{"id":6919,"date":"2015-03-05T17:14:25","date_gmt":"2015-03-05T17:14:25","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-03-05T17:14:25","modified_gmt":"2015-03-05T17:14:25","slug":"hillary_abandoned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2015\/03\/05\/hillary_abandoned\/","title":{"rendered":"Hillary, Abandoned"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: It just continues to amaze us. It just continues to bowl everybody over. It seems like the entire Drive-By Media and most of the Democrat Party is throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus, and over e-mail? When you think of everything else Hillary and her husband have done, and it\u2019s e-mail servers? There\u2019s more going on here inside the deep, dark crevices of the Democrat Party than we know, folks. <\/p>\n

There is much more to this than private e-mail domains and servers and not going through the State Department. That\u2019s not enough to cause all of this. Nowhere near it. And I think one of the things that this is illustrating is that this woman is not considered a fait accompli in this party and is not that dramatically overwhelmingly popular and is not ready to be coronated by this party. <\/line><\/p>\n

It\u2019s breathtaking to behold this. And of all the things that we\u2019ve dreamed about in the last 23 years of the Clintons finally going overboard, e-mail domains and servers in her house? Oh, yeah, we got all the hypocritical comments that she\u2019s made in the past about people who did what she has done. Bush was accused of shredding the Constitution by Hillary for this. We\u2019ve got all of that. But still, my friends, it seems like there is something that we don\u2019t know or a series of things that we don\u2019t know, that this is just providing the excuse or the cover for. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: But Mrs. Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, this is, you know, I\u2019ll tell you something. I hope everybody who is up in arms about this, about Hillary breaking the law by hiding her email — by the way, Judge Napolitano, the real-life Eddie Munster last night on The Kelly File on the Fox News Channel said this could be a felony<\/a>. This could very likely be a felony, what she\u2019s done here. And if it is, do you know what that means? She is disqualified from holding any further political office, if she is found guilty of having committed a felony. <\/line><\/p>\n

Now, I hope everybody who\u2019s up in arms about Hillary breaking the law here by hiding her e-mails, by using a home server, I hope everybody will bear in mind this is the same Hillary Clinton who wants to control the Internet. This is the same Hillary Clinton who\u2019s been saying since 1998 that we need to have an Internet gatekeeper. But, man, folks, some of the things that are being said — you know, there\u2019s gonna come a time, there is going to come a time when Hillary Clinton will, on the record, have to lie about this. <\/p>\n

That\u2019s what the Clintons do. That\u2019s what she\u2019s always done. And they\u2019ve always known the Clintons were lying. And they always furthered and assisted the Clintons in the lie. Didn\u2019t matter what it was. It was so bad on the Democrat side that the media marveled at how well the Clintons lied. They gave them a pass on all of their lies because they were so impressed with how facile they were with it. The Drive-Bys literally were dazzled and impressed with how good the Clintons lie, and because they were so good at it, they marveled at it and carried their water for them. <\/p>\n

Ron Fournier<\/a> at the National Journal has written his second piece on this. “Hillary Clinton Still Doesn\u2019t Get It.” What set him off was that Hillary tweeted last night — have you seen the picture of Hillary with that tweet, by the way? She\u2019s wearing a pair of dark glasses, looks like a Blues Brother. I think she\u2019s using a BlackBerry or something in the Twitter picture. But she tweeted last night that she wants her e-mails released, she wants them released, and Ron Fournier at the National Journal (imitating Fournier), “Come on, Hillary, you can\u2019t get away with that anymore. If you want \u2019em released, release \u2019em. What do you mean, you want your e-mails released?” <\/p>\n

<\/a>They\u2019re not buying it, is the point. I want you to listen to a paragraph here on the second page of the Fournier story. “Like everything else about the response to this controversy, Clinton\u2019s tweet is reminiscent of the 1990s, when her husband\u2019s White House overcame its wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media. It\u2019s a shameless script, unbecoming of a historic figure who could be our next president — and jarringly inappropriate for these times.”<\/p>\n

Now, what does that paragraph tell you? Back in those days I think Fournier was at the AP, and maybe that was pre-AP days, but he was very close to being at the AP. But look at this. Hillary\u2019s tweet at midnight last night saying: “I want my e-mails out. I want people to see my e-mails.” He\u2019s not falling for it. Come on, Hillary, you wouldn\u2019t have hidden them this way if you wanted everybody to see \u2019em. And now 55,000 of them have been turned over to Marie Harf. Marie Harf is now vetting the 55,000. That\u2019s like a lot of e-mails, she says, 55,000, like a lot there. So they got to pour through them. <\/p>\n

