All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 5, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
January 5, 2017, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB.
Thank you so much for joining.
Great to be back after uh a day hiatus.
I know Mr. Stein was at the helm yesterday.
Fun to be here with the EIB team once again.
Right now, still underway.
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing which they're talking about Oh, yeah, you know it.
The Russia hack.
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing underway right now.
I've been watching as much of it as I can this morning.
I can tell you there are really very few, if any, surprises going on here.
You've got a few Democrats who of course take the opportunity to do a bit of grandstanding on oh, the intelligence community has taken so much abuse, so much abuse from this president elect, hasn't it?
And it's like, oh yes, it's very hard, all these uh almost unfirable civil servants.
They'll have a very difficult time dealing with the fact that Trump has questioned the intelligence.
Let's just get up to speed right now with where all of this stands.
So you've got the hearing, the committee hearing with the Senate going on still, as as I speak to you.
It's been going on all morning.
Um nothing new other than the sort of reiteration of previously stated assessments from inside the IC, the intelligence community, uh, as people refer to it, which is now 17 agencies.
Because sixteen wasn't enough.
When I I'm old enough to remember and I, in fact, was in the IC when it only had, I think sixteen or no wait.
Maybe they added the seventeenth right before I started now that I think about it.
I can't even really recall.
I think they started considering the DNI to be its own thing was what happened.
Uh, and that's by the way, put a pin in that one, because we're going to come back to the size of the IC, whether it is unwieldy, whether it could be in for a bit of a shakeup, some changes, perhaps.
Oh my, under a Trump administration.
Remember, these are all uh prime or sorry, these are either under the DOD or they are executive branch agencies, and therefore the president can do a whole lot if he wants to, with regard to how they operate, the scope under which they uh operate and all the rest of it.
So, but back to where we are on the Russia hack, because here you've got two stories simultaneously running running side by side here.
One of them is Russia engaged in a continuous widespread cyber intrusion of US, both government and civilian computers, which has been happening for years, by the way.
Always very interesting to see that the government doesn't really want to tell us that much about the scale of the hacking that's underway.
They always say it's because of sources and methods, but how can we really know how to assess the threat if we don't really know what's happening?
Oh, we can't tell you that.
That's classified.
Could neither confirm nor deny.
Um but now all of a sudden it is DEF CON one, right?
And this is the other story here.
It's DEF CON.
We are we are at imminent nuclear war, at least in the minds of some left-wing journalists.
I mean MSNBC has never been as upset about a national security incident in recent memory as they are right now about this.
I mean, they uh they're just absolutely grim faced uh as they discuss the the gravity of what has occurred here.
Uh really mostly a pedesta fishing scam that worked.
Uh that's what we're talking about.
Uh a lot of this is going to get caught.
So you have on the one hand the the Russia hacking, and on the other, you have uh whether or not this tipped the election and the politics of it, right?
And these things are getting conflated intentionally by people.
They're all trying to come out with different narratives of what we should really have as our takeaway.
Uh they're gonna brief or Obama rather has received the report, the Intelligence Community's report on this, and President elect Donald Trump will be receiving his report on this tomorrow.
He has speculated via Twitter.
Uh he has speculated that maybe they're taking more time to build the case or something, which I I don't think is why there's been this delay.
I just think they want to line up all the different aspects of the IC, and they want to be speaking as much as they can, uh, these 17 agencies with one voice on this stuff.
The Russia hand in this to me, and I know I I I got a lot of emails after the show two days ago here on the EIB and and mess I should say uh Facebook messages primarily, but uh a lot of messages about how people still don't buy that Russia had a hand in this.
Look, I I don't know why the IC would lie about this.
Uh the top people in the IC are political appointees, and sure, they will oftentimes uh skew towards what the boss, in this case the president, and still uh that means President Obama, they'll skew towards what the boss wants them to say.
In fact, oftentimes intelligence analysts, and I speak as a former intelligence analyst, so I know all about this firsthand, will shade things a little bit, will hedge, will try to play into the proclivities, the biases, the preconceived notions of the people at the very top, whether it's Secretary of Defense, sec def, POTUS, president, you know, you name it.
