaction to anything I see in the news is to question it and to check it myself and to not believe it.
	And the idea that the Russians had people running around hacking Podestas' emails and then giving those over to WikiLeaks, the WikiLeaks people say it wasn't Russia, and they've been insisting this for a long time.
	The UK Daily Mail has a story documenting with great detail who actually did this.
	It was a Democrat committee member insider upset at the fact that Hillary Clinton had rigged the game against Bernie Sanders.
	UK Daily Mail.
	Why is nobody paying attention to that story?
	Because it doesn't fit the narrative and the script of the Daily Soap Opera that the Russians did this because the Russians wanted Trump and the Russians didn't want Hillary.
	And it's all about the Democrats trying to prove to themselves they haven't been rejected to the extent that they have been.
	They want to continue to live a lie.
	And they're doing a good job of convincing themselves.
	And so we have a circumstance where the UK Daily Mail details.
	The scenario, how it happened.
	An insider at the Democrat National Committee or somewhere in the Democrat Party, all mad about how Bernie Sanders being treated, decided to do the hack and release what he had to WikiLeaks.
	There's just as much evidence for that as there is the Russians.
	Now the Russians and the Chicoms and the Norks in the Venezuelans and the Israel.
	Everybody is trying to hack everybody every day all the time.
	It'd be ridiculous to assert the Russians were not hacking.
	They're not trying to, just like it would be absurd to insist that the Chicoms weren't doing so either.
	But I just I don't believe it.
	Too many people, the conventional wisdom has become the Russians did it to Russians.
	That's that's reason number one for me to doubt it.
	And plus the people behind it and promoting it are people I don't trust anyway, people who have ulterior motives, people who politicize everything, people who just got cream.
	Do you know what the final electoral vote count is the tally?
	The 50 states and the District of Columbia had all certified their results as of Monday, three days ago.
	And here's the final 306 votes for Trump, 232 votes for Hillary Clinton.
	Now let me tell you about that 232.
	This is a little fact that you're not seeing much out there.
	232 electoral votes is the fewest electoral votes for any member of the Democrat Party since 1988.
	Fewer electoral votes than Bill Clinton, fewer electoral votes than Barack Hussein oh.
	In either of the elections that they won.
	I mean, in and and uh and other Democrat losses.
	Fewer electoral votes than John Carey in 2004.
	Folk, at fewer electoral votes than Al Gore in 2000.
	Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate.
	And now you know who they're blaming at the Hillary campaign?
	They're dumping it all on Huma.
	They are now the insiders, some of them in the Hillary campaign, some of the Democrat Party are dumping it all on Huma Abaddon.
	It was Huma's fault.
	Huma got too close to Hillary, thought she was a star, thought she was about whom everything was circulating, and she shielded Hillary from some brilliant ideas that other members of the campaign staff had.
	And this this folks is a humiliating 232 electoral votes when you need 270.
	So now the attack on the Electoral College is intensifying.
	I watched this morning, I could barely avoid spitting out my coffee.
	Martin Sheen and a bunch of literally B list celebrities, some of them that I didn't recognize.
	And even when I found out their names, I'd never heard of them with a video urging electors to not vote Trump.
	They don't care who the electors vote for.
	Some of them suggest Romney.
	And they make a point of saying, we're not suggesting you vote for Hillary.
	And they go on and on and on about what they think are Trump's lack of qualifications, lack of temperament.
	It's led by Martin Sheen, the pretend president that Liberals think was the president during the days of the West Wing TV show.
	And it we we have some excerpts of it coming up as we get to the audio soundbite roster today.
	And it's it it's folks, it's funny because all of these celebrities refer to one founding father.
	Hamilton.
	It's the only founding father they know.
	And the only founding father they know is Hamilton, and the only reason they know that is because there is a big musical about Hamilton.
	And so it's pop culture city.
	They urge electors to do what Hamilton would have done, behave as Hamilton would have behaved.
	What these people don't get is Donald Trump is Hamilton.
	When it comes to immigration and a number of key policy ideas, Alexander Hamilton and Donald Trump are very, very close.
	And these Hollywood waste cases are out suggesting that electors study up on Alexander Hamilton and do what Hamilton was.
