All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 15, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:06
February 15, 2017, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am Rush Limbaugh, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Okay, we're serious and breaking news out there.
CNN, fake news is reporting that top Senate Republicans have urged the White House to withdraw the nomination of uh Pudster, what's his name?
Puster Puzder.
He's the uh what is it?
Trade.
Same difference, trade labor, what difference?
He's a labor secretary nominee.
And the uh apparently they're the top Republicans have told the White House that there are four firm no votes, and there could be up to twelve votes on the fence and say uh rather than run the risk of uh having a nominee voted down White House, why don't you just pull the guy?
By the way, New York Daily News just posted I can't you not the New York Daily News just posted the succession list for who would become president if Trump is uncapacitated, and of course it's Pence and an after Pence, and they keep going till they get to a Democrat would be in line to be, and that would have to be the House or Senate minority leader.
It's way, way, way down the list.
So anyway, um the Democrats have intended to take a scalp from one of Trump's cabinet nominees.
They thought it was gonna be Betsy DeVoss.
They really thought they were gonna stop her.
But it looks like uh Puzzer and his his crime against humanity is that he is supposed to have one time hired an illegal alien.
Uh which, of course, the Democrats would never, never stand for.
Wait a minute, that's that's what they want everybody to do.
Do they not?
The Democrats want everybody to hire illegal.
The Democrats alien possible to come here, be here, and be allowed to stay here.
But Puzzler may have once hired one.
It's a glaring hypocrisy of our government in uh in action.
Anyway, we'll see how that uh falls out.
Also, Chris Matthews, I didn't see it.
I don't want the audio, I don't need the audio, don't I can just tell you this as easily as playing it for you?
Chris Matthews got really confused during the joint press conference today, because Trump brought his family.
And Matthews doesn't understand that.
He said, you know, that I just I don't I don't get this as a strange administration.
Family means a lot to Trump.
It's a strange administration.
Family means a lot to Trump.
That must be an odd thing for a Democrat that family means a lot.
It must be.
Why comment on it?
And then Matthews said, it's almost like the Romanovs.
Why did you go all the way, Chris, and just say the Borges?
Why just clear the decks and just say it just like the Borges?
Rodrigo Borger the Pope and his daughter Lucrezia could be the Yvanka character.
Why don't you just go all the way?
Why stop at the Romanovs?
He said, I mean, why?
They they bring all the family, these major state events.
Why is Ivanka there?
Why is Melania there at a state press conference?
He's always bringing the family and lording it over us.
This sort of regal manner of the guy.
Regal manner.
I thought the guy was a reprobate.
I thought he's a bull in the China shop.
And all of a sudden he's a regal guy like a Romanoff.
He bring what's Melania doing in there?
Well, what's Ivanka doing?
She's obviously selling her products.
What else would she be doing in there, Chris?
Just jam it in a little further.
Why would they not be there?
They got, you know, they went when Trump had the ceremony to announce the choice of uh Judge Gorsuch.
Uh there were family members there, and uh and the press blew up at that.
Now why is it?
Why is there his family in there?
What's the family doing there?
Why would a family member get a front row seat to a judge nominated?
Why, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
It's as though tight-knit families offend the Democrats.
Children who admire their father and want to work with that's not normal.
What for Democrats?
What is normal?
Then I just love it.
I just love the way they get so irritated.
One thing about family, they're not going to leak.
And if they do leak, you can do something about it.
Because it's because it's family.
Okay.
Here's a telephone number, folks, for the remainder of the busy broadcast today.
It's 800 282-2882 and the email address, L Rushbo at EIBNet.us.
Oh, there's Chris Matthews on Fox.
I've agreed to appear on Fox News Sunday.
This Sunday, by the way.
And I, in fact, I sent them a I sent them a note late, well, early this morning at two o'clock in the morning.
I sent them a note.
Uh and I said, Chris, look, I mean, with with hella popping the way it is.
If you, if you need my slot, you know, for some Washington inside newsmaker, I'll be happy to uh to bump out.
And they sent me back and no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We're gonna book it, we're gonna announce it today.
So I feel, well, if they're gonna announce it, I can mention it.
So it's the Fox broadcast network, not Fox News.
It'll it'll air on Fox News later in the day, but it goes live at 9 Eastern.
At least that's what time we have to be here and tape it.
Yeah, it is live at 9 Eastern for those that carry it then.
Now, back to this New York Times story.
There's one more thing in this in this whole Flynn business.
And let me uh restate something just to provide an umbrella for which the next comments fall.
Remember that what is driving all of this?
