Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon


Hillary Indictment Talk Ratchets Up


RUSH:  Our last caller mentioned that he is for Rubio because thinks Rubio is the best chance the Republicans have defeating Hillary if she's not indicted.  People keep bringing this up.  Tom DeLay, former member of the House from Sugar Land, Texas, brought it up earlier this week. His nickname was The Hammer, and all he did is what the Democrats do.  He was the whip.  He whipped people into action. He got votes. He got people to vote the way the leadership wanted.  His nickname was The Hammer.  The left had their own hammers.

Hell, everybody in the left is a hammer. But they use that as a derogatory term on DeLay.  Anyway he's out there saying he's got good friends in the FBI, and his friends are telling him that she's gonna be indicted, that evidence is mounting. It's worse than anybody even knows, and it's a slam dunk. And I say, "Please don't say it." It's kind of like the jinx." I asked, "Please don't say it, everybody. Don't say it. Don't get people's hopes up." And Darrell Issa, who is chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is out now.

"California Rep. Darrell Issa said Friday that the FBI 'would like to indict both Huma [Abedin] and Hillary Clinton' for conducting classified government business on a private email server." The guy, Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch, produced even more information.  I mean, people... This goes with Joe diGenova. He said, "My gosh, people at the FBI are telling me it's voluminous what they've got.  It's so bad that if there's not an indictment, there's gonna be a revolt in the FBI," and people continue to come out and say this in their own words. 

People are providing details about what has gone on.  One of the stories I read today -- and I think it was the Judicial Watch story.  It may be something else.  I am not sure.  Doesn't matter.  The fact is that Hillary knew she was trafficking in classified data and didn't want to be bothered going the secure route.  She was having people cut-and-paste classified data from classified documents and sending that to her in an e-mail so she could traffic in it and send it around.

And the analysis that I read today said, "This stuff is so bad that there are intelligence experts," of both parties, by the way, "who now have concluded that it is almost impossible that the Chinese were not monitoring her, that the Russians were not monitoring her, that the Iranians were not." In other words, people are saying it's almost guaranteed that she was hacked. It's guaranteed that all of these people who should not know American diplomatic secrets were able to follow them in real time. 

The stuff that's trickling out here now -- and this last part was in a story. It is so bad, this story said, that it may not be possible for Obama to hide this.  It may not be possible for Obama to let this slide.  It may... It's so deep and it's so bad. And from what's reported, it looks like it really is... Some of this stuff, there is no question it's criminal. No question it violates every kind of US statute that governs this.  And no question that it was brazen and arrogant and that she just said, "To hell with the law! I'm bigger than the law.  I'm gonna do it my way and to hell with it."

It's almost like, "They're gonna know our secrets anyway, so what the hell? Why go through the pretense." But of course, there was more to it than that.  The Clintons are seeking donations from these very outfits, countries, people that lead these countries, for one or another of their foundations. And what they're doing is seeking (and in many cases getting) prepayment for Mrs. Clinton's eventual presidency in which she can reciprocate with policy preferences in their favor.  It's insidious.  Now here's Darrell Issa who...

By the way, there's another story.  A Navy admiral. The stuff that Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in is so top secret, so secure, that a Navy admiral in the intelligence community was not even allowed to see it.  It was way beyond his clearance level.  That's how bad this all is.  And you've got all of these people either leaking... They're not leaking now. They're putting their names to it.  DeLay says, "Yeah, my friends, in the FBI..."  Another story said that Jim Comey may have to walk. 

If they don't act on this, Comey's gotta resign.  It's all over the place, folks.  This is more than a trickle.  It's become more than drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.  It is an avalanche now or a flood of this stuff.  And you couple it with the stories that Bill Clinton -- the bloom is off the rose -- that he's not drawing crowds, that his favorable number is at 39%.  He's never been at 39 other than for a couple of hours during the Lewinsky scandal. (interruption) What is the reason for the drop?  I think the... Oh, the reason for the drop of approval in Clinton? 

Part of it's generational.  I think there's enough people who have become adults that were not adults when all that was going on and therefore have not been captivated like the Baby Boomers, particularly Democrats were during that era. People marveled at Clinton's ability to get away with it and how well he lied and his charisma such. If you found yourself in a room with him, he had this ability to make you feel like you were the only one in the room that mattered.  And you add to it the news that's out there now about Hillary and the "bimbos" and how she led the charge to punish them, to stigmatize them. 

I think it's a cumulative effect. 

I think it's an accumulation of revelations that are finally sticking.  The Teflon has peeled away.  Couple that with the fact that I think we've been sold a bill of goods since 2008, maybe even before, about how universally loved and popular Hillary was.  I mean, it's all coming to a head now.  But this FBI stuff, the fact that more and more people are putting their name to it. Robert Gates, the former... It might have been him that I was reading talking about all of our quote/unquote "enemies" who no doubt had access to the data Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in.  You've got Issa now, you've got DeLay, you have diGenova.

