Rush Limbaugh Program - December 16, 2016, Friday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 16, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program

35:05

December 16, 2016, Friday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Views expressed by the host on this program, rooted in a relentless and unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
	It is Friday, my friend, so let's get it.
	Live from the Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
	It's open line Friday.
	And here is the telephone number, 800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
	Whatever you want to talk about, folks, is fine.
	Does not have to be anything in uh what we call current events, current news, what it can be anything you want.
	We do this because Monday through Thursday, the way we screen callers, they have to be talking about something I care about, or else we don't take them.
	But on Friday, that's what we brew them out of the way.
	Okay, we have some um, I guess latest developments on the whole concept of of the election being hacked.
	It's really getting in the weeds now.
	And what I've done is try to just strip out from all of this complicated morass, this intricately woven web of deceit.
	I've tried to extract just the stuff that's relevant and pass it on to you.
	So the the the first thing here in the stack is an AP story.
	Obama vows retaliation for suspected Russian hacking.
	Now he's been dragged cream uh uh screaming and kicking to this.
	Obama first heard about the Russian potential hacking of our election and the various other systems like the Pentagon, the State Department.
	He first actually heard there might be an effort to hack the election in September of 2015, and he didn't do anything about it and didn't tell anybody about it.
	He sat on it.
	He did not one thing with it because of Syria and his policy with Syria and the fact that he did not want to provoke the Russians.
	He needed the Russians for whatever is convoluted, ineffective, embarrassing policy in Syria was or is.
	Now, at no time has anyone alleged that the Russians hacked with votes.
	Because they didn't.
	An election is made up of two things.
	People vote, ballots are cast, and then they are counted.
	The Russians did not involve themselves in that.
	That would be hacking the election.
	That would be hacking the Democrat process.
	They did not do that.
	The only people that le really tried to do that is the Democrat Party.
	And they do it repeatedly.
	They do it election after election.
	They did it in this past election.
	We found out in a recount in Michigan that there were more Democrat votes counted than were actually cast in the city of Detroit.
	And that's a Democrat-run city top to bottom.
	There were in the recount, they actually found more votes counted than were actually cast.
	The Russians had nothing to do with that.
	That was the Democrat Party.
	What this is boiling down to the CIA is claiming via leaks.
	There's nobody at the CIA that'll go on record by name.
	The CIA will not send intel representatives to Congress to answer questions.
	They will not go on the record.
	So what I'm about to tell you is nothing more than leaks that the media is reprinting as truth.
	Because they claim it's coming from highly credible sources.
	And by the way, in media, highly credible means establishment sources.
	That's all it means.
	Highly credible means, hey, it's one of us.
	It's an elite.
	It's somebody in the Washington establishment.
	And believe me, the CIA is all over the establishment.
	CIA, FBI, I mean, they're all in the establishment.
	They're all elites.
	The CIA is largely Harvard, Yale, Cambridge.
	Many of those guys end up at MI6.
	That's where a lot of recruiting is done at major American Ivy League schools.
	The CIA is claiming that the Russians hacked both the Democrat National Committee and the Republican National Committee successfully, but only used data they found via the hack of the Democrats and then gave that data, which is the John Podesta email dump to WikiLeaks.
	That's the allegation.
	And therein lies the entire basis for this entire story.
	The way the Russians tampered with our election, the way the Russians flouted our Democrat process.
	They hacked both, but they didn't give any Republican dirt to WikiLeaks.
	That is being reported as meaning the CIA wanted Trump to win.
	The CIA is saying that the Russians did not like Hillary, hated Hillary, were frightened of Hillary, they wanted a patsey, they wanted an idiot, they wanted a neophyte, they wanted somebody with no experience, they wanted a gopher, they wanted a sycophant, they wanted Donald Trump.
	They had all kinds of Republican data, says the CIA, but they didn't share it with WikiLeaks.
	That is not true.
	And it has been established to be not true by any number of sources, which I'm now going to recount for you.
	The latest on this comes from, well, the latest that's useful, comes from a story in the Wall Street Journal.
	And the Wall Street Journal story is that the Russians tried hacking the RNC, but that they didn't succeed.
	According to sources speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Rince Prebis actually told the truth when he said that the RNC was not hacked.
	It was last Sunday, meet the press with Chuck Todd.
	Rheinz Privus said we were not hacked.
	The Russians did not succeed in hacking us.
	And he tried to tell Chuck Todd three times.
	Chuck, that means everything you're relying on here is fraudulent and untrue.