Uh, and that's a way that you get advancement in the IC.
That's a way that you get noticed, and so that happens, and I'm aware of that.
They call it politicization, and there are various people in place that are supposed to be stopping that from happening.
But it seems pretty clear that there were very senior level members of the IC who leaked this stuff early on to the press to get the narrative going right after the Trump victory, which makes it all feel quite politicized.
That seems obvious, I think, at this point.
And the the reason that you know MSNBC is covering this breathlessly, uh, breathlessly, is that they understand that there's a political narrative that's underway.
And they're trying to construct it and get as much momentum behind it as they possibly can.
Uh and the press has been doing this for quite some time.
But ultimately, you have to ask a few questions here.
First of all, why is it that now there's such a focus on cyber?
Now we're told that the intelligence community needs to uh take this issue even more seriously when you've had the Chinese, for example, and this is out in the open, hacking into all sorts of U.S. data repositories, including very sensitive ones,
for years, and it is if you believe the reporting on it, which again I leave you, it is a continuous and sophisticated attempt to steal as much of our sensitive information as possible, both on the private and public sector side of the uh sides of the equation.
Including the OPM hack, for which people like me even got a letter in the mail saying, China's got all your stuff, bro, just FYI.
Thanks for that.
Good to know.
Can I have some free credit monitoring?
Free, free, exactly.
Change your password from password, because China knows everything about you, along with millions and millions of other people.
Okay.
Well, you know, thanks.
And I'm not even sure if the email said, or that the letter, rather, it was snail mail, old school.
If it said you specifically, or just be aware that it could have been you because you at one point work for the federal government.
Nonetheless, hopefully there's not a clone of Buck walking around somewhere in mainland China with you know poofy, poofy hair wearing wearing boat shoes and talking about politics and you know, some sort of an experiment, because they know a lot about me, is all I'm saying.
They've got all the information, right?
I don't think they have uh a sample of my blood or blood type, but who knows?
Um but that information got out there, or rather was stolen, I shouldn't say got out there.
We knew about this for a while.
You do you remember the hysteria surrounding that?
Do you remember the media just going to the wall left and right?
What are we going to do?
The Chinese are we need to have repercussions.
That's what you're hearing now.
Repercussion No, you don't remember any of that, do you?
Because it didn't happen.
People were like, whoa, OPM, asleep at the switch.
Office of personnel management needs to do a little more managing of its personnel files, it would seem.
But did you have mainstream journalists left and even on the right, saying that this is something that we have to have serious repercussions for?
No.
By the way, that to me seems like a much bigger issue than something that's embarrassing to Debbie Washerman Schultz, John Podesta, and Chelsea Clinton.
That That was but you've got John McCain out there, of course, and I see him now very fittingly on MSNBC on the modern in front of me, giving a press conference.
I can't hear what he's saying, but I know they're covering him on MSNBC, an unprecedented attack on our democracy.
Ah.
Wow.
I think we might be overstating that a little bit.
If we're going to say that the continuous effort by Russia, China, and other foreign adversaries to steal our information, to steal classified government information, just take as much as they can.
That is our advantage, by the way.
If you look at what why are we ahead of other countries economically, militarily?
It it is information based as much as it is anything else.
They're stealing that.
Yeah, that's a very serious national security threat.
But that the tip-off for all this, or the tipping point was John Podesta's Gmail account or Yahoo account or whatever it was, uh, not even really being hacked, just being socially engineered such that he would open himself up and give away access to his email account.
This is why we have hearings in the Senate.
This is why we're being told there need to be serious actions taken against Russia.
Well, what are those actions going to be?
Keep in mind we already have sanctions in place because of Ukraine and the seizure of Crimea, and that didn't really lead to much of anything.
Except perhaps, as a Polish friend of mine uh points out that nothing unifies the Russian people like suffering, um, which perhaps is a Polish point of view on how Russians react to things.
Uh but the Russian people haven't turned on Putin because of the sanctions.
But this is what we're being told now.
You got Lindsey Graham out there in full Attila the Hun mode saying, you know, we gotta go to the mat over this thing.
