![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/APP-042318-Up-Chuck-Todd.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRUSH: Here\u2019s F. Chuck Todd, NBC. He was talking to Tom Perez, the Marxist leader of the Democrat National Committee now. This was yesterday on Meet the Press. Remember, Chuck\u2019s wife is a Democrat consultant, which means she makes money running Democrat campaigns. And the campaign that she was heavily involved in in 2016 was Bernie Sanders\u2019. During the primaries she made a lot of money on that campaign. Consultants make a lot of money in a percentage of the advertising that\u2019s purchased, and of course there are other, as in the case with consultants, hidden fees and things like that all over the place.<\/p>\n
So I find it interesting that F. Chuck is talking to Perez about this lawsuit that the Democrat National Committee has announced, Perez announced. They\u2019re gonna sue WikiLeaks, they\u2019re gonna sue Russia, and they\u2019re gonna sue the Trump campaign. They\u2019re not suing Trump personally. But they\u2019re suing the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and the Russians because Mueller can\u2019t find anything. So I find it really interesting, Chuck Todd\u2019s question is, “I\u2019m gonna ask you how much money is this gonna cost the DNC? How much money are you taking away from 2018 to spend on 2016 and Russia?”<\/p>\n
Now, why, of all things to ask this guy about his lawsuit, F. Chuck Todd asking about the money. Well, let\u2019s play the game the way the Democrat media does. Could it be that Chuck is worried that all of this money being spent on this lawsuit will mean less money spent on people like his wife in hiring consultants and so forth to run the campaign this year and 2020? Chuck Todd is a journalist. Why is Chuck worried about the money the DNC is spending? What does he care? He\u2019s an independent, objective, and fair and balanced journalist. What possible interest could he have in the money that they\u2019re spending? Here\u2019s Perez\u2019s answer.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
PEREZ: Chuck, we can\u2019t afford not to do this, because when you look ahead and you see what was done before and what they\u2019re trying to do again, our democracy is at stake. It\u2019s hard to win elections when you have interference in elections. We\u2019ve been winning elections. We know how to walk and chew gum. We\u2019ve got boots on the ground right now in Arizona. We have a great candidate. She\u2019s an undeniable underdog. We\u2019re fighting there. We just won in —<\/p>\n
TODD: You didn\u2019t answer. How much money is this lawsuit gonna take this year? Millions?<\/p>\n
PEREZ: I don\u2019t know the amount of money that it will take, but I\u2019ll tell you, it\u2019s hard to put a price tag on preserving democracy.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Come on, Perez. These guys are pathetic. “Chuck, we can\u2019t afford not to do this, \u2019cause when you look ahead, you saw what was done before and what they\u2019re trying to do again. Our democracy\u2019s at stake.” It is, actually, but not from the Russians. Our democracy is at stake because of liberalism, which does not believe in democracy. Liberals really, bottom line, do not believe in democracy. But I still find it fascinating that Chuck\u2019s concerned with the money.<\/p>\n
Why would he be concerned that Democrats are wasting money on a lawsuit? I mean, he knows they\u2019re not gonna win it. I\u2019m gonna tell you, this lawsuit\u2019s gonna get thrown out if it ever gets anywhere, it\u2019s gonna get thrown out. You mark my words. But before that, since Chuck\u2019s wife\u2019s income, and therefore the Chuck family income, is dependent on a lot of money flowing in campaigns, could it be that\u2019s why Chuck\u2019s worried it\u2019s gonna be wasted in a lawsuit? I don\u2019t know. But I think that\u2019s how Democrats in the media would report on potential collusion and conflicts and so forth.<\/p>\n
Now we move on to Stephanopoulos and Sunday This Week. He\u2019s got two guests here. He\u2019s got Dan Abrams, who is their chief legal analyst and who started the website Mediaite. He\u2019s also got a legal website the name of which escapes me now, and Professor Dershowitz. These are the two guests. Stephanopoulos kicks it off, he says to Abrams, “After a raid like this” — this is the raid on Cohen\u2019s home, his apartment, and his office, Trump\u2019s fixer lawyer — Stephanopoulos says, “After a raid like this, the chances of an indictment,” meaning Cohen, “Are pretty high, right?”<\/p>\n
ABRAMS: Very high that he\u2019s gonna be indicted. But we have to separate out the two. They got a warrant here not because there was information on Donald Trump that they wanted from Michael Cohen. They got the warrant because there was information on Michael Cohen potentially committing a crime.<\/p>\n
DERSHOWITZ: And if you believe, that I have a bridge here I can sell you in Brooklyn.<\/p>\n
ABRAMS: Oh, come on. You\u2019re actually gonna say that a judge signed off on a warrant to get —<\/p>\n
DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely. You can get judges to sign off on warrants like Christmas presents.<\/p>\n
ABRAMS: Right. To get information on his client. So they signed off on a warrant saying, we want information on his client, not on him?<\/p>\n
DERSHOWITZ: There\u2019s no way in which they would go after Michael Cohen if they weren\u2019t interested in his client.<\/p>\n