	Hamilton would be embracing Trump today for much of what Trump is doing.
	Not everything, not everything.
	So that sets the table.
	We'll have details on all of these things and other exciting little tidbits of news out there.
	You hang in, folks.
	We will continue with much more right after this, as we always.
	Back on November 15th, two weeks after the election, people were questioning Trump.
	He had had a meeting with Obama in the White House.
	He's praising him to the hilt.
	The meeting was scheduled for 10 or 15 minutes and went an hour and a half.
	And uh Trump was going on and on how much respect he had for Obama and how Obama had promised to help, and they were working together and it would look best buds and so forth.
	And I warned everybody to not jump to conclusions on this that Trump knows we are precariously balanced as a nation right now.
	We have a very disappointed and angry Democrat Party with still conducting total control over the levers of power.
	We have a president who is has been personally repudiated.
	His agenda has been personally repudiated in this election.
	Whether he admits it public or not, he knows it.
	And his party, as led by him, has been dealt severe setbacks and defeats since 2010.
	They're very dangerous.
	I said Trump knows this.
	Uh the nation is precariously balanced these next two months, as they're back on November 15th.
	We've got vanquished Democrats literally deranged, unhinged and angry.
	Trump has to make nice so as not to provoke.
	And I think the whole CIA dump on Trump with the Russian hack.
	I told you a couple days ago, maybe the first, maybe on Monday this week, that I thought the first real mistake Trump had made was attacking the intelligence guys when the news stories first hit about the Russians hacking and the CIA had evidence and you know the those first two stories, the New York Times and Washington Post stories over the weekend.
	I thought Trump had made a mistake because the intelligence guys can do any number of things to damage a sitting president.
	They can give him false reports, false news.
	It's a very, very, very dangerous situation.
	And Peter King, Congressman Long Island, was on the Kelly file last night.
	She asked him, what does it tell you that these agencies refused Congress's demands that they show up and share intel?
	All we've heard from the intelligence community over the last several months is that they could not say that there was any attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton to help Donald Trump.
	The uh consensus Was that there was an attempt by the Russians to put the cloud over the election to create disunity.
	Well, that's what's happening right now, and it's the intelligence community that's doing it.
	This violates all protocols, and it's almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president elected of the United States.
	It's absolutely disgraceful.
	And if they're not doing it, then it must be someone in the House or the Senate who's leaking false information.
	And there should be a full investigation of this.
	I'm not a big fan of this guy, but he's exactly right about this.
	And this is exactly what I was talking about when I said I thought Trump may have made a mistake.
	Not that they intelligence people weren't going to do this anyway, but there's no reason to egg them on.
	What the question is about, the House has asked the CIA to come up and sit for hearings on what is known, and the CIA is refusing.
	They say there's nothing to tell you until this is all over.
	We don't know near enough.
	We're not showing up till next year.
	So there's clearly all of this has been politicized.
	There's no question about it now.
	By the way, folks, it's not just the CIA either.
	It is all four intelligence agencies.
	CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, there's uh the State Department has one of his uh there's another, but four that have been requested by Congress to come up for briefing.
	Which happens all the time.
	Congress, the House Intelligence Committee, it's all off the record.
	Well, no, no, it's it's all behind closed doors, it's not off the record.
	And these agencies have told them to go pound sand.
	They're refusing to testify, claiming, well, we're still gathering intelligence.
	There's nothing to really tell you right now.
	So they keep leaking it to the media that Trump this and Trump that and Putin this and Putin that, but they won't come up and put it on the record, and it can only mean one thing.
	It's because Obama's telling them not to.
	Obama's fingerprints are all over all of this.
	As they have been all over everything.
	And Hillary's fingerprints are all over all of those episodes of violence at Trump campaign rallies.
	It is Obama who was told, again, in September of 2015, that the Russians were hacking various entities and might be interested in affecting the election.
	And he didn't push back against the Russians, and he didn't do anything to stop it, and he didn't tell anybody because of Syria.
	This was all in the New York Times yesterday.
	We had a caller.
	The caller was speaking rapidly when the caller finished, and I did a little bit of a translation, spent 15 minutes explaining this yesterday, that Obama was of all of anybody who knew what the Russians are doing, it was Obama.