The story about Michael Flynn, the fact that he had to resign, uh, that there's trouble there.
All of this is based on the people that write the news narratives every day.
That would be the Democrats and the media, believing and trying to convince as many people as possible that the election was fraudulent, that the election was hacked, that the Russians hacked it, and that Trump worked with them to hack the election, and Trump worked with them to hack Hillary's emails.
And is on this basis that the attack on Trump is taking place.
The media and the uh shadow government of Obama, the deep state bureaucrats want you to believe the election was not on the up and up, that it was rigged because of Russian involvement, and we know this, they are telling us because Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador.
Yeah.
Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador, and that means they had to discuss sanctions.
And if they discussed sanctions, that means that Flynn was discussing with the Russians, removing Obama saying, and that means there was collusion and that means and that means and that means.
And on and on and on.
So the fact is there's no evidence, and there never has been any evidence for any of that.
There is no evidence the Russians had anything to do with votes, either casting them or counting them.
There is no evidence the Russians had anything to do with any aspect of the election.
There's none.
Nobody's found it.
They've looked.
The media, the deep state, the intelligence people that are plugged in as holdovers from the Obama administration.
They have searched, they have interviewed, they've wiretapped, they've hacked, they've monitored, they've looked everywhere they can, and they can't find any evidence.
And the outrage, the latest outrage is that last night the New York Times sent out a breaking news alert at 9.15 Eastern With a report that their sources had found contact between Trump campaign officials and the Russians during the campaign.
This lit up Twitter, it lit up the news everywhere.
It lit up the Facebook newsfeed.
It lit up the Kremlin.
It lit up everywhere.
I looked at it, said, damn, because I knew it was bogus because they ran the same story back in October.
Sure as shooting.
They run their story this morning based on that news alert.
And in the third paragraph, they admit that their sources have not been able to provide one ounce of evidence showing collusion between Trump and the Russians on the election.
And furthermore, they can't even prove that the contacts between Trump people and the Russians during the campaign were even about the election.
It is totally made up.
It is full-fledged 100% fake news, including the premise that the election was hacked by the Russians and Hillary should have won.
And it's on that basis.
They want everybody to believe that all they're doing is the honorable thing of correcting a mistake, that Hillary should be president.
They may not be able to make that happen, but they can sure get rid of the guy who rigged it.
And that would be Trump.
And that's what all of this is.
And that's why Flynn is gone.
Because they were able to make enough noise to make enough people nervous.
I think it was a mistake to let Flynn go.
I think that it was an unnecessary cave, and I think it opens up additional opportunities for other scalps to be sought.
I mean, once you give these people one person, they're not satisfied, as you can see.
Well, this is kind of in the weeds, but really not.
Within the same framework that I have just described, there have been people who were privy to the phone conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
The reason is that the NSA was tapping the ambassador's phone calls.
He's a bad guy.
He's an enemy.
And so we legally, FISA court permission have been monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone calls.
The Russian ambassador knows this.
I mean, anybody doing this knows that the NSA is tagging them and following them.
There's a transcript of the call that they will not release.
The shadow government, the Obama shadow government, the deep state, the intelligence bureaucrats will not release the full transcript of the phone call.
They're only releasing little bits here and little bits there to make their case.
And one of the things the New York Times reported on that they were looking for in this phone call.
Well, let me just read it to you.
The Obama from the New York Times story.
Obama officials asked the FBI.
That's who was monitoring the calls, the NSA, FBI C in the transcript.
The Obama officials asked the FBI if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
And the answer came back, no, according to one of the officials, who, like all the others, asked not to be named, discussing delicate communications.
The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.
Quid pro quo, a quid pro quo, had there been a quid pro quo, then they would, then Flynn would be in jail today, and Trump would be under impeachment.
That's what they were desperately hoping for.
They asked the people who had the transcript of the call, was there a quid pro quo?
The Prid quid pro quo in this case that they were hoping to hear was an Offer from Flynn to lift the sanctions that Obama had placed if the Russians would do something for Trump.
They were desperate for that to be part of the call.
They were desperate for Flynn to have done that.
The fact that they believed Flynn was that stupid that Flynn would be that lazy to actually offer the Russians a deal.
They were desperately hoping, and the New York Times makes clear here that the deep state players, the Obama shadow government, were hoping and praying that that's what Flynn had done.
But Flynn didn't.
There was no quid pro quo.
Flynn did not offer to lift the sanctions that Obama had just placed.
This phone call, by the way, took place on the day Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats.
There was no quid pro quo to bring them back.
Flynn did not promise the Russians anything.