We gotta really show the Russians whose boss we what exactly do we plan to do?
You know, there's a disadvantage inherently with all this in that we're not really trying to steal the secrets of countries that we're ahead of technologically and otherwise.
Or maybe we are, I don't know.
But we don't play the game the same way they do.
We can say that.
And so how do you engage in some kind of reciprocity here?
How do you stop the next cyber hack from from occurring?
Well, if you're talking about the Podesta emails, just tell people not to be stupid and hope that they listen.
That's pretty much it's like a public and you know, a public safety announcement, you know.
Uh because knowing is half the battle.
It's like that.
We we could do sort of GI GI Joe style.
Remember the cartoon?
Knowing is half the battle.
We could do that for people.
But on the much larger question of our cyber infrastructure and the intrusions and the theft of information, which is a very real issue, but it's been a real issue for all eight years of Obama's presidency.
You're not going to hear a lot of solutions or a lot of answers.
And I don't even think you're going to hear a full accounting of the depth of the theft that has occurred the last eight years, but you're going to hear people say Trump won't take the Russia intel seriously because Trump is an illegitimate president because Russia helped him win.
And they're going to keep saying it and keep saying it and keep saying it.
Because, yeah, the intel report's going to be out next week in an unclassified form.
They're going to say there were multiple motivations, I will assume for this Russian activity because it was a very broad campaign.
Whether you believe it was Russia or not, whatever was going on, right?
If it was somebody pretending to be Russia, if it was, that would be a digital or a cyber false flag operation.
False flags are a real thing.
Conspiracy theorists overuse the term, but it is a real thing.
But let's say you believe it.
Let's say that you think that the it was so sloppy because it was sloppy.
There were Cyrilla characters left behind.
It was supposed to point to Russia.
You can take that as one of two possibilities.
Either the Russians didn't care and wanted us to know, or somebody wanted us to think it was Russia.
I think it was the former, but if you think it's the latter, look, I haven't seen the intel on this, I've been out of the game for a while.
Nonetheless, whichever side of that you decide is is more correct, then you've got to take it to the next level.
What do we do?
What's the response going to be?
And before you can answer that question, you have to deal with how much are we really supposed to care about this specific hacking?
Are we talking about it in general?
Or are we talking about it in the context of how it made Democrats cry many, many crocodile tears for countless hours over the loss that Hillary Clinton suffered when she was supposed to be in their eyes our first woman president.
Oh my, so sad.
If it's all about that, I don't really want to hear it.
If you want to talk about the broader cyber issues, great, but understand that it's a well, a complicated issue.
But it will get boiled down very quickly into a just anti-Trump issue.
You wait and see.
Just wait till the report comes out.
People will seize on whatever parts of it they want.
800 28282, Buck Sexton in for Rush.
I'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh.
The headline, the Wall Street Journal here says a lot about what I think the intelligence community can expect.
Donald Trump plans revamp of top U.S. spy agency.
So this also has to be added into the mix.
This is one of the dangers when you get senior people from within the various intelligence agencies leaking to the press about a report that hasn't been made public.
It's understandable that the president-elect would think that that was an attempt to undermine them because it was.
And very senior people are the ones who do this kind of thing because they can expect that they won't get in trouble, right, for playing politics.
They're not going to get fired.
They're certainly not going to be investigated.
It's fine.
They can do this sort of thing with relative impunity, especially when it comes to undermining a Trump administration.
You're not going to see any change in their attitudes about that.
But Trump is saying, according to this Wall Street Journal report, that the office of the director of national intelligence, which did not exist until 9-11.
Of course, you also have Homeland Security.
These additional layers of, dare I say, bureaucracy, the intel behemoth was already quite large.
It was a sort of gargantuan institution of civil servants, federal employees.
And they added to it very substantially after 9-11.
Only in government, by the way, does it seem to be a maxim that failure is rewarded with more resources.
That's always a thing you can expect to happen in the government.
Well, we didn't do the job properly, but if you just give us more money and more people, we'll get it done.
And inside the IC, they have created an agency in the case of the DNI that's just supposed to be a funnel for the information from the rest of the agencies.