	Now they're out there saying that Trump knew that Trump was encouraging Putin to do it.
	Here is Josh Ernest at the White House press briefing yesterday during the QA.
	The Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent.
	It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he was he had available to him that Russia was involved.
	The Republican nominee chose a campaign chair that had extensive, lucrative, personal financial ties to the Kremlin.
	So does that.
	It was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack and leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties.
	Would that have made it okay, Josh?
	If the Russians had revealed whatever they had found in the in the Republican hack, would that have made it okay because that would have made it fair?
	Is that really what you guys want to say?
	And do you really mean to say, Mr. Ernest, that Trump himself called on Russia to hack the Democrats?
	That's not what happened.
	One more time.
	And again, I just want to remind you, Fox News has a poll out.
	59% of the people think this had nothing to do with the election.
	It's imploding on the Democrats.
	Don't fall for the media making it look like everybody agrees with this.
	Like they made it look like everybody agreed with what was going on in opposition to the religious freedom exemption law in Indiana.
	It's a media trick.
	They get on something and they cover it in a way to make it look like everybody in the country agrees With what they're reporting, and they're doing it on this, and it's not the case.
	Fifty-nine percent think this had nothing to do with it, and most people think this is a bunch of hot air, a bunch of childish whining.
	And they're not being in any way affected by it.
	And I resent having to come in and still defend this kind of stuff, but I'm changed my tack.
	I'm not defending.
	I'm looking at this as going on offense to beat this stuff back.
	Donald Trump in a debate, when it came up that there were 33,000 missing Hillary Clinton emails cracked a joke.
	He said maybe the Russians can find him.
	Hillary can't find them, and if Comey can't find them, and if nobody else in our government can find him, maybe the Russians can find him.
	And that's all.
	And that's what Josh Ernest says is Donald Trump urging the Russians to hack the Democrats.
	It was it was hilarious, but they have no ability to laugh at much of anything now.
	Certainly not themselves.
	But you'll notice that even these people are not alleging that it was the election that was hacked because there's no way.
	Notwithstanding the fact that when there is election fraud, it's largely the Democrats that do it.
	As in Detroit, do you know in Detroit that there were many more votes counted than were cast?
	We learned that yesterday.
	Many more votes tabulated and counted than were actually cast.
	Who runs Detroit?
	The Democrats run Detroit.
	Anyway, Hillary's blue wall, it betrayed her.
	Trump won those three states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.
	They tried with the recount to prove that there was fraud and the Russians had hacked it.
	There was no evidence Trump increased his count in every one of those states, I think two of them.
	So what what they're now saying is Ernest says, and it was obvious to those who were covering the race, that the hack and leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties, meaning they only revealed what was in the Podesta emails, but they didn't reveal whatever they learned from hacking the Republicans.
	So the Josh, would that have made it fair if the Russians had hacked the Republicans and had found anything embarrassing and had released it?
	Would that have made it fair?
	Is that what you oddballs are saying?
	Kellyanne Conway was righteously indignant about this.
	Because I mean, that is a that is a that that that is a dangerously incompetent charge to suggest that the president-elect worked with the Russians to hack or hack the Democrats and affect the outcome of the United States election, and that's what he said from the White House.
	That means Obama thinks it.
	When Ernest goes out there and don't believe that stuff's not pre-approved and not even strategized.
	It is strategized.
	They have a meeting, White House press briefing, usually at 1 p.m.
	They have a meeting, Josh here's what we want you to say.
	Ernest may throw his two cents in.
	They come up with what they want to say, send him out and say it.
	Obama intended this to be said.
	Kellyanne Conway Fox and friends today react to it.
	That is breathtaking.
	That is incredibly disappointing to hear from the podium and the White House press secretary.
	He essentially stated that the President-elect had knowledge of this, maybe even fanned the flames.
	It's incredibly irresponsible.
	And I wonder if his boss, President Obama, agrees.
	He also congratulated the President elect and conceded the election results to him, as did his Secretary Clinton.
	Coming from the podium and basically trying to relitigate a political campaign when the president and the president-elect and their senior staff are trying to work together very closely to have a peaceful transition of power in a great democracy with just about a month plus to go.