So the tweet set Fournier and a bunch of other liberal media types off. “Clinton\u2019s tweet is reminiscent of the 1990s, when her husband\u2019s White House overcame its wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media.” What do you mean, overcame it? This means, this little paragraph from Ron Fournier means that the media knew, as we know and knew then, they knew what the Clintons were doing. They knew the Clintons were lying. They knew they were falsely blaming the Republicans. They knew they were demonizing Ken Starr, and they helped them. <\/line><\/p>\n

The media were willing accomplices back in the nineties, and this passage from Fournier admits it. So why didn\u2019t they hold the Clintons accountable then? Why all of a sudden is Hillary lying now about e-mails and servers and domains? Why is this lie of Mrs. Clinton, which is one in a string of many, why is this one so outrageous, compared to the those lies in the nineties? <\/p>\n

Well, one difference is it\u2019s her lying versus Bill. And don\u2019t doubt it, Bill has always been the star in that relationship. Bill has always been top draw. Bill\u2019s always been the top dog. Hillary\u2019s the hanger-on, make no mistake about it. People wouldn\u2019t even know who she was if she weren\u2019t married to him. And everybody knows this. <\/p>\n

But I\u2019m digressing. This sentence is, to me, very powerful, because Fournier\u2019s admitting that everybody in the media knew that Bill Clinton was lying, falsely blaming Republicans. And back in the nineties the media helped him. The media circled the wagons around all these Clinton lies. The media marveled at Bill Clinton\u2019s lies. The media marveled at Hillary\u2019s lies. <\/p>\n

<\/a>She goes to the Today show, they blames Monica Lewinsky and the whole thing on a vast right-wing conspiracy. The media loves it, they ate it up, and they ran with it. And Fournier and others, it\u2019s not just him, they\u2019re all admitting that they knew the Clintons were lying back then, they knew it was all BS. They were carrying their water. They were paving the way for them. <\/p>\n

If the Republicans were to blame, the media went out and blamed the Republicans. If the Clinton wanted to blame Ken Starr, the media went out and tried to destroy Ken Starr. If it was one of the bimbos that needed to be destroyed, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, the media fell right in, went out there and destroyed and did the dirty work of the Clintons for them. <\/p>\n

This passage here in Fournier\u2019s piece today where he\u2019s upset over Hillary\u2019s lies admits that they knew it back then. Clinton\u2019s tweet that she wants to release all of her e-mails and wants the country to see them, it\u2019s reminiscent of the nineties, when her husband\u2019s White House overcame his wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republic. They knew it all along. They helped them overcome it. Bill Clinton was a big rock star because of how well he could lie. <\/p>\n

Why, folks, we even got stories from the Drive-By Media, from the mainstream media, in the middle of the Clinton administration, stories about how lying is good, lying spare\u2019s people\u2019s feelings, lying facilitates progress, lying has many benefits. I remember all of this like it was yesterday. And now, we\u2019re treated to the knowledge that the media was fully aware the Clintons were lying back then and helped them carry forward with their lies. <\/p>\n

“In the 15 years since Bill Clinton left office, the internet has made almost everybody a researcher and a journalist — equipped to judge wrongdoing for themselves and insist upon accountability. We can now spot the lies ourselves, stand up to bullies, and remind our leaders that two wrongs don\u2019t make a right. The actions of Hillary Clinton and her team raise the question: Is she trapped on the wrong side of the bridge to the 21st century?”<\/p>\n

Holy smokes! It was Bill Clinton that came up that silly phrase. (imitating Clinton) “That\u2019s right, Limbaugh, we\u2019re gonna build a bridge to the twenty-first century. If I have anything to say about it, it\u2019s gonna be a toll bridge, and you are not gonna get an EZ Pass card. You\u2019ll be stuck.” And instead it\u2019s Hillary stuck on the wrong side of the bridge to the twenty-first century. <\/line><\/p>\n

Now, as I say, at some point the time\u2019s gonna come, the day\u2019s gonna come when Hillary is going to have to, on the record, have to lie about all of this. And she\u2019s going to have to lie about the millions of dollars paid to the Clinton Foundation by these foreign countries. And do not discount that as a major factor in this. That little bit of news that we learned long before the breaking news about these e-mails, that Hillary was selling access to herself as secretary of state disguised as seeking donors to the Clintons foundation. And there\u2019s no question — well, there might be a question. It\u2019s likely that Mrs. Clinton was selling future access. <\/p>\n

She was seeking donations from all of these foreign governments, foreign entities from all over the world, ostensibly for the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation. But don\u2019t doubt for a moment that part of the sales pitch was that someday she gonna be president, and this donation, Mr. Foreign government, could be very beneficial to you. Don\u2019t doubt that that is a factor in this. <\/p>\n