	Your whole premise that the Russians had information from both parties, but only gave WikiLeaks the dirt from the Democrat is not true, Chuck.
	We didn't get hacked.
	The Wall Street Journal has a story that Rhin's prebus was telling the truth as though that itself is news.
	Russian hackers did indeed try to hack the computer network of the Republican National Committee.
	They used the same techniques that they succeeded in hacking the Democrat National Committee.
	But the journal says that the idiot Russians couldn't beat Republican security on their network, but that they easily defeated the security on the Democrat network.
	Folks, this is all bogus because this is not how we learned of John Podesta's emails.
	Podesta's emails ended up being made public, not by the Russians, but because Podesta, like the novice Neophyteas, clicked on a link in a fishing attack and ended up sending all of his account information with his email addresses, user IDs, and passwords to whoever was running the phishing scheme.
	All the data from Podestas does not come from a Democrat hacker, a Russian hack in a Democrat committee.
	Now, because the intruders failed to defeat the security on the Republican commuter networks, but succeeded in defeating it on the Democrat networks.
	The effort by Russian intelligence to hack the Republican group was a dismal failure.
	The CIA Has concluded that Russian hackers stole emails from the DNC, as well as another Democrat organization, and also from the chairman of Hillary's presidential campaign, to harm her candidacy and boost Trump's chances of winning.
	That's what the CIA is saying.
	They've told that to the New York Times, they've told that to the Washington Post.
	The CIA, nameless people leaking will not testify.
	But the idea that the Russians tried and failed to hack the Republican computer network is in giant conflict with the CIA's conclusion.
	The CIA, after the election, asserted that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and only focused on Democrat groups.
	And only materials that were procured from Democrat groups were made public via WikiLeaks.
	So that's the substance of the CIA's assertion.
	The CIA conclusion is a judgment, this is a quote now, a judgment based on the fact that the Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans, but only the Democrat information was leaked.
	The FBI disagrees, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disagrees.
	The Republican National Committee called in the FBI after WikiLeaks first started publishing Podesta emails.
	Rheinz Prebis and the boys called in the FBI to examine their computer network to see if there had been attempts to break in.
	And they spotted.
	The FBI detected efforts to hack into the Republican system, which failed because the Republican security system worked.
	What this means is, folks, the FBI has known for months that what the CIA is telling the New York Times and the Washington Post is not true.
	This is crucial to understand.
	For the past two weeks, and even before this, because this is just the time has been made public, the CIA has been proceeding on the theory that the Russians successfully hacked both computer networks, Republican and Democrat, but only leaked the Democrat contents to WikiLeaks.
	The FBI has known for months that the Russian hack of the Republican National Committee failed.
	Therefore, the FBI has known for months that what the CIA is asserting is not true.
	It is false.
	And the FBI has already told the Office Director National Intelligence, which is why they disagree with the CIA.
	So the CIA is exposed here as a politicized bunch in this episode.
	Because the entire premise is, and this is what all the Democrats are living on, they're eating their dining off of this, that Putin personally hacked both networks and only used what he found from the Democrats.
	The FBI has concluded they failed to hack the Republican network.
	The CIA conclusion that all of this was done to help Donald Trump is predicated on the theory that Russian hackers did succeed in hacking both parties, and they did not.
	Now, if they didn't, if the Russians did not hack both parties, then this becomes something other than an operation to elect Donald Trump.
	What could it be?
	If the Russians did this, let's just accept for the sake of this think piece.
	Let's accept the premise that the Russians did this, that they tried to hack both parties, failed with the Republican committee network, but succeeded with the Democrats.
	They revealed what they had learned that was damaging to WikiWeeks.
	Well, it means they weren't doing this to help Trump.
	It means that what they were trying to do, if anything, was create doubt about the integrity of the entire electoral system without regard to who wins and who loses.
	In effect, to create this very scenario where a political party thinks the only reason it lost is the Russians and can't let go of it and is out there making one wild claim after another with competing stories about what the Russians did or didn't do and who they hacked and who they didn't hack.
	And all of that now becomes the reason Hillary Clinton lost instead of the real reason bad candidate, no message, not no excitement, no charisma, no reason to vote for her.
	That was a totally with all the money she had, it was an embarrassing campaign.
	But since the Democrats are never responsible for their own losses, their own defeats, it has to be trickery, it has to be something, and they've sidled on this business that the Russians did it.
	And they're not going to let go.
	Listen, we get some audio that sounds like 23 now.
	This is Mrs. Clinton at her party.