	Well, see, this is my whole point.
	Trump is making it look like it's peaceful.
	Trump is going out of his way to accommodate Obama and to praise Obama and to thank Obama, and to tell everybody Obama's a smart guy.
	Man, I love this guy, Trump's saying he's bringing really helpful, really cooperative.
	I'm going to be seeking this guy's counsel even after I'm president.
	He's gone all the way, and I know why he's doing it, I've told you.
	We're really at a very, very precariously dangerous time in America now because the people that have been defeated Have become unhinged, but they still have the levers of power.
	And so Trump is doing everything he could not to provoke them.
	And still, this is what's happening.
	Still, because they can't accept the fact that they lost, which means they can't accept the fact they've been rejected.
	By the way, turned out to be right, Janet Yellen yesterday when I analyzed why she raised the interest rate a quarter of a point.
	She went out and said, We got soundbite here, I'll have to translate it for you.
	But essentially I was right that the economy is starting to really pick up, and we need to put the brakes on it so that there's not too much uh inflation.
	This is the Obama reclamation project right now, the restoring economy.
	The news is out there that Trump is inheriting the greatest economy in the last 10 years.
	That's also part of the narrative that the media working with the Democrats are attempting to establish.
	And yelling raising the interest rate a quarter of a point because the economy is starting to pick up and it's going so fast we need to put the brakes on so there's no inflation.
	It's the Obama reclamation project.
	Now, if you want to look at it the other way, you could say, well, maybe Trump has something to do with this, and he's acknowledging that Obama's economy is pretty good as part of the mission not to provoke Obama.
	You can look at this one or two ways.
	I prefer my original interpretation.
	One more bite before we go to the break.
	Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA, last night on CNN with Jake Tamper, questioned Kellyanne Conway the other night said they didn't like foreign governments trying to intrude in the political process, and they didn't like the intelligence agencies trying to intrude in the political process.
	Mr. Hayden, what's your response to that?
	And what is the personal response of your friends who are still at the CIA?
	There's a great deal of disappointment and frankly disappointment trending towards anger to be so casually dismissed.
	John Brennan, the current director out there, John loves CIA.
	John's been in CIA all of his adult life.
	There is no earthly reason John would shove the agency he loves out into this traffic lane to where they are now, unless he was compelled to do so by what they believe to be the facts.
	And so this is not CIA being political or being politicized.
	So Hayden is pretty much saying that a CIA is mad by Trump dismissing them.
	He's mad.
	CIA is mad that the way Trump characterized them, and this is their way of getting even.
	Normally they wouldn't get anywhere near anything like this internal politics, but they're so mad now.
	Exactly why I said on Monday, I thought this might be the first mistake Trump's made.
	But even at that Hayden here, I met Michael Hayden once at a Steelers game in Pittsburgh.
	And I just asked him a question.
	Um always wondered.
	It's not about any of this.
	He's from Pittsburgh.
	He was a fun guy to talk to.
	I said, the CIA director know everything that the agency is doing.
	No way.
	There's too much going on, Clinton.
	No, no.
	Now the answer he gave me is too long.
	You know, I have this view of CEOs and and uh corporate leaders as in touch and in command of everything going on in their company.
	I asked Rumsfeld once.
	I said, is there one person that knows everything going on in the Pentagon at a given moment, he said, no way.
	I'm not talking about rogue.
	I mean, of course you're gonna have rogue people doing things with, but I mean the stuff that's been ordered, the stuff that's in the budget, the stuff that is in the mission, is there somebody that knows what everybody in the Pentagon No, not possible.
	And it's the same thing at the CIA.
	And in that way, I think it can easily be politicized.
	Obama politicized everything else in his administration, why not this?
	The fact that they won't come up and testify before Congress and ask questions pretty much seals that deal for me anyway.
	Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, serving humanity.
	Simply by showing up.
	We start on the phones of Reno, Nevada.
	This is James.
	Welcome, sir.
	Great to have you on the EIB network.
	Hi.
	Hi, Russ.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	You bet, sir.
	So here's my question for you.