I mean, there are a lot of people out there who are saying there is so much here that it is almost impossible not to indict her.  If something now doesn't happen, these people are gonna have all kinds of things to explain to people.  "What do you mean?  You said this was a slam dunk! You said there's so much evidence." "There was. There was.  I don't understand it."  Of course, everybody will understand it.  Obama just decides to tell what's-her-face over there not to pull the trigger, Loretta Lynch -- and then you've got Biden. 

Biden's out there lurking. He's assuring people, "Don't sweat it. We've got this covered." What he means is, "I'm ready to step in should something happen," and then we haven't even talked about Crazy Bernie.  Crazy Bernie is stirring things up.  Crazy Bernie is rocking it now.  He's raising money and he's drawing huge crowds way beyond anything Hillary can dream of.  And the Democrat Party establishment is starting to go after Bernie.  Headline:  "Bernie Sanders Meets the Clinton Smear Machine, and He's Furious.

This is from old buddy Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.  "Clinton advocate David Brock is the prime suspect." That's the Media Matters founder. They're out there smearing Bernie Sanders.  And of course, you know, as a "democratic socialist," Bernie's not used to be being smeared.  He's part of the bunch that smear everybody else.  And now the smear machine's been turned on him.  He doesn't like it; he's out there talking about it.  He's furious at Brock and at Hillary -- and he has a lot of sympathy. 

This is not the nineties where the Clintons were applauded for smearing their opponents. 

They were applauded for the bimbo eruptions.  They were applauded, they were hailed as great politicians, smarter than the rest of the world in how to deal with adversity.  Today there's a bunch of people that think they're just a bunch of slimeballs.  They have no appreciation for it, no admiration for it, and many of them are the same outsiders upset with the establishment supporting Bernie as outsiders on the Republican side supporting Trump.  It seems to be a universal anger at inside-the-Beltway establishment elites of both parties. 

But my only point is, every time we talk about, like I think Rubio would be the best to beat Hillary, or I think Cruz hands down would be the best one to beat Hillary, or Trump, Trump could just wipe the floor with Hillary.  Depending on the attitude people have, they always now add the caveat, "If she's not indicted."  It's becoming apparently a much more real possibility in a lot of people's minds. 

And if half of this is true about who has had access to the documents and data she's been trafficking in, meaning of our enemies, if just half of that's true, the things that the ChiComs know about us and the Iranians, not have to guess, not have to assume, not have to use spies to find out, they know it because they have had access to whatever Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in.  And now Issa says, yeah, I'd like to see Huma thrown in this crowd. 

Oh.  The story yesterday was, and this one I believe, the story yesterday was don't expect Hillary to be indicted, but Huma and Cheryl Mills and some of your support staff, if I were them, I'd be feeling very nervous about now.  So that story yesterday was, "Nah, they'll never go after the big fish.  But they gotta go get somebody cause this is so bad.  So they'll go get the Hillary support staff and claim that they had given her plausible deniability, that she didn't know any of this was going on until all of this news started leaking."  That story is probably a good indication of the efforts to save her and where they are right now.


RUSH:  This is Bob in Fayetteville, North Carolina.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hey, I'd like to thank you for taking my call today.

RUSH:  You bet, sir.

CALLER:  I think you did an excellent job of explaining phase one of Obama's plan to protect Hillary Clinton.  Phase II's the biggie.  Somewhere in the White House, closed door, not recording devices, will be a meeting with the president, the attorney general, and Secretary Clinton.  She will tearfully apologize for a lapse of judgment in the handling of her e-mails.  It'll be recognized that she's remorseful and that she has endured intolerable mental anguish over this.  They will grant her a presidential pardon, expunge her record and seal the record to where nobody can mention it anymore.

RUSH:  Does she still run for president in this scenario?

CALLER:  Yeah, and if somebody tries to bring up all this good stuff, she'll sue them for slander because it never happened.

RUSH:  Ha.  (laughing)  So are you just trying to be funny here, you trying to catch me on a serious day trying to be funny and loosen things up here --

CALLER:  Well, as part of a lawsuit, yeah, that's kind of a gag, but in the not-too-distant future I can actually see a presidential pardon to help cover her to where she can become president.

RUSH: Why would they go -- why?  Why would they do that?

CALLER:  Well, as you said, there's all kinds of people in the FBI and other legal circles going crazy trying to figure out why, you know, nothing has been done about these serious --

RUSH:  Yeah, but, well, Bob, thank you.  