	This is her party last night, the Plaza Hotel, to thank all of her big donors.
	Listen to the self-absorption, listen to the utter denial this woman is living in.
	Vladimir Putin himself directed the covert cyber attacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against me.
	Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people.
	And that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election.
	This is not just an attack against me and my campaign, although that may have added fuel to it.
	This is an attack against our country.
	We are well beyond normal political concerns here.
	This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.
	This is the woman who said Trump posed a great threat because he would not accept the results of the election, and here's this woman now occupying that position.
	The whole point of this, she's totally self-absorbed and see if now Putin was attacking her personally.
	It's even worse than we thought.
	Putin has it in for her personally, denied her the presidency, and that means she was really entitled to it.
	She was going to win.
	If it hadn't been for Putin, she would have won, and therefore Trump's illegitimate.
	His win is illegitimate, his administration is illegitimate.
	That's what this is.
	And the CIA is telling things to the news agencies that nobody else will back up and confirm.
	In fact, other intelligence agencies and even people are denying it.
	Back after this, folks.
	Don't go away.
	Now I want to go on record as saying I don't believe any of this.
	I'm using my intelligence guided by experience.
	When the media and the Democrat Party are aligned and in unison on a story, I don't believe it.
	The story is the Russians hacked the election, the Russians are responsible for Podesta's emails ending up at WikiLeaks.
	I don't believe it.
	I just don't believe it.
	I don't believe it because nothing the Democrats ever end up coordinating is actually factual.
	It's always deceitful.
	It's always intended to throw people off what really happened.
	What happened here, Julian Assange has said that none of this came from the Russians.
	I believe that Podesta's email was violated by virtue of a fishing attack, which is not a hack.
	It was done because Podesta made a mistake.
	He clicked on a link in an email that he'd been told was okay by an IT guy, and it was not okay, and he ended up divulging all of his personal data, usernames, email address, and passwords to whoever ran the phishing attack.
	And that's how Podesta's emails are made public.
	Whatever happened here, I happen to believe that the likely culprit, as I've seen this referenced twice now, one place, the U.K. Daily Mail with actual names and a source, British intelligence claiming a contact he knows at the Democrat National Bottom line version.
	I believe that this is an inside job.
	I believe an angry Democrat or two or three, who were for Bernie Sanders, after they found out how the deck was stacked, how that when they found out that Hillary Clinton and Debbie Blabbermaus Schultz had cheated and were arranging that whole primary to be rigged so that Hillary had no chance of losing.
	That Bernie Sanders was being used, privately laughed at, mocked, and made fun of.
	The Bernie Sanders people were true believers.
	I think there's animus for Hillary Clinton inside the Democrat Party that never gets reported because the media doesn't want people to think of the Democrats that way.
	But I think this was an inside job.
	I think somebody that had some sort of ananimus against Hillary and the way that primary ran, the way they rigged it against Bernie.
	May take years to find out, but that's where all of this happened in my mind.
	I don't believe this crap in public.
	Melissa in New Orleans, great to have you.
	Welcome to Open Line Friday.
	Well, hello, Russia Megadetto.
	Thank you very much.
	Guess I show my age when I tell you Megadiddoes, right?
	Well, no, Megadiddos is timeless.
	It predates probably the first six months of the program.
	It wasn't part of the original program.
	You know what the history of ditto's is?
	No.
	What do you think when people call her say Megadiddos, what do you think they are actually saying?
	Just here here, Rush, I agree.
	I re really write.
	I guess hope you keep saying it because I really agree with you, something like that.
	Something like that, yeah.
	That's not what it means.
	That's not what it means.
	No, huh?
	No, you know what it means?
	Had a call, I had a call from a guy.
	This is like in the first year of the program, and he was going on and on and on about how wonderful the show is and how much he loved it because there wasn't anything like it in 1988 and 89.
	All the rest of national media was the networks and the newspapers.
	There wasn't anything like this back then.
	And he just kept praising it effusively.
	So I thanked him and went on to the next call.
	And the first words out of that next caller's mouth was a woman said ditto to what that guy just said.
	So ditto actually means I love the show.
	Please don't ever go away.
	It's too important, it's too crucial.
	And then part of it also means, and you're always right and don't stop being, but it really more is a a uh uh uh uh expression of gratitude for the existence of the show, which I'm sure you meant as well.
	That is exactly what I mean.
	Okay, cool.
	So there you but now you have the exact meaning of it.
	I do, thank you.
	And you're always informing us, as always.
	So my question is why do we have a human element in the electoral college?
