All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 13, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:12
February 13, 2017, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rushlin Boy kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the most listened to radio talk show in the country.
All right.
My bad.
I just found out that the Trump press conference is that little prime minister from Canada, Justin Trudeau.
So we're not going to jip that.
I'm not going to jip that till they get to the questions.
If it were just, you know, a Trump standalone, we'd be there.
But since it's a joint presser with Justin Trudeau, what did I say?
Did I Justin?
What did I say, Justin Leonard?
It's Justin Trudeau.
He's the son of Margaret Trudeau, who's just as crazy as he is.
And his father, of course, makes three.
But I didn't see that at first.
So I'm just letting you know that we're going to jip it still, but when they get to the questions after the actual joint press statements and so forth from both Trudeau and Trump have finished.
Now, I am being told that Chris Ruddy of Newsmax.com is slightly walking back his criticism of Reince Priebus.
It seems to be a little bit of a backtrack.
Ruddy posted yesterday on Twitter that Reince just briefed me on new White House plans.
Impressive.
CNN today were my personal view.
I told him I have open mind based on his results.
So, whereas it initially looked like, I mean, look, Ruddy is a very, very close friend of the Trumpster.
They're almost inseparable out there.
So when Ruddy starts ragging on Reince Priebus, people start thinking that that's actually Trump.
Trump doesn't slap Ruddy down.
And people think, man, Trump's getting ready to get rid of Priebus.
So Ruddy walks it back a little bit and tells, no, it was just my own thoughts when I was on CNN.
Reince is now showing me White House plans.
They look very good to me.
So I guess Ruddy is going to tell Trump that Priebus's plans look good.
Now, and that means that Priebus will be safe.
Well, I mean, this is how the media reports this stuff.
Because Trump, of course, he's not, I think they're getting ready to say that Trump is almost like Reagan.
He's asleep half the time taking naps.
And all these other guys are running the show.
And then they're going to report that.
And Trump's going to get mad that everybody thinks he's not there, that all these other guys are running a show.
He's going to fire all of them.
I mean, that's the media.
That's what they're trying to do with Bannon.
Putting Bannon on the cover of Time magazine as the de facto president.
Clearly a psyops operation, trying to make it look like they think Trump's going to be sitting there wherever he reads time.
What?
They think Bannon's president?
Well, I'll show them, and he fires Bannon.
Then the next thing he sees is that Reince Priebus, somebody thinks Reince Priebus is doing a bad job, but Trump doesn't know that.
So they got to get rid of Reince.
And this is how the media, they are playing it this way.
It's laughable.
They paid no attention, really didn't.
They paid no attention to Trump during the campaign, and they paid no attention to Trump's statements and his agenda.
And now that this stuff is starting to be implemented, they're aghast.
Let me grab this call real quickly because this is, you know, I could make the point here without taking the call, but I don't want to take away from the caller.
We have a guy from Quincy named Jeffrey Jeffrey.
Hi.
Welcome to the EIB network.
What is your question, your point?
My quick question is, I just visited my brother out in California and talking to a lot of liberal people about Trump, and they always bring it up, and they're so tortured by it.
But they think if the election was, if you could do a redo today and revote, they're convinced that Trump would lose resoundingly.
And I can see how they would feel that based on what's going on in the press and so forth.
But my question to you is, you know, what do you think the people in Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Ohio think?
Because that's really what matters.
Who cares what the liberals preach to themselves?
I think that's bogus.
I think if the election were held today, Trump would win.
I don't think there's any question about it.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
You're talking to your buddies out in California, and they say, oh, man, you look at, and they're just watching the media, and they think the media is destroying Trump every day.
Really think the media is destroying Trump and that Trump's presidency is already over and that people now know this.
And the people who voted for Trump realize the mistake they made.
The people who voted for Trump privately probably very, very embarrassed.
And if they had a do-over, if they had a chance to do it again, they'd do the right thing this time and they would vote for Hillary.
That's what all of this coverage is supposed to, that's what it's designed to affect.
And I'm here to tell you that if the election were held today, Trump would win and maybe by an even bigger number.