RUSH:  Okay.  Now, about our last caller's theorem that essentially what's gonna happen is Hillary will be dragged into the White House, it'll be Obama in there and Loretta Lynch, and she will apologize and she'll say she's sorry and she wasn't aware and so forth. And they will announce that she came in and apologized, and Obama will pardon her -- a presidential pardon for any and all future acts, crimes related to this.  And then they will seal the record. They'll seal the record, it never happened, and she go run for president, and that'll be that. 

Folks, I don't know; Obama has said he doesn't think Hillary's done anything wrong.  He's on the record saying that a number of times.  Now, we just learned today the last batch of Hillary's e-mails are not gonna be released until the end of February, which is way past the original judge's deadline, and the State Department's saying, "No, we're gonna hold these back.  It'd be a little too volatile to release them now." They're claiming they've got built-in delays and there's all kinds of things stopping them and preventing them. 

Now, get this:  Fox just ran this story. It's just been added to the mix that Hillary's e-mails are too damaging security-wise to release.  They're so bad, they contain such secrets, there are such transgressions... "It is so bad, we can't release 'em.  It would compromise national security like it's never been compromised to release them."  Of course, if that's true, they already have compromised national security because it means that our enemies have already seen them.  So they try, "These are so bad, this is so volatile, this is such juicy stuff, we can't afford to release this stuff and make it public," which would tend to convey a cover-up.

But again, the question always comes down to this. I can't tell you a number of times... I asked you this last week, how many times? For those of you who are adults and were adults back in the nineties, how many times in all of these past 25, 26 years, have you been led to believe by one story or another that we're gonna get Clintons? "This is it! They're not gonna slither out of this one"? Whatever it is. "Hillary has stepped in it now!" How many times have you heard that?  More times than you can count on two hands. 

And each and every time, nothing ever comes of it. 

Why should that change?  We have a Democrat, totalitarian Regime running the country.  A member of that Regime is in line to be the next president.  Why on earth would that totalitarian Regime take out one of its own ranking members?  And the only answer you can provide is that the current leader of the totalitarian Regime doesn't want Hillary anywhere near his totalitarian agenda after he's gone.  It doesn't make sense that the Obama Regime would take out one of their own.  "But, Rush! But, Rush! He doesn't want her to be president."

Well, there's all kinds of ways to have done this before we've gotten this far.  But to me it's the old "experience guided by intelligence" angle.  How many times...? Honestly, folks, how many times have you been led to believe that somebody has got the goods on Hillary?  Whitewater, Robert "Red" Bone and all the cattle futures, the Rose Law Firm billing records showing up out of clean air in the Maps Room in the White House. Monica Lewinsky, bimbo eruptions. Hillary Clinton running the show. Hillary Clinton lying about sneaking past sniper fire, wherever it was. And all the others.

Lying to grand jury. All these other things I have forgotten. How many of those, "This is it! This is it!" and nothing ever, ever happens? So common sense would lead you to conclude that nothing's gonna come of this, either.  And each of these previous incidents where at one point or another somebody thought, "This is it! We finally got the goods"? We've got that characteristic here, from all these people who claim to have seen the evidence the FBI has accrued. We got Tom DeLay saying (paraphrased), "Oh, yeah! My FBI buddies tell me this is bad. It's a slam dunk."

Darrell Issa's out there saying (paraphrased), "I not only want to indict Hillary. I want to go get Huma." Joe diGenova says (paraphrased), "Let me tell you something: This evidence? This is so bad that if they don't indict, there's gonna be a revolt."  It's the same stuff. We've heard all this before, just about different things.  We've been there, we've done that, and nothing ever happens to 'em.  The smart bet, the-common-sense place to put your money here is nothing's gonna happen to her here, either.  


RUSH:  Speak of the devil, White House press secretary Josh Earnest and the daily brief just moments ago.  Fox News Channel, White House correspondent Kevin Corke said to the White House press secretary, "Can you say with certainty and confidence that Secretary Clinton will not be indicted?"

EARNEST:  That will be a decision that is made by the Department of Justice and prosecutors over there.  What I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation.  So that does not seem to be the direction that it's trending.

RUSH:  So he says she's not a target.  She not a target of the investigation.  Folks, that cannot be true.  You know, target, subject, person of interest, there's all these different characterizations of bad people that the good guys pursue.  A lot of people think subject and target are the same thing, and they're not.  They can be at times.  Person of interest, subject.  There's no way she can't be a subject.  You know, this is just some people putting out -- what they're trying to tell you is she's not a target.  If she wasn't a target, they would have said she wasn't a target.  They're trying to make you think that by saying, "Well, she not a subject."  She's not only a subject, she's a person of interest.  Don't fall for this.  This has been said, by the way.  It was a couple of weeks ago I think that somebody said she's not a subject.  That's so multi-purposed in US attorney jargon.  



Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show
Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show



Most Popular

EIB Features