	Why isn't it just electronically done when the candidate wins that particular state?
	Uh well be you want an entire history on the electoral college?
	No, that will take forever, I'm sure.
	Well, actually it wouldn't, but it it's I want to get the specific of your question is why do we need humans there?
	Right, because now, you know, some want to change their vote or what their vote should be, as we the people voted for.
	You know, if he got two hundred and or three hundred and sixteen electoral votes, and then it changes, how many electoral votes would be changed before the vote was changed?
	Well, that would change based on which which which states pull out.
	The two seventy is a majority of all the states.
	If the electoral college let's say that uh Florida did not finish their count and had not certified by December the 19th, then Florida's votes would be taken out in total.
	So the 270 would then change to 263 or 264.
	It wouldn't remain at 270.
	So uh look, the reasons why there are people is because there weren't any computers when the country was founded.
	Don't you think it's time to update that?
	No.
	No.
	No, because it's not every state that the electors are required by law to vote the way that their people of the state voted.
	And besides, if you have robots in there, they can be hacked.
	It can be tampered with going on.
	There's any, there's any no, you don't want to take the human element out of this.
	Okay.
	You really don't know.
	I just thought that let me tell you something.
	There's nothing is going to come of this.
	The this this is this is part of the ongoing campaign that is brought to you by the Democrat Party and the media, which literally is one and the same to create doubt.
	This whole thing is an illusion.
	They're trying to make you believe, and I think they probably have, if you're looking for a remedy, they're trying to make you believe that this thing can be taken away from Trump on Monday.
	That they're making really great progress, and that they might need only ten more.
	So you're sitting out there getting very worried.
	Oh my God, we can't allow this to happen.
	We need to have robots in there, or whatever that automatically votes the way the people of the state did, so that it couldn't be but that's not going to happen.
	This this there these people are in fantasy land.
	We only know really of one elector is going to change his vote.
	Only one.
	And that's this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance named Chris Supran from Dallas, who probably is not even a Republican.
	But we don't know of anybody else.
	We know of two electors in Colorado who asked, who went to court and demanded to be released from the law requiring them to vote the way the people of Colorado did.
	And the judge told them to put their head where there isn't any sunshine.
	And so then they went to try to appeal the judge.
	And the judge said, you know what, if I didn't know any better, I would say you're trying to sabotage this race.
	And he shut them down.
	There's a law professor at Harvard who claims he knows that 20 delegates might switch.
	He doesn't know anything of the sort.
	We also have been told that 59 electors have asked for an intel briefing before they commit their vote.
	It turns out that all of them are Hillary voters, so it doesn't matter.
	There aren't any Trump voters that are wavering except this one in Dallas.
	Not that we officially know, but they're trying to make you think that Trump could actually lose this, and that it's getting close, and that they're making pro they're lying to you.
	Every there's a there's a rule of thumb here that I have found to be trustworthy over 80% of the time when there is this giant narrative, when there is a singular story out there,
	like there is right now about the Russians hacking the election so that Trump would win, when the media is pumping it and the Democrats are quoting the media, and the media is quoting the Democrats, and it's just a giant like a giant blanket thrown all over the country that don't believe the story.
	It's made up.
	It is a script, I call it the Daily Soap, but it's a false narrative.
	Its purpose is to create doubt.
	Its purpose is to dispirit, its purpose is to create the suspicion that Trump is not legitimate, that the election was fraudulent.
	It's all made up.
	The bottom line is you're safer not believing what you read in the New York Times.
	I don't care what it's about, But certainly that you're safer not believing anywhere in the in the mainstream media, the general thrust of this story that the Russians wanted Trump to win and hacked the Democrats and embarrassed Podesta and Hillary and succeeded.
	That story isn't true.
	And it certainly is not why Hillary lost the election.
	And there is not a massive wave of Trump electors planning to defect.
	And even if they did, it doesn't matter.
	Because if nobody gets 270 electoral votes, there's a remedy for this.
	The president and vice president are chosen by the House and the Senate.
	Well, the Republicans control both parties, and they can only choose from candidates who got enough electoral votes to be in the final.
	So they couldn't go pick Romney, they couldn't pick Jeb.
	They would have to vote Trump.
	And the Senate would vote Pence.
	So Trump's going to be president.
	What they're hoping to accomplish is that as many people as possible don't trust it and don't believe it and think it's an illegitimate outcome.
	So that Trump will not have a mandate nor any political strength or power to implement his mandate.
	That's what they're doing, and the safest thing to do, believe me.
