RUSH: The UK Telegraph asks today if I am editing the New York Times. Yes, they do. The UK Telegraph, that's the lead story in a big story. The New York Times, for some reason, has done a thorough expose on the Clinton Global Initiative. They have ripped the Clinton charity to shreds in the New York Times. I'm telling you, I don't want to make too big a deal out of any one of these things, but there are a lot of little, bitty things starting to align. Is Rush Limbaugh editing the New York Times? This piece essentially points out that this thing is losing money left and right, it raises money out the wazoo, it's running deficits, and the Clintons are getting rich.
The New York Times is pointing out that the Clintons seem to be one of the few bunches of people that get wealthy giving money away. Most philanthropy is people giving money away, donating. The Clintons are getting rich doing it. It is a fascinating thing. Now, when the UK Telegraph asks, "Is Rush Limbaugh editing the New York Times?" can I translate that for you? What that means is, "Is the New York Times telling the truth about something? Is the New York Times actually doing news?" is what that means. So you hang in there, you be tough.
RUSH: Folks, you can try to get to the New York Times story on the Clinton Global Initiative on the Web. I don't think you can. It's been taken down. Well, I don't know if it's been taken down or they just ended the access to it. But don't worry, I have enough of it for certain pull quotes. Oh, the whole website's inaccessible, so maybe the Times got hacked. Okay, Times got hacked. I thought just that one story pulled down. All right. It's obviously the Clinton story, the expose of the Clinton Global Initiative that's resulted in the Times website being hacked. The story is in the UK Telegraph, by Tim Stanley. "The New York Times Takes Down the Clinton Foundation. This Could Be Devastating for Bill and Hillary," is the headline. The lead is, "Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh?"
Now, UK Telegraph. New York Times. By the way, the New York Times website is still down. It has been hacked. I would say it's a safe bet to say that the reason the Times has been hacked is that they have a story that exposes the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton charity, it exposes it as there's something really wrong with this thing, is their point. There's many things really wrong with the Clinton Global Initiative. And a guy named Tim Stanley at the UK Telegraph headlines the story: "The New York Times Takes Down the Clinton Foundation. This Could be Devastating for Bill and Hillary."
Here is the lead. "Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh?" What that means is, is the New York Times doing an honest appraisal of the Clintons? That's what that means. I want to take you back to me on this program September 16th, 2005. I was talking about the Clinton Global Initiative.
RUSH ARCHIVE: Lo and behold, here's the Clinton Global Initiative, which is really nothing more than a platform for two things: Clinton finally finding a legacy. He doesn't know that he already has one. Her name is Monica Lewinsky. The second thing is to provide a foundation for Hillary Clinton's presidential perspirations. And that's the purpose of this thing.
RUSH: Back in 2005, eight years ago, your host, El Rushbo, pointing out what the real purpose of it was. And I also added it's a great way for Clinton to get women. I mean, you ought to see the people that go to this thing. They come from all over the world. The Clinton Global Initiative meeting, if you will, in New York is always timed around the same time in October, September, when the UN General Assembly is meeting. So you've got people from all over the world.
I've told a story, the only time I met Clinton was in a New York restaurant during the Clinton Global Initiative. And I won't bore you with it, but he had Mayor Villaraigosa with him and Ron Burkle and so forth. And Villaraigosa was sent around to distract me, basically. I don't want to go into it. Look, I want to stick with the story, because the Times website has been hacked because of this. And I've got a couple of pull quotes from it before it went down. In a nutshell, the New York Times piece is suggesting that the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation, takes in incalculable millions of dollars, and yet every year it's running a deficit. The New York Times is subtly suggesting that things may not be kosher here, that there may be something wrong somewhere here.
I mean, people left and right donate to this thing. The people that have donated to Clinton, the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor in Little Rock and to the Clinton Global Initiative, I mean, people have given money to Bill Clinton, it's one of the most amazing things. People throw money at this guy, and obviously this foundation has as one of its purposes a stage setter for a Hillary presidency or presidential campaign. The New York Times also suggests that while the Clinton charity, the Clinton Foundation is running huge deficits despite all these donations, the Clintons always seem to be doing very well. The Clintons always find a way to profit from the philanthropy.