And you know what else is a factor? Do not doubt me on this. That book tour of Hillary Clinton, that whole book thing was an absolute disaster. None of the books sold. She was horrible on the book tour. Nobody showed up to see her on the book tour. They gave her a $14 million advance. The mistakes that were made throughout that whole episode, the incorrect judgment of her popularity, the misunderstood nature of Hillary\u2019s relationship to the people. Why in the world, who did they think they were — $14 million advance? I have never thought that Hillary Clinton had rock star status like her husband does. <\/p>\n

I never thought she had an audience connection, if you will, with voters or whoever. Man, that book tour and the book sales lit it up, left no doubt about the fact she couldn\u2019t draw a crowd at the book tour, she couldn\u2019t sell any books. All of this cumulatively has been noticed by the powers that be, and it has had an impact. She\u2019s gonna have to explain that. When she\u2019s asked about her secret e-mails, she\u2019s gonna answer with all the spontaneity of the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. I mean, I\u2019ve seen it all before. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I don\u2019t know how many people actually are aware of what it means for Mrs. Clinton to have her own e-mail server and domain name and so forth. You can do that if you want to spend the money. If you want to put the server in your house or have it somewhere off-site, you can buy any domain name that you want. You can buy the security certificates that are mandated and required, and then you can spend as much or as little on encryption and security as you want. <\/p>\n

But the main reason that somebody like Mrs. Clinton would do this, and there are a couple or three, but the main reason is she controls the server. And if she deletes her e-mail from the server, it is literally gone. It isn\u2019t anywhere. Now, if you have, for example, a Yahoo e-mail account, if you have a Gmail e-mail account, if you have an iCloud, if you have any of these, EarthLink, if you use Juneau, whatever you use, you are not, I don\u2019t care what you think, deleting e-mails from the server that they are on. <\/p>\n

Whether you got IMAP, IMAP2, whether you\u2019re using POP, it doesn\u2019t matter. The host is always going to keep these things, these e-mails on those servers. They\u2019re just there. I don\u2019t know of too many exceptions to this. So when you are using your e-mail and you think you\u2019re deleting something, you may well be deleting it from your access to it, you may be deleting the thread, but in fact — folks, let\u2019s talk about deleting for just a second. Let\u2019s say your e-mails are on a server, and in the server is a hard drive, and you delete a file, you delete an e-mail, you delete anything, you\u2019re not actually deleting it, if that\u2019s all you do. <\/line><\/p>\n

All you\u2019re doing is marking it for the system to write over it should the space be necessary as you use your computer later on. It doesn\u2019t erase anything when you simply delete something, be it a file on your computer, be it an e-mail or what have you. Now, some computer operating systems offer a secure delete, and the secure delete actually does erase it, but it leaves a marker. But it does make it really, really hard to go back and retrieve it. It\u2019s possible for really talented people that know what they\u2019re doing to extract things that you think are deleted. <\/p>\n

But when it comes to e-mail, the reason Mrs. Clinton did this is that when she deleted her e-mails, if she wanted them removed from the server, she could do it and they were gone. They were nowhere, literally gone to the ether. That\u2019s what she wanted. She wanted total control. She wanted to be able to delete things forever on that server should it ever be subpoenaed, should anybody ever get hold of it, make no mistake. <\/p>\n

The primary reason for doing this was secrecy. The primary reason to do this was privacy. The primary reason to do this is to keep anybody else from seeing this. The Clintons have always thought themselves to be above the rules. The rules have never applied to them, and the media has always facilitated that. And whatever the Clintons did above and beyond, whether they had 500 or 900 FBI files of other American citizens, whether they were destroying women who had claimed Bill Clinton had abused them or he\u2019d had relationships with them or whatever, the rules never applied. <\/p>\n

And what we\u2019re being told today is that the Democrat Party is fed up. The entire Clinton presidency, eight years in the nineties, it was something every week. It was the Rose Law Firm billing records mysteriously, magically showing up, after having been lost for years in the Map Room of the White House. And what we\u2019re being told is that these Democrats are just worn out defending the Clintons, and they don\u2019t want anymore of this. That, to me, doesn\u2019t make any sense, but that\u2019s what they\u2019re saying. <\/line><\/p>\n

That\u2019s among the excuses they\u2019re giving, is that there\u2019s just too many things that are unknown, and it\u2019s a crapshoot, and the Clintons are always outside the box, and they\u2019re always playing loose with the rules, and we always have to circle the wagons and defend \u2019em, and we\u2019re tired of it. That\u2019s one of the themes that I am seeing in some of the Drive-By Media conservatism. <\/p>\n

The second or third reason, by the way, for Mrs. Clinton to have her own e-mail domain is to have her own name. Hdr22@clintonemail.com. That\u2