After Trump was inaugurated in exchange for anything.
There was no quid pro quo.
But leading up to this admission, the news all week has been alluding to a quid pro quo.
And was there one?
Many experts believe there simply had to have been.
Experts that we've talked to here at the New York Times are assured a quid pro quo was discussed.
Then Trump lets Flynn go and then, well, there really must have been one, but there wasn't.
Once again, no evidence Flynn did anything wrong.
There's no evidence that Flynn did anything wrong.
They were dying to make this quid pro quo thing stick.
They knew they didn't have one, but they could get the next best thing.
They could induce people on Trump's team to act like they were guilty of a quid pro quo.
That's what all this pressure did.
That's what all of this attention that Trump was gonna do.
All the pressure from all the drive-bys and all of the shadow government people was to make it look like the Trump people were hiding something, and they came along and get rid of Flynn, and it furthers the idea there is something to hide.
When there's not and you know what else?
Remember that Buzzfeed story where there is this dossier that was put together on Trump that not one word is true.
And Buzzfeed released it anyway, so the American people could at least see the kind of stuff going on after what it really was was a fake collection of allegations about Trump that the Intel people wanted to show him as an example of the kind of bad stuff out there so that he would take a meeting with them.
That dossier was totally fake, exposed as fake.
Everybody knows it, and yet the New York Times is still hanging their hat on it.
As part of the inquiry, the FBI is also trying to assess the credibility of the information contained in a dossier that was given to the Bureau last year by a former British intelligence operative.
The dossier contained a raft of allegations.
These this was exposed as a fraudulent thing three weeks ago, and here it shows up in the drive-by media yesterday as something that's possibly still legitimate, that is still being examined.
It isn't, it's done, it was fake to begin with.
The people that made it up admitted so, and yet it's included in a New York Times story yesterday as something that remains possible.
Uh allegations of Trump misconduct.
It is, folks, it this is criminal what is happening here.
And it is far, far, far more dangerous to the Constitution and to our country than anything Trump has even contemplated doing.
It's not even close.
Okay, here's Joel in Brooklyn.
Joel, great to have you on the EIB network.
How are you doing, sir?
I'm doing fine.
Thank you for having me on the line.
I just happened to tell you that uh I was um to recently a diehard liberal.
Um that I had a friend that I go with like uh school with.
I'm actually youngster.
Um he told me this guy on uh on the radio has given out three iPhones at the what?
That's how I started listening to you.
And I stopped listening to you only because of that.
And you just got into my head.
And you literally took over my view to life and I turned my views around 60 degrees.
No, I'm not I I don't need a knife and I don't need anything else.
I just need you to listen to you.
And you literally my mentor and life now I could see headlines, they look differently in headlines.
I see CLM headlines totally different.
It looks to me that it's written in red blocks.
That's how it looks to me now.
Well, I appreciate that.
I uh so you it was the fact that we were this guy told you to give away iPhones and that that's cool, you listened, and your mind changed right on the spot almost, it sounds like changed uh almost uh I guess it was four or five weeks ago, um it changed to 360 degree.
Man, I'd say that's music to my ears because I'll be folks, and it that's one of the reasons I do this.
I mean, I'll be honest with you, I'm not just doing this to hear my head rattle.
Uh I and that's that that's great.
Do you want a new iPhone?
I have some left over.
You you want an iPhone 7 or 7 plus?
Oh my gosh.
I'm sure.
I've absolutely okay.
Seven or seven plus, you tell me which one.
Seven plus.
Seven plus.
And uh I got one that's unlocked, it'll work on any carrier that you have.
Uh, you have a color preference?
Uh no, negative.
Okay, fine.
I'll send you the prettiest one.
I'll say the pretty good one.
I think it's jet black.
I'll send you just hang on.
Don't go away so that Mr. Snerdley can get the and give him a real one.
You're from Brooklyn.
Give him your real address so that we get this to you.
And thank you, Joel.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
You know this guy, Evan McMullen, was he from Utah?
And wasn't he one of the great GOP hopes to unseat Trump?
When they have in their primaries, wasn't he going to run out there?
And he was going to stop Trump from winning a nomination, stop Trump from winning Utah.
Right.
I I never heard of Evan McMullen before that, but Evan McMullen apparently yeah, he did launch a third party run against Trump, and he's continuing this this fake news that he's got a tweet out there that Trump, that the president of the United States has been co-opted or corrupted or something, I forget what it is by by essentially by being in bed with Russia.
And and he uh he's on CNN.
So all these Republicans.
I just I just saw Republican senators.
Well no, I'm sitting here thinking, how much do I want to tell you about what I know here?