Now, as you know, there are two primary charities that we are associated with: the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of America. What is noteworthy about both of them is their small overhead. The Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation basically turns every dollar donated around back to the charity. The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's in the 90%. Here the Clintons run a deficit. There aren't too many charities or foundations that do this, and certainly not with the multiple millions that are donated to Clinton. Something set the New York Times on to this. As Tim Stanley says at the UK Telegraph, this could be devastating for Bill and Hillary. You throw "and Hillary" there. Who benefits here?
Who benefits from an expose of the Clinton Global Initiative, which basically suggests that the Clintons are getting rich off of philanthropy? Philanthropy is you getting rid of your wealthy, not acquiring it. (interruption) What? What did you say? Right, who benefits from this? Well, who would be Hillary's potential rivals for the presidential nomination, Democrat Party, 2016? Well, let's mention some names. Biden, Chris Christie, Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emanuel. I wouldn't be surprised if either of those have presidential aspirations themselves.
But who benefits from this? Well, I don't know about John Kerry. Maybe. Somebody upset at Hillary over Benghazi. There could be any number of reasons, but then, after you go through all that, then, folks, you have to ask, why did the Times agree? I mean, they didn't have to run this. This is not news. This is not breaking news. This is an expose. It has to be about Democrat Party politics. It has to be, odds are. So what this means is that the Times either in a vacuum doesn't want a Hillary presidency, or may not, or has sided with somebody who does. We don't know. We don't know anything. All we know is, we can't believe this.
The New York Times daring -- I mean, since Whitewater, since the early days of the Clinton '92 presidential campaign, in the early days of the presidency, it has been patently obvious that among many of the things the Clintons wanted was wealth. The Clintons are typical of people in the eighties who saw a robust, growing economy, and they saw people getting rich, and they're typical liberals, and they think a lot of people took shortcuts and had special favors, sweetheart deals. They didn't work, no, it was connections, sweetheart deals, and they got rich. So there was Whitewater. And that's what Whitewater was. It was an attempt to get rich while not working. The cattle futures investment, attempt to get rich without working. The Clintons brag about their wealth. They both do any time tax policy is mentioned.
Bill Clinton will say (impression), "Hey, you know, I got a lot of money now, and I don't need a tax cut, you know, I really don't." It got so bad, we put together a parody, Bill Clinton and a game show, "I'm richer than you are." These two have been obsessed because all their lives they're around these fabulously wealthy donors and Hollywood people, and Clinton's making 25 grand as governor of Arkansas, and Hillary's making a hundred grand at the Rose Law Firm, and they're hanging around real wealth. Jim Wolfensohn at the World Bank with 15 homes around the world and so forth. They wanted in on that, and they've now pulled it off. And here comes the New York Times, what they're really asking is, "Are the Clintons living off some of this money that's being donated to the foundation?" That is the specter being raised here.
Now, that, folks, is profound. Here's one of the many money quotes from the New York Times story: "For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in."
That's what they're saying. How do you get rich running a charity? How does your charity end up owing millions, deficits of multiple millions, when that's what you're receiving in donations?
RUSH: The New York Times in this story does go into how Bill has parlayed the contacts from his foundation into money for himself. They make no bones about this. Getting rich off of philanthropy, getting rich off of running a charity. I'm not saying that hasn't been done before, but when it's done it's not kosher. Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me, because you're dealing here with a guy who can see the stitches on a fastball. You're dealing with a guy who can catch the spin on the curveball. There is another reason why the New York Times is doing this, possible reason.
Snerdley, you will marvel at this. This is one of these Snerdley's gonna end up calling me a great thinker again. You have to think like these people do in order to see way, way out. Okay, here we are in 2013. Presidential campaign, 2015. Maybe the Clintons and the New York Times got word that Hillary rivals were gonna really make a big deal out of this. So the Clintons and the Times get together, "You know, let's do the story now so that we can say in 2015 it's old news, it's been reported, there was nothing there. I mean, it ran in the New York Times and nothing happened. We didn't lose any donors. There was nothing there. There was nothing to it. It's been done. It's old news."
That's also a distinct possibility. We just don't know. But the one thing we do know is that it is really unusual, because Democrats are not exposed this way in the New York Times, unless they are under orders to be taken out by party hierarchy. The other thing we know is that the New York Times website is down, and people can't get to this damn story and read the damn thing. They've been hacked.