Because the people that voted for Trump are getting exactly what he said.
If anybody is in trouble here, and do not doubt me on this, Jeffrey, if anybody's in trouble, it's the Republicans in Congress because the Democrats are already in trouble.
The Democrats would continue to lose.
If they held a special election today, the Democrats would lose more seats based on what they are doing, based on what their agents, these rioters, these protesters are doing.
The Democrat Party is damaging itself in ways they can't even tell.
But there are some people within the Democrat Party starting to see this.
Jim Webb and one of the guys running for the chairmanship of the DNC.
The people that are in real trouble right now are the Republicans on Capitol Hill who do not appear energetic to help Trump implement his agenda.
That's who might be in trouble if there were an election today, but not Trump.
And you can take that to the bank.
And you can call your buddies in California.
In fact, I want you to.
And I want you to tell them you called me.
And I want you to tell them that I told you specifically to say from me that in their dreams is this election, if it were held today, going to defeat Trump.
Trump would win by an even bigger margin.
I want you to tell them I said that.
And then you can tell them that I know what's really going on with this secondhand smoke is not a problem anymore.
They want marijuana legalized and they want it smoked anywhere.
And they want everybody to know that secondhand smoke, tobacco, or marijuana doesn't cause cancer as a means of spreading evil weed all over the place.
You tell them I got it.
You tell them I understand it.
You tell them I know where they're coming from and where they're headed.
And they're continuing to sink down the rat hole.
You tell them I said that.
Because I know they'll never call me here and give me the chance to say it to them.
But Jeffrey, do not let them talk you out of what you know.
Do not let them tell you things that are not true.
Do not, that's why I run the risk of having people say, Rush, get on to something else.
You've said this over and over.
But this is why.
The media coverage here is designed to create the exact thought that you called to ask me about.
That if the election were held today, Trump would lose because now people have realized the mistake they made.
People realize what an idiot Trump is.
People realize how dangerous Trump is.
People realize that Trump hates people.
People realize how incompetent and dangerous the cabinet is.
That's the whole point of this coverage since before Trump was inaugurated is to create stories like that.
You tell these guys to stuff it.
You tell them to put it where the sun don't shine.
You tell them to grow up and join you in conservatism and try to become happy.
That's the vice in the world, Rush.
That's a Yahtzee.
Well, I appreciate that.
That's what I'm here for.
I'm here to help.
I'm here to keep everybody properly focused and looking up because this is the one chance we've got in our lifetimes here, folks.
You all know how the media operates.
You all know.
You therefore all know how to avoid being affected by it.
You all know how to build up a wall or a boundary around yourself so that all of this nonsense just bounces off and doesn't even enter the serious part of your brain.
Because it's all nothing but a fantasy on the part of the drive-bys.
I appreciate the call.
I appreciate the opportunity to answer it.
Moving on back to Stephen Miller, ABC, George Stephanopoulos, here was the next question.
Mr. Miller, we've got this report at the Department of Homeland Security right now saying that the cost of the wall is likely to be above $20 billion.
That's almost three times what the president said on the campaign trail.
One, how much is the wall going to cost?
The president says he's going to bring the cost down, and can you guarantee that Mexico will pay?
I'm so glad you brought this up.
The media has done story after story after story about the cost of building a security wall in the southern border.
I can't remember a time, George, and correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone in the media has ever done a story about the cost of amnesty, about the cost of not enforcing our laws, or the cost of illegal immigration.
This is really quite remarkable.
It's estimated that illegal immigration costs our country state, local, and federal benefits about $100 billion a year.
Stopping new illegal immigration, preventing the effects that will have on our schools, on our hospitals, on our welfare system, on our wage earners will save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
This wall will pay for itself many, many, many times over.
I guarantee you that Stephanopoulos has not had anybody answer his question this way.
Stephanopoulos asks this question thinking, even before he's asked it, that he's got Miller trapped.
And you know why he thinks that?
Because he thinks he's going to be exposing Trump as a liar about the cost of the wall and about Mexico paying for the wall.