That seems like a lot.
Well, maybe there's some duplicative work going on here.
Maybe there's a duplication of effort that they could get rid of.
Also, according to this Wall Street Journal article, they're going to focus on fewer CIA personnel at the headquarters in Langley and more spread around the globe, which to me seems perfectly reasonable.
Well, we won't see the numbers, of course.
They won't talk to us about that sort of thing.
They keep that under wraps.
But as a general concept, yeah, I think you want intel collectors to be out there doing just that.
I know a fair amount of it can be done, a lot of it can be done without necessarily being forward deployed, but these are the ideas that are out there with the Trump administration.
I think it's hard for anyone to make the case that there isn't also a little bit of a uh Trump stink eye at uh Langley and at other places.
Uh he's I think he's given them the given the I got eyes on you because of what's happened here with the whole Russia thing.
Why do we know all how have we come to know the information so far on this when there hasn't even been when the president himself hadn't even been briefed on the full facts?
That's a fair, I think a fair question to ask.
Also, uh I think it's worth noting that there are a lot of people.
Um and I can tell you this, and this is actually from the personal experience side of things, and I do have friends who are still on the inside.
People were just in awe after the Obama victory.
I mean the intelligence community.
We finally have a genius as president who will make sense of all this complicated information and peace for all mankind will reign, and everything's gonna be great.
There was a lot of that.
A lot of that in the in the IC in the intelligence community after Obama won, and I know that firsthand.
And I sat there biting my tongue, just yeah.
No national security experience, uh, never said anything that's impressed me about any complex foreign policy issue anywhere in the world.
But yeah, sure, the guy's a genius.
You can assume that the same way that there were, and this is, of course, we're talking about a huge number of people, but I'm talking about the scene the senior most bureaucrats in a lot of these places, particularly on the analysis side, which we got a lot of people doing analysis in the spy agencies.
Um they were very pleased with Obama's victory.
I think it's fair to say there are a lot of them who are really upset with a Trump victory.
Just putting that out there.
Indeed, Buck Sexton here in For Rush Today on the EIB.
Just want to tell you that we will be uh later in the show tackling the showdown over Obamacare that is underway on Capitol Hill.
We'll talk about the reality of where Obamacare stands now as well as what the Republican controlled Congress and the Trump administration can do, should do, perhaps will do in order to fix it, uh, what repealing replace looks like.
We'll get into those details coming up here in just a few minutes.
And also, we will talk about this uh horrific Facebook live video out of Chicago.
Uh there's been four arrests, uh, the torture um brutal torture of a man on video with people laughing, uh saying that it's because he is white and a Trump supporter.
Uh a lot of discussion whether that could be a hate crime or not.
Isn't that interesting?
We'll be hitting that later on in the show too.
So uh so stay with me.
Just want to work through some of this uh final, we'll get some more of these uh thoughts here and take in some callers on what's going on on Capitol Hill with the Russia cyber hack, Senate Armed Services Committee talking about it before.
A few things I just wanted to note.
We have all come to accept, or at least I shouldn't say we have all.
I can't speak for everybody.
If you're listening to this show, very high probability, I think you would agree with this, but maybe not.
Probably some loony loony lefties out there, too.
What's up, loony lefties?
High five.
Uh we can we can understand that the Department of Justice has been deeply politicized, right?
We know that.
And that the IRS at senior levels was politicized with Lois Learner, but the most intrusive agencies and the ones with the greatest capacity to inflict pain on any American whom they choose to inflict pain on, uh, they have been politicized deeply, right?
And we know that the Supreme Court is politicized.
This idea that is being pushed by the media now, and I promise you it'll change the moment they have an assessment that is unflattering to their sort of cosmopolitanist globalist beliefs.
This idea that the IC, intelligence community, is above reproach when it comes to politics is just silly.
So DOJ can be a bunch of partisan, there can be a bunch of partisan hackery going on there, and there has been, as we know.
Don't make don't get me started on the Hillary emails.
Don't hold hold me back.
Don't get me started on that.
But the CIA, other agencies, no politics at work there.
Come on.