	The safe thing to do is not believe them.
	I tell you this with 28 years of experience.
	Just don't.
	This is too convenient.
	Look at how this just automatically sprung up.
	New York Times last Saturday with a story that the CIA thinks X. Now it is the news of the day.
	Now it is the premise of the day.
	Now it is the story, the only story everywhere, other than whatever they're trying to do with the Electoral College.
	It's unnatural.
	It isn't news, it's totally manufactured.
	It is totally created.
	Call it spin.
	It's really fake news.
	When you want to get down to it, it's fake news.
	It is a political strategy that is being implemented to look like a news story.
	Which is how most of liberalism finds its way into the mainstream of our culture.
	They create news stories, they buy protesters, they buy people to go out and make it look like the majority of Americans think what they think.
	They put these stories in the mainstream media, which makes it look like every American agrees with this, and this is how they get what they want.
	When what they are and what they want and when who they are is on the ballot, like happened in this election, they lose.
	Hillary Clinton lost because of who she is, because of her track record of failure, because of there's no resume, there's no record of experience that she's good or qualified in anything.
	She cannot cite any achievements or accomplishments other than traveling miles and being named after people she wasn't named after, and being told to go join the dogs by somebody at the Marine Corps.
	She's exposed.
	She's exposed as a phony and a fraud, and everything that she believes and claims to have done, she hasn't done it.
	The American people when had that chance three times now have said no to Hillary Clinton.
	The Democrats did it in 2008, the Jill Stein recount this year, and the American people in 2016.
	Three times in eight years, the American people have looked at Hillary Clinton and said no.
	And so there must be some explanation for this, other than that.
	So it's the Russians today.
	And it's Vladimir Putin and the tank.
	Hillary is actually telling her donors that Putin targeted her personally because he's so afraid of her it's just we're dealing with some genuinely sick people here folks Truly, I'm talking mentally ill.
	They're not all there.
	They pose a great danger in my mind, too, as well.
	We did offer the last caller an iPhone 7 or 7 plus.
	I was just really long on time and I didn't have to do a snurly did it.
	What did she what kind of phone did she ask for?
	Oh, fine.
	Somebody took an ATT phone.
	Amazing.
	We got every color and size of it.
	Okay, good.
	So she'll have that tomorrow.
	Um by the way, about in the electoral college, just to give you an idea that they are failing and flailing.
	The latest.
	And the Democrats are trying now.
	Let's delay the electoral college vote.
	That's right.
	Don Byer, B.E. Y. E. R of Virginia, posted a statement on his Facebook page saying that the electoral college vote should be delayed.
	Quote, recent credible intelligence reports suggest a concerted effort by a foreign power to interfew, interfere in the outcome of our election.
	I believe that electors should be given all information relevant to this interference before they make their decisions and before they cast their votes.
	Congress must take whatever action is necessary to protect the integrity of our democracy.
	I call on the leaders of Congress to delay the date of the vote of the Electoral College until an intelligence briefing has been given to each elector.
	This is not going to happen.
	That's not the basis on which these people vote.
	This is a formality.
	It is an honor to be chosen and elector in most cases.
	It is not.
	They don't get intel briefings.
	This is the Democrats flailing away in desperate search for something to hold on to because their world has been yanked from them.
	Everything they believed, every lie, every misstatement, every false impression that they have been, every aspect of denial that they have been living in brought home to roost in this election.
	They are not the majority.
	Their ideas are not loved and adored.
	The majority of the people in this country love America, do not dislike it, do not distrust it.
	The majority of people in this country do not want our culture further attacked and rotted away.
	The people of this country are sick and tired of not having any good paying jobs anymore.
	The people of this country are sick and tired of being told that America's best days have already happened.
	The people of this country are sick and tired of being told that they're to blame for destroying the planet and such other nonsense.
	And they've had their fill of it.
	And they told the Democrat Party in 2008, in 2010, in 2012, and in this election, they told them to take a hike.
	And the Democrats simply can't come to grips with it.
	They simply can't accept the rejection.
	They have lied and told themselves they're loved and adored, and they are effectively royalty in this country.
	And it turns out that they're specks of dirt that people want swept away off the front porch.
	Senate Democrats are now saying that they might want to help replacing Obamacare.
	You know, I don't know if I had a this this Obamacare business and how this is going to be dealt with.
	This this is this could be disastrous if the if Trump and the Republicans do this the wrong way.
	And I want to get into that.
	I just don't know if next hour or next week is the time to do it.
	So let me think about it here.

▲