And in this, Stephanopoulos is demonstrating that he, like practically everybody else in the media, does not understand Trump and does not understand Trump supporters and does not understand why Trump supporters support Trump and the kind of latitude and leeway they give Trump.
He hasn't the slightest idea.
This is really such a narrowly focused, short-sighted mindset to believe that they can help destroy Trump in the minds of Trump's supporters by pointing out that this wall is going to cost three times what Trump said it was going to cost.
What about the cost of the national debt that doubled under Barack Obama?
George, are those things that you just don't even have register in your brain?
You worried about the costs of the wall when you served a president who blew the lid off spending, who had a stimulus bill of nearly a trillion dollars that went to unions and didn't rebuild a single road or bridge, much less school?
And you sit here and you hope to badger some Trump guy about the cost of the wall being three times what Trump said it was going to be?
Then the answer comes back.
Hey, George, have you ever done the story on the cost of amnesty?
Hey, George, you and the media ever figure what it's going to cost this country to grant amnesty to 11 or 15 million people?
You ever done the story?
And Stephanopoulos didn't address it.
Wasn't what he was expected.
So he went on.
Okay, okay, well, okay, this.
President Trump, again this week, suggested in a meeting with senators that thousands of illegal voters were bused from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, and that's what caused his defeat in the state of New Hampshire.
Also the defeat of Senator Kelly Ayat.
Do you have evidence, Mr. Miller?
I've actually, having worked before on a campaign in New Hampshire, I can tell you that this issue of busting voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who's worked in New Hampshire politics.
It's very real.
It's very serious.
Voter fraud is a serious problem in this country.
You have millions of people who are registered in two states or who are dead who are registered to vote.
And you have 14% of non-citizens, according to academic research, at a minimum, are registered to vote, which is an astonishing statistic.
You can't make a hold on a second.
You just claimed again that there was illegal voting in New Hampshire.
Do you have any evidence of that?
I'm saying anybody, George, go to New Hampshire, talk to anybody who's worked in politics there for a long time.
Everybody's aware of the problem in New Hampshire.
Now, it's not just New Hampshire.
We just had a case in Texas where an illegal alien woman was found guilty by a jury voting illegally, and she entrapped herself because she tried to register when she moved, and she admitted that she wasn't a citizen.
She was caught.
She was convicted as much for lying as much for anything else.
There is voter fraud.
We know that dead people in Chicago vote.
And this is Miller's whole point.
Of course there's voter fraud.
But the news media thinks that this is something they can nail Trump with as a lying skunk.
Because they think every time they ask this question, if Trump can't produce the fact that 3 million illegal aliens voted, that that means Trump is lying.
And that means they can nail Trump.
And what they're demonstrating again is that they haven't the slightest idea why Trump supporters support him and voted for him.
This is a great example of what I have been attempting to show.
The drive-bys are stuck in a mode of operation that's decades old in the establishment playbook about how to destroy Republicans.
And they have not modernized it and updated it to deal with Trump.
I don't think I don't think there is anybody in media who better understands Trump supporters, who they are, and why they support Trump than I am.
I really don't.
I don't think there's anybody out there in media that has a better understanding and a bigger hold on just who Trump supporters are, why they support him, and why the media cannot separate them from Trump.
The media doesn't understand it.
They think they can with questions to Stephen Miller like this.
Because Stephanopoulos just says, okay, well, let the record show you provided no evidence.
Voter fraud in New Hampshire.
Let the record show that you cannot provide evidence by one faulty fraudulent vote.
Miller said, well, you know, you talk to Chris Kobach, the Attorney General in Kansas.
I mean, they've been doing some great work on voter fraud.
So CNN dutifully went and got him on the air today, talked about voter fraud, talked about it in the state of Kansas and so forth.
But see, here's the thing.
They want to sit there and deny that there's any voter fraud.
They don't understand that is the crazy position.
They think Trump's crazy.
They think, by extension, Miller's crazy.
They think that they're exposing crazy, lying SOBs here when they kept saying, you can't provide any evidence.