Right.
Nobody seriously believes that.
Um I just wanted to put that out there.
Let's not be naive.
Let's not pretend, and that doesn't mean every employee, right?
This is where I get in trouble.
I'll probably be probably have a few friends at Langley who sent me an angry text message.
Like, dude, why are you selling us out?
Um, and I'm not.
I'm just saying there are people in senior positions because you see, how do you rise in a lot of these bureaucracies?
Uh well, you have to understand, first of all, 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people.
You don't have to be one of the people doing the work, though.
You just have to be one of the people who plays the game well.
Uh usually, and I I can't speak for the broader federal government, but I can speak to some degree for uh intelligence analysis, having seen it and done it myself.
Uh, excellence is suspect.
Ambition is punished, and the careerists are always trying to seek consensus because there's safety, there's career safety and consensus.
That's the way it works.
Uh So you can imagine a lot of the people who rise up also they tend to have advanced degrees, which means they spend a lot of time on college campuses.
And I don't mean that they play tennis left handed.
This is very we we've seen this on college campuses, we see this in the media.
Who do people think become you know experts in East Asian trade policy and go work for you know Treasury as an analyst or commerce or CIA or any of these places, right?
They tend to be people that could also be working for some left wing think tank or whatever.
I say tend to.
There are awesome Patriots, a ton of former U.S. military work in the Intel community, and obviously the Intel community is comprised of a lot of active duty military too.
But I'm talking about the ones that are playing this game that are leaking the information about the Trump report, and there's a lot of politics at work here, and don't be surprised.
And let's not pretend to be surprised, uh, which I think a lot of people are, that there is uh this factor added into all of it.
Right?
There's a le there's a left lean among the analytic cadre that you're gonna get in a lot of the Intel agencies.
I can't speak for all of them, but I can say that in some of them, and uh that's just that's just my assessment, man.
Like Trump can disagree with the IC assessment, the I you know, people in the IC can disagree with my assessment.
A little different at the FBI.
You get a little more little more Republican, a little more Republican of the FBI, we'll say that, you know, tend to law law and order over there.
A little different.
But uh the sort of big globalist thinkers, the anti-nuclear proliferation crowd, you know that?
Yeah, yeah.
I don't know.
Got a lot of love for Bernie Sanders, what can I say?
All right, let's take some calls.
I've been going on for quite a bit here.
Uh Dave in Los Angeles, you are on the Rush Limbaugh program.
You're speaking to Buck.
Hello, Buck.
Hey, I got to pull my car over here.
I'm on I'm on my percent of it, and I'm gonna do it.
Yeah, say, dude, Dave, safety first.
I hope your hands are hands free, too.
Yeah, yeah.
So um the reason I called is because I am a Department of Defense employee, and from day one, it is hammered into you cyber security.
Endless PowerPoints and interactive training on the computer at least twice a year.
Uh you have to be certified.
And the question that no one in the media ever asked about Hillary Clinton's email scandal was what sort of training do federal employees get in terms of cybersecurity?
What what sort of training do State Department employees get?
And what sort of training did Hillary have?
And these are basic questions because some journalists actually just, you know, did did tackle the because it came up when Hillary said she didn't know that C stood for uh confidential and that that was a classification marking, and it also came up with how could she not know that using her sir using her unsecure server on foreign soil is basically a giant gaping uh door wide open for uh intrusions that we could never even know about.
Um that's that's that came out a little bit, but of course the media was running a lot of interference for Hillary on this stuff too.
But there's I know there's a lot of cyber training that goes on, but much of it is uh common sense stuff.
I mean, the cyber training you get in the federal government, I would be willing to bet, outside of classified channels and that stuff.
I'm talking about on the open source side.
You know, it's when somebody says uh that they're gonna transfer 10 million dollars into your account, but they just need they just need your banking info, don't give them important safety tip from Buck on the EIB today.
Don't give them your routing numbers.
Don't give them your info.
I don't care if they're the prince of you know, the Durka Durka or whatever.
Doesn't matter.
Well, you know, it's funny though, because even the lowliest employee with computer access, and I'm not talking about people who have a uh uh uh secret clearance or even a sensitive clearance.