	I know there's been a lot of effort On the left to delegitimize the Trump administration before it's even started.
	So what I'm wondering is if another candidate, another Republican candidate had won the election like Ted Cruz or John Kasich, would he have gotten the same backlash as Trump?
	Or do you think it's a lot worse because the left knows they can't control Trump?
	He's not part of the establishment, and they're worried he will do what he said he's going to do.
	They would be trying to delegitimize any Republican winner, but with Trump, I think there is an intensity factor increase because Trump was so improbable.
	they can't believe they've lost.
	They just hate Trump.
	They have no respect for Trump whatsoever.
	They, you know, Trump is a genuine outsider.
	They They can't believe they got Trumped by the guy.
	They just they can't believe it.
	There is a deep resentment and hatred for Trump personally and how he won the fact that he vanquished Hillary, but your question is a good one, and it's a great one for people to learn because they would be doing this.
	If it was Ted Cruz, it would be close to identical.
	Different subject matter about why Cruz is incompetent and incapable.
	And they'd be questioning the electoral college.
	They'd be questioning the the authenticity of the vote, because I guarantee you, whoever the Republican candidate would have been, the polling would have told them that Hillary was going to win.
	They were convinced Hillary is going to win, especially against Trump.
	But it wouldn't have mattered.
	Whoever the Republican in the future is, or would have been in this election.
	The Democrats are going to try to destroy them, impugn them, and de-legitimize the election or and their presidency, no matter.
	I'd just say with Trump, it's a little bit more intense because there's a little bit more emotion attached here in the sense they've just been totally repudiated and they know it and they can't believe it.
	But this the reason that I think your your question is important is because, James, this is who they are.
	This is how they behave every day.
	They're doing this kind of stuff behind the scenes and in public every day and have been my whole life.
	This is who they are, and this white is a teachable moment.
	And I'm grateful it's happening for one reason because so many people are now obviously seeing who they are, who may not have believed it or to whom it may not have registered in the past.
	And it doesn't have to be Trump fans.
	I mean, this is this is clearly, clearly visible by anybody looking.
	And I'm I'm in one sense thankful that they are doing this, but they will do this no matter.
	They did this George W. Bush over the Iraq War and supposed anger at torture at Club Gitmo and the photos at Abu Ghrab and you name it.
	And they did this, George H.W. Bush.
	They did this kind of stuff to Ronald Reagan.
	This is who they are, James.
	Yeah.
	Don't doubt me.
	Okay, now every caller, as you probably know, is offered a brand new iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus.
	Which would you like?
	Um, I would love an iPhone 7.
	An iPhone 7.
	That's fine.
	What what uh is your carrier?
	Uh Verizon.
	Verizon.
	Cool.
	Okay, take your pick of color.
	What color of you?
	I don't have jet black in the iPhone 7, but I've got any other color you want.
	Do you have Matt Black?
	I have Matt Black.
	You'll have it.
	Hang on just a second.
	We'll get your address, and you will have it via the great friends of ours at FedEx tomorrow.
	What is this?
	Is the fourth week now?
	And we'll do it next week, too.
	Every caller is offered.
	Nobody's turned one down yet.
	You find that interesting?
	I thought at least one No, I've got one.
	I I am not not one person has turned it.
	I'm joking.
	I don't really expect them to.
	So four weeks, uh brand new iPhone or iPhone 7.
	And we will continue.
	We have much more as always right after this.
	Okay, thanks coming up on the program today.
	There's a um couple of stories on what's going on in a Hillary campaign, as I alluded to dumping on Huma.
	Hillary also has her big party tonight at the Plaza Hotel in New York as a thank you for donors.
	Not all the donors can get in.
	It's only for the richest and biggest donors.
	Do you know who's paying for this?
	The donors.
	Hillary is taking unused money that the donors sent and throwing the party.
	So the donors are actually paying for the party that Hillary is ostensibly throwing.
	There was a bit of panic in the news media yesterday when it was thought that Reinz Prebis had alluded to the possibility they may do away with the daily press briefing at the White House.
	And it got them in a state of panic, and there was an uproar.
	We'll have details on that, and the latest attempts to bully and intimidate the electors in the electoral college.
	That and even more.

▲