I I saw Roy Blunt, I saw a bunch of other Republicans and Shinry Kane, he was right here, right here.
Yes, uh, all suggesting they needed to be full fledged investigation into this Flynn business.
Flynn needs to be brought up here, and we need to deposit everything.
Flynn knew what was going on.
It is clear, and it should not be a surprise to anybody.
There's a whole bunch of established Republicans who have just been waiting for what they think is the time to break away and make a move on Trump.
And they're doing it under the guise of saving the Republican Party, or in some cases, saving America from the incompetent boob.
That is uh that is Donald Trump.
Um here's this fake news about Russia and Trump being in bed together during the campaign, hacking the election, and these guys are all acting like they believe the story.
Which I just have folks, it offends me greatly.
These guys have the intelligence to know that this is all fake news.
They they they they have the ability to know.
This kind of stuff is used against them all the time by the media.
At any rate, I wanted to answer these questions that Chris Matthews had.
Why was Trump's family up there?
Who do they think they are?
Romanovs?
What is his family together in this business?
Well, what poor Melania, you know, she can't win.
I don't know if you're aware of this.
But last week the media were in an uproar sneering That Melania ditched the Japanese Prime Minister's wife in Washington, which was not true.
And that she was ridiculously shirking her first lady duties by not being in Washington at the White House.
There were no stories out there that Melania, and then there were accompanying stories.
Is there trouble in paradise?
Does Melania want no part of what her husband's doing?
Does Melania know her husband's a phony?
Does Melania know her husband's a fake and a fraud?
Does Melania know this isn't going to last?
Does Melania know that there's no reason to go to Washington because Trump's not going to be there himself in a couple of months?
All this kind of stuff's out there.
And then the next pictures I saw were Melania Trump and Mrs. Japanese Prime Minister walking around a Japanese garden somewhere.
And that's right down in Delray Beach.
And they were feeding the poy fish and they were throwing things in the air for the insects to grab whatever they were doing, looking at flowers and stuff.
What first ladies do go into a garden.
Ah, isn't that lovely?
Yes, it's such a wonderful aroma.
Can we pick something?
No, the cameras are on us.
Whatever goes on in these gardens is what's going on.
But I was of the impression that Melania was shirking her duties.
And then there she is with Mrs. Japanese first lady.
And then there she was at dinner with uh with her husband, the president, Mrs. Japanese First Lady and a Japanese prime minister, and uh owner of the uh New England Patriots, Chris Ruddy was at that dinner very, very tight with Trump.
Uh so I've what I'm hearing about Mrs. Trump isn't true for what I see.
And then the reason that Melania was there today at the joint press conference between her husband and Bibi Netanyahu is that Mrs. Netanyahu was there.
And so the protocol was that Mrs. Netanyahu was there while Mrs. Trump should be there.
And Melania stood next to her husband, waiting for the Netanyahu's to arrive and greeted them upon their arrival, which is what normally happens, yet they say she's shirking her duties.
Ivanka was there because her husband happens to be Trump's number one advisor on Israel.
Ivanka's husband's a guy named Jared Kushner, and he's Trump's number one advisor on Israel.
And Ivanka is Trump's number one advisor on fashion.
I'm just kidding.
I'm just making a do you believe that they the New York Times, that was Carl Bernstein's son.
Carl Bernstein's son admitted to being the one that called Melania a hooker.
But he did it at a party.
He did it at a social gathering, not an official news function.
And uh anyway, Times reprimanded him because if you're gonna say that, say it in a paper, not at a party.
No, they didn't reprimand him for that.
But I wouldn't have been surprised if they had.
But they did reprimand him, so he came out and admitted it and so forth.
And then the Office of Government Ethics has recommended a full-fledged investigation and admonishment of Kellyanne Conway for urging people to go out there and buy Ivanka products while standing in the White House with the White House logo behind her.
They say it's a clear violation of ethics that no government officials shall endorse, suggest, or recommend any product.
And Kellyanne clearly did.
In fact, even said, I'm gonna do a little commercial here for Ivanka.
Now, that's all true.
That's that's not that's not kosher, but I want to put some of this in perspective for you, folks.
The left loves to say that what their protesters engage is simple dissent.
Time-honored, wonderful American descent.
Why our people are engaged in the very behavior that led to the founding of America.
Time honored dissent from authority.
And so when Nordstrom decides, for example, to cancel the Ivanka Product line.
The left chalks it up to, well, you know, they have made a business decision and they start speculating on maybe Ivanka's stuff is no good.