The lowliest employee gets at least some like you said.
Right, I get that, Dave, but so what's what where do you want us to go with this?
So we we've made the point they get the training.
So training, so now what?
I guess what I'm saying is it's infuriating to me that uh the uh the media elite likes to pretend that this was an honest mistake.
And now they've turned the tables um and and made it seem as if Trump is a great conspirator with Putin.
Uh Yeah, that's a big insinuation.
I haven't said that.
They are there's a lot of insinuation about that.
Keep it keep in mind that they run stories in sort of the same paper or you know, on alternates, the Russia hack, more info, more certainty.
And oh, Trump is so close with Russia.
Isn't that weird?
The Russia hack, more info, more stories.
You know that Trump did some deals with this Russian guy.
I mean, you know, it's a very concerted and very obvious effort, I think, to do just that.
But Dave from LA, good to talk to you, my man.
Thank you.
Todd in Atlanta, Georgia.
You're on the EIB, you're speaking to Buck.
Yes, sir.
I was just calling because uh I think it's ironic that McCain and Graham want to make a big deal about uh the Russian hacking, but they kept their big mouth shut during all the time that the information about Hillary, about you know, classified information going to Sid Blumenthal and Uma Aberdeen.
Uh I'd never remember them once saying anything about that, but now they want to turn on Trump and act like it's a big Russian conspiracy.
I guess Anthony Wiener must have been a Soviet agent, right?
Uh I I don't know why I mean John McCain's saying that this is a fundamental assault on our democracy.
It just overs even the people I know who are very critical of Trump's statements on the Russia hacking, and I know a bunch of them, including people that are uh of you know former former spies or or former analysts themselves.
Um but the the notion that John McCain should be out there saying that this was an assault on democracy.
Uh what really?
We're gonna give the Russians that much credit?
Uh that seems to be greatly overstating the problem uh or the the issue I should say.
The problem is cyber hacking.
The issue that the Democrats want to focus on within that is the DNC and uh pedesting email hack.
And it wasn't even I mean, to call it a hack is is even an overstatement, really.
It was an unauthorized computer intrusion.
I mean, it is you know, hacking implies, and I know people say, well, that's a hack, but hacking implies some sort of skill, uh some uh technical approach.
Sending someone an email that says, hey, dude, what's your password?
And then responding, my password is password.
I don't know if we can call that hacking.
I mean, that's sort of, you know, that's like saying that spying is when you walk up to the first person in a foreign country, you see in a uniform, you're like, will you pass me government secrets?
Usually the answer is no, I would think.
But I guess technically that's spying.
Todd?
I mean, they they got our uranium deposit thanks to the political racketeering between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
Why would the Russians want a man in office who's going to rebuild our military and develop our energy, which would cripple their economy?
It's it's ludicrous.
Well, that's the other part of this, too, that that the Russians would be so sure that Trump is a better bet for them than Hillary.
Uh the Democrats have let the Russians get away with a lot.
Obama let them get get away with a lot over the last eight years.
Now all of a sudden they think that, yeah, I I can understand that there's some personal Todd, thanks for calling in.
There is some personal animus between Putin and Hillary.
I'm sure there's personal animus between a lot of folks and and Hillary uh when you're talking about world leaders or uh people in positions of authority around the world.
Uh but that there was this effort, and but I think it'll come out next week, and I I guess I'm making a prediction and maybe I'm going too far with this, but that there were sort of multiple motivations at play for this widespread effort to and leaving Russian fingerprints behind to intrude into computer systems, various computer systems in the United States.
Um I think they're gonna say there's multiple motivations, and then they're gonna have people take from that what they will.
There are people who say that clearly it was to get Trump elected, and others are gonna say, well, it was just really to stick a thumb in the eye of the American presidential election process and also to show that we're hypocritical because it is true that we love to talk about corruption in other countries.
We do.
And we like to point at places and say, oh, like look at, you know, look at the latest vote in Kazakhstan.
He only got like ninety-six percent of the vote or something.
Ha ha.
I mean, we do that.