Let the record show.
You haven't provided any evidence of any fraudulent voting in New Hampshire.
So Stephanopoulos thinks he wins the day.
Stephanopoulos does not realize that practically every Trump supporter watching, if there are any, that's another thing.
Trump supporters don't watch this drivel much anymore.
But those who do and those who were watching know exactly what Miller's talking about, and they support and applaud him saying what he said.
We know not only do they bust voters in New Hampshire, they bust voters in for the Hawkeye cauckey.
That's how Obama won the Iowa caucuses in 2000.
They bust a bunch of people in there.
Hillary tried to do the same thing this time around.
We know the dead vote in Chicago.
They laugh about it.
They brag about it.
We know multiple registration roles.
We know all kinds of things.
We have a survey out today.
Four out of five Americans support voter ID.
Why?
Because they know there's vote fraud going on.
And here's Stephanopoulos and ABC and the rest of the media trying to deny that there is any voter fraud because Trump and Miller don't produce actual evidence.
And they think they're winning the day.
They have no idea how they're appearing.
They have no idea how all this just cements Trump's supporters even more firmly.
Back to the phones, line three, Central Florida.
Al, great to have you with us, sir.
What's happening?
What's up?
Retired law enforcement ditto's rush listener since 94.
Thank you.
My point is simply this.
Several years ago, Jan Brewer, Sheriff Joe, and the Arizona legislature were tired of the federal government not enforcing our border.
They took action, passed laws, and started to do what they could to protect the citizens of Arizona.
The Obama administration sued them, stating immigration was solely the responsibility of the federal government.
And if I remember correctly, the courts agreed with them and struck down all the Arizona laws that were passed.
Now we are several years later.
They're arguing, the same people are arguing, it's not just simply the purview of the federal government, specifically the president.
Rather, it's the people who live here, the people who live overseas, they all have a say in who gets to come into the country and not the federal government, who is, by the Constitution, supposed to protect our borders and ensure our national safety.
Okay, two points about it.
A, you're right on the money in recounting the history of Arizona.
They simply rewrote state immigration law to mirror federal immigration law because Obama was not enforcing it.
Courts struck it down on the basis that states don't control immigration.
The federal government does, meaning the executive and legislative branches.
But that statute from 1952, which derived from a 1948 Supreme Court decision granting total authority to the president to proclaim that anybody from anywhere cannot get into the country for whatever reasons for as long as he says so, is totally a power held by the president.
Now, that executive order has been stayed.
The thing that you need to remember about this is that the substance of the Trump executive order has not even had a hearing yet, folks.
The judge in the state of Washington stayed the order because he didn't agree with the president, and that's not his role.
The voter fraud survey is from last August.
It's from Gallup.
As partisan-fueled court battles over state voting laws are poised to shape the political landscape in 2016 and beyond, a new Gallup research shows that four out of five Americans support both early voting and voter ID laws.
That's 80%.
Now, despite this, despite the fact that 80% support voter ID laws, the media still hammers anybody who might suggest that there's fraud in voting.
Like you just heard Stephanopoulos hammer Stephen Miller from the Trump administration.
Well, for the record, you provided no evidence whatsoever.
For the record, I didn't hear any evidence whatsoever, Mr. Miller.
If you can tell one faulty vote, one fraudulent vote.
I didn't hear one bit of evidence.
Come on, George.
I mean, everybody knows.
You go to New Hampshire, you go to the rivers, voter fraud, and people busting.
I didn't see any evidence.
I don't see the evidence you have for the record not provided one bit of evidence.
You know, we hate you, Miller.
We hate you.
Don't you understand?
We in the media.
We hate you.
We hate Trump.
We hate Bannon.
We hate people.
We hate you all.
And we're going to get you.
And that's what these Sunday shows are all about.
One more.
This is the last bite for Miller.
But this guy, he did the rounds yesterday.
He went over and talked to F. Chuck Todd at NBC.
It was at Fox News with Chris Wallace.
We just chose Stephanopoulos because, well, I don't know why we did, but we did.
It just happened the way it came up with the rotation.