And then they speculate, maybe maybe Ivanka stuff isn't popular.
Maybe Ivanka's stuff is way overblown.
Maybe, maybe maybe Nordstrom was tired of losing money stocking, and that's not what happened.
I will guarantee you what happened was not normal day-to-day dissent or business.
You have a bunch of left-wing bullies, I will guarantee you that were intimidating and accusing and threatening Nordstrom that if they didn't get rid of Ivanka stuff, that all kinds of hell was going to happen to them.
I mean I I mean there's no doubt in my mind.
And that's not business.
Now, when something like that, let me ask you, when something like that happens, let's put, let's take Ivanka out of this and put you into it.
I want every one of you to imagine that you're an entrepreneur and you have created a product of some kind, and you've invented it and you've uh found a way to mass produce it, you've marketed it, and it is in various stores.
Maybe it's in a chain of stores, whatever you imagine, and it's going great guns.
And then somebody finds out that you happen to be a conservative or Republican.
And then all of a sudden, all those stores selling your product are suddenly inundated with tweets and emails from people threatening to never set foot on a store again.
Never buy anything in the store until your product is removed.
And then you dig deep and you find out that 99% of the tweets and 99% of the emails are being sent by people who don't shop at the store anyway, and don't even live in the town where the store is.
But yet the company gets intimidated, gets nervous, gets scared, and they tell you we've got to stop selling your product because we're being threatened, and we don't want to put up with it.
Are you just supposed to sit there and say, well, time honored American descent is destroying my business?
And if I respond in any way, I'm being unethical.
Is that is that because that's exactly what's going on?
Now, maybe Kelly Ann Conway should not have said from the White House, buy Ivanka products.
But my point is this.
What they did was engage politics for politics, because I am here to tell you, I don't know.
I'm using intelligence guided by my own experience.
I'm just telling you that the odds are Nordstrom got rid of Ivanka stuff because of politics, one way or the other, political pressure or maybe management at Nordstrom didn't want it, whatever it is.
And I think it's it's not right that the left gets to inject their politics into business, and it's still called business, when the right then tries to respond and inject their and the right can't because you're not allowed to infuse politics into business.
But the left gets away with doing it.
So what are people supposed to do?
Just let the left have total control over what's sold where and what isn't sold where.
I know what Kellyanne was doing.
She's simply defending Ivanka, who happens to be the daughter of her boss against a totally unwarranted, not business related political attack.
And because she did it with the White House logo, but she's under the press room, it does convey an endorsement by the government, which government ethics laws do not allow.
Now, OGE, the Office of Government Ethics, they don't have any power to accuse, to charge, and to try anybody.
So it all they can do is is point out so-and-so violated ethics rules.
It's up to others to then take action on it.
In this case, it'd probably be Congress.
I don't know who, Federal Trade Commission, I have no idea who.
I don't know what's going to come of it, but that's what I think happened.
And when it happens to you, it totally changes the perspective of things.
As a conservative, you're supposed to sit there.
Well, that's just the breaks of the game.
The left gets to infect and corrupt business all day long, and it's called Great American dissent.
And if you respond to it, you're being unethical.
It's just another way that the uh playing field is in no way level back after this.
What happened to that?
Oh, is that guest John in Indianapolis?
Still, John, great to have you on the program.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Mr. Limbaugh.
Hey, how are you, sir?
Fine and dandy.
Fine and dandy.
Great to have you here with us as the world burns all around us.
Well, I want to talk about the uh the first hour of the program where you said only 63 million people support Donald Trump.
I'd like to bring up Brexit because I believe that that number is null and void.
I believe that there are a lot of Trump supporters all across the globe.
Because of Brexit.
And now Brexit is not a non-news story.
Yeah, but uh I don't dispute that.
I know that Trump has all kinds of support all over the world, but but I was talking about domestic support and the numbers that Trump would need to resist any of these efforts that are mounting up to destroy him.
And when it comes to uh the politics of getting rid of Donald Trump, the Brexit crowd that supports him is not gonna matter to the Democrats and Republicans in this country that might someday make a move on Trump.
It's the 63 million.
And this is something, you know what?
It is assumed those 63 million, if Trump goes, they're just gonna sit home and go, uh let me tell you so this 63 million is a different group of people.
And you they're not just gonna sit idly by and watch the man they elected be shoved out of office.
I'm just warning you people out there in the deep state, shadow government, you're not dealing with who you think you're dealing with here.
So I just watching Fox, the CEO of Under Armor coming under attack by athletes because he said something supportive of Trump.
Remind me about this tomorrow because we're out of time here.
▲
Export Selection