And we have whole NGOs and international organizations that are devoted to pointing out how corrupt other countries are.
And we were assuming that Hillary Clinton, who it's hard to imagine a more corrupt politician possibly running for office anywhere, that she was going to be the next president of the United States here.
I we should laugh at ourselves a little bit, maybe.
And it's only funny now because she didn't become president.
Buck sex it in for Rush.
I'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
In case you didn't know, uh we talked about the departure of Megan Kelly from Fox News when I guess hosted uh here on the EIB on Tuesday of this week.
Uh here we are on Thursday and her replacement has been officially announced.
Tucker Carlson will be taking over the 9 p.m. slot starting this Monday and uh Martha McCallum will be in the 7 p.m slot uh for at least three months with a show called the first hundred days so Fox has already uh moved their uh move their people in place and uh congrats to Tucker that's that's a big that's a bit well I mean uh again the seven p.m. show is big moving to nine sounds great and uh Martha McCallum is uh very nice very talented uh broadcast journalist
So congrats to her as well.
All right, let's take some calls here.
800-282-2882.
Ferris in Hartford, Connecticut.
What's up?
From one intel guy to another, Happy New Year.
Congratulations to all of us.
I'm having the opportunity to save the nation.
Happy New Year.
That's right.
I saved the nation one tightly worded memo at a time.
I made those lattes at Langley delicious.
Go ahead, though.
Well, my experience was four.
Mead so uh we we had uh different kind of coffee over there different kinds of pictures I think I think our our coffee I don't know we we probably both uh both of us had coffee that was way too expensive because the government was paying for it but go ahead Ferris.
Yes, but both of us have insights on this, and with a host like you on the show, one of many great substitutes, we have an opportunity to swerve into the truth occasionally.
And when you come on talking about not being naive anymore, and another expression which escapes me right now when you talk about swerving into the truth, this nation was saved by patriotic men who had what you call the size of grapefruits.
And it's obvious that the emails...
Biceps.
Go ahead.
The emails were...
Podesta's emails and Clinton's emails were handed to such men who could do something with them and who, upon seeing them, would take action that most of us listening to your show cannot comprehend.
And that is that military patriotic men will step up and do the right thing at the final hour.
And our nation was at the final hour.
And as you just mentioned, this woman was the most corrupt individual ever to seek high office, without a doubt.
And when the intelligence agencies provided the email contents to men who could do something, and men who can do things based on...
on our understanding of the Second Amendment people who have power the power is their arms they have force of arms and I would like to say that the chief joint chiefs of staff had the force of arms and the ability to put an end to all the baloney in the Oval Office and in the cabinet by telling the the powers that be that the game was over.
The French have an expression Lesan Fay the game is over and this game was over thanks to stout hearted men such as my college brother General Joseph Dunford United States Marine Corps chairman of the joint CISA staff who got that chairmanship unbelievably we're running short on time here Ferris I'm gonna need you to come to a like a two sentence conclusion.
Well, the two-second conclusion is that we have an opportunity to find out what went on here in the saving of the nation and not take the fairy tale.
And we don't care who's coming on for Megyn Kelly.
The mainstream media, including Fox News Channel, has lost the entire confidence of a nation.
And now we have the ability to learn the truths directly from the Patriots.
All right, my intel brother.
I got to roll, but thank you.
gave...
Yeah, a lot of...
I thought Ferris was going to...
Well...
be back in a few buck in for rush Buckston here in for rush eight hundred two eight two eight eight two on the EIB.
Would love to take your calls.
Um we're gonna be hitting Obamacare in this next hour, and then after that, we're gonna talk about the uh hate crime in Chicago that was live streamed on Facebook, so a lot more show to get to.
Don't touch that dial, or if you're I was gonna say if you're not with us yet, join, but then I guess you wouldn't hear that.
Um I I do want to talk about Obamacare, the House, uh the Senate, that they're taking their first steps towards repeal.
What is replace gonna look like, and also how bad is this thing right now?
We're hearing all these numbers about people that have care.
Guess what?
A lot of the Democrats are lying.
We're gonna talk about a more buck in for rush.
▲
Export Selection