Final bite.
Stephanopoulos says, I'm asking you, as the White House senior policy advisor, the president made a statement saying he was the victim of voter fraud.
Do you have any evidence?
Huh?
Huh?
The White House has provided enormous evidence with respect to voter fraud, with respect to people being registered in more than one state, dead people voting, non-citizens being registered to vote.
George, it is a fact, and you will not deny it, that there are massive numbers of non-citizens in this country who are registered to vote.
That is a scandal.
We should stop the presses, and as a country, we should be aghast about the fact that you have people who have no right to vote in this country registered to vote, canceling out the franchise of lawful citizens of this country.
That's the story we should be talking about.
And I'm prepared to go on any show, anywhere, anytime, and repeat it and say the president of the United States is correct 100%.
Stephanopoulos ended the bite by saying, well, let the record show that Mr. Miller provided not one shred of evidence for voter fraud in the United States in the last election.
And we'll be back with our next guest who is going to slam Trump.
I forgot who it is, but we'll be back with him right after these commercial announcements from ABC.
And that's how the interview went.
George, the real story is, and you won't deny it.
And Stephanopoulos didn't deny it.
The only rejoinder they've got is, you haven't provided any evidence.
You have right.
Any evidence whatsoever.
Wonder, it wouldn't take us long if I wanted to order a review of our audio soundbite archives to find all the evidence of Democrats accusing Republicans of engaging in voter fraud and claiming to have produced said evidence.
But see, here there is none.
Here we go back to the phones.
I want to grab Steve in Oklahoma City because I haven't agree with him here.
Hey, Steve, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Great to have you here, sir.
How are you?
Hi, Josh.
What an honor.
What an honor.
I've listened to you since day one, and I can't believe I finally talked to you.
I'm 70 years old, and I used to smoke cigarettes for about 40 years and quit quite some time ago.
And could you tell me why it's okay to smoke marijuana that smoke doesn't bother you, but second-hand smoke is like the worst thing you could possibly do.
And I have one other question to ask you.
Well, okay, don't lose your train of thought there, but obviously you can answer your own question.
You're just trying to set me up to look good because you think that's what callers are supposed to do.
But you can answer the question.
I think I can't, but I want to hear what you have to say.
Okay, it's very simple.
Don't lose your train of thought.
Don't forget.
What's the second question?
Let me get the second question so you don't forget it, and we'll go back to it.
Okay.
I got a 20-year-old granddaughter that's nine months away from graduating and going to become a third-grade history teacher.
Yeah.
If I can only afford to buy one of your books, which one of the books would you recommend I buy for her?
Rush, Revere, and the Brave Pilgrims.
Okay.
Okay.
The first one.
Because after that, she's going to want the other four.
And she'll go out.
Well, yeah, I looked at them, but they're great books, but I'm kind of waiting around.
Maybe somebody will put them on eBay there.
Tell them, well, they're not that expensive.
And they're also, for her, they would be a business expense if she has deduction.
Now, anyway, your question about secondhand smoke and marijuana and so forth, it's clearly the way to demonstrate the pure total hypocrisy of the anti-freedom left.
Because here you have, on the one hand, you've got cigarettes and you have big tobacco, big tobacco, big corporations.
That is all you need if you're a leftist to be filled with rage and hate.
Then you hear the surveys and the studies that secondhand smoke kills and that big tobacco lied and that they're getting rich off of killing their customers.
So you hate them.
You despise them.
But then you get introduced to marijuana as a leftist anti-freedom fighter and you happen to love it.
But it looks like a cigarette without a filter, by the way.
And you love smoking.
And you, when you take a hit off a doobie, you are supposed to hold that baby in.
You suck it in there and you hold it as long as you can, which, if measured against cigarette smoking, is even worse than the way cigarette smoke is.
They've got a filter on there, even though it doesn't matter.
And they take their draws and they exhale.
And that leads to death on the part of the smoker and anybody nearby ingesting secondhand smoke.
But with the marijuana talk, you suck it in there and you hold it and you hold it and you hold it.
And then you do it again.
And you pass the doobie around and you do it again until even when there's just an eighth of an inch left, you burn your fingers getting an X hit.
You do it and you do it and you suck it in.
And then they tell you about, well, you know, there are dangerous tars and there are likely carcinogens in marijuana.
And you say, no, there's not.
No, there's not.
There's not.
And there's no corporation behind marijuana.
There's nothing evil about it.
But then you have this lingering problem out there, secondhand smoke.
It kills.
The left, they scored big dollars on that.
Major lawsuits against big tobacco.
They got tobacco banned everywhere.
They got all kinds of success stories on a lying proposition that secondhand smoke kills, causes cancer.
Well, marijuana smokers, after they blow it out, they run around the room trying to re-inhale it.
I mean, they're sucking on a doobie, then they suck on the secondhand smoke, and now they've got a problem because why doesn't that cause cancer?
Well, guess what?
There's a new survey and the first survey about secondhand smoke, damn it, it was all wrong.
There's not a thing to worry about with secondhand smoke.
Perfectly timed for now what appears to be the uptick in legalization of marijuana.
And so none of the things that attach to cigarettes, i.e.
tobacco, big tobacco, big corporate, so forth.
I can't wait till an R.J. Reynolds or a Philip Morris or somebody buys a series of marijuana farms and starts marijuana instead of some local hippie, you know, in a tie-dyed sweatshop in Denver.
Wait a minute, big corporation, because you know it's going to happen.
And then they're going to be flummoxed because they're going to want to smoke their Mary Jane, but they're not going to be, they don't want to be patronizing evil big tobacco at the same time.
Or if some of these little tie-dyed independent contractors happen to grow to corporate status.
And it will, and then when they start uniformly taxing this, I mean, if you're going to tax carbon, how do you not tax Mary Jane?
So there's a lot that's in store for them that they don't like.
I mean, the things that they have done to successfully stigmatize cigarette smoking are all applicable to smoking marijuana.
You've got to ignore holding it in.
These are carcinogens and other things in your lungs.
Now, I know the marijuana.
No, there's not a single carcinogen in marijuana.
It's been studied, I know.
In fact, I saw George Stephanopoulos say that there isn't any carcinogen at all in marijuana.
I'm just making that up, but I mean, he's one of their source authorities, since we're talking about him today.
But that'll be up to you to believe.
No carcinogens in marijuana.
You can smoke that.
You can suck that in.
You can hold that in your lungs as long as you want.
And then you can exhale it and all that secondhand marijuana smoke.
Harmless, totally harmless.
Have at it.
Blow it out on your dog.
Blow it out on your cat.
It's harmless.
It's a genuine conflict that they're going to have to come up with some sort of assistance with.
And that's what this secondhand smoke, the new survey.
Hey, guess what?
We were wrong.
There isn't anything bad.
Secondhand smoke.
It's so easy to see where this is coming from.
Steve, hang on.
Mr. Snerdley, while I'll get your address here, we'll send your daughter the books.
It's worth it.
It's worth it.
If your daughter is going to become a history teacher, it's too important.
So we'll just hang on.
We'll get an address and we'll get them out for you.
In the meantime, a brief time out here.
Okay.
Okay.
So I just got an email.
I got lots of emails.
I just saw it.
Do you think Priebus is a Trump?
No, folks, my whole point.
I don't think Bannon's in trouble and I don't think Priebus is in trouble.
This is all manufactured stuff.
Here, the first headline I have is the left's grand plan for Steve Bannon, divide and conquer.
The point here is this.
Just to reiterate, Time magazine cover story on Bannon, the real president in hiding.
And they know Trump's ego, or they think they do.
This is that they don't know Trump at all.
And this is what's fascinating to me.
They had every chance in the world to get to know Trump.
All they had to do was actually pay attention in his rallies instead of sitting there as a bunch of elitist, condescending people holding everybody there in contempt.
If they would have just sat there and listened, none of what Trump's doing today would surprise them.
It's the agenda being rolled out.
The fact that Trump's voters have not abandoned him.
There's no mystery to this.
This is exactly what they expected to happen.
Everything's on schedule.
It's the Republicans on Capitol Hill that may have some explaining to do with all the talk about delaying Obamacare.
None of the president threw in on that too.
And the tax cuts don't seem to be happening as quickly as were indicated.
That's where fault lines lie.
So the media doing the story on Bannon being the real president, what the purpose of that is, they think they can undermine, they think it under Trump's skin.
They really think that they can force Trump to fire Bannon out of jealousy.
They think Trump is so insecure.
To think like this, that somebody like Trump is insecure, you have to have experience with something.
I would think many of the people leveling this charge maybe suffer similar insecurities and are simply projecting.
Because the theory is if you go out and build Bannon up and you talk about how he's the real brains and he's the real policy guy, then Trump's supposed to sit there and start steaming that people think he's not in charge, that people think he's not in control, that people think he's not number one.
And the object, okay, walk in, Steve.
I'm sorry.
Everybody thinks you're running a show and I can't have that.
You're gone.
And then the same thing with Priebus.
And here's Chris Ruddy of Newsmax, who is very close, very tight with Trump, who goes on CNN and basically said that, well, things are not cool.
Priebus not doing a good job.
Trump not happy.
Well, people say, well, Ruddy is very tight with Trump.
Ruddy, I can't imagine Ruddy going out and saying something like that without Trump knowing.
So then the media says, so obviously Trump sent Ruddy out to say that, which means that Priebus is next to go.
And that's what they want you to think and everybody else to buy.
But none of this is coming from Trump.
Have you noticed it?
None of it's coming from Trump.
You hear about it in the media, either on the cover of Time or from Chris Ruddy, supposedly, who then walked back a little bit his tweet, because he tweeted again yesterday that he had since met with Priebus.
I mean, this is kind of strange, too.
Here's Chris Ruddy of Newsmax saying he met with Priebus, the White House chief of staff.
And when Priebus explained the policy agenda, that Ruddy was comfortable.
Oh, okay, that's better.
As though Ruddy is a de facto Trump.
So Trump via Ruddy was worried about Priebus.
But now that Ruddy thinks it's okay after having talked to Priebus, I guess Trump's not going to fire.
This is all absurd.
And this is what you get when the left really has nothing but psychological operations and warfare type things to try to make you think that this White House is so maladjusted and so incompetent, so unqualified that nobody knows what's going on over there.
And they're led by this jealous egomaniac who's as insecure as the day is long.
All of this is totally made up.
Like the fact that all of these rioters and protesters represent the majority of America is totally made up.
And I find it, as I say, I think it's just interesting that this is the best they've got.
It's the best they've got.
And it's a continuation, in fact, of Hillary's number one reason to elect her.
And that is Trump's not fit.
Trump's unsuited.
Trump's mentally deranged.
And how did that work out for Hillary?
And they think that this is going to separate Trump supporters from Trump is a key thing they have forgotten.
The media didn't make Trump, and that means they can't destroy Trump.
If you let the media make you, if you are who you are, if you're a big, big name, lots of fame, success, because the media says you are, well, they can cancel you out anytime they want, but the media has nothing to do with Trump's success.
Literally nothing.
There's nothing they can do, but they don't understand that.
I really, I don't think there's anybody in media that has a better understanding of Trump's supporters, who they are, and why they support Trump and what it would take for Fissures to appear.
But the media, they're getting more deranged.
Now Bill Maher and now half the left is out there talking, you know, we really think Trump's insane.
We really think Trump mentally unstable.
We really think, psychologically, Trump may be very, very mentally unbalanced.
It really is despicable stuff.
But that's all they've got.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back with more after this.
No, I did not say tweezers.
Staff here is joking, and I said tweezers when you got one-eighth of your doobie left.
I would have said roach clip if I would have said anything.
And other people are writing, you seem to know an awful lot about smoking marijuana.
Look, I know a bunch of, in my life, people have done that.
I've witnessed a bunch of this stuff, folks.
I'm not going to sit here and deny that.
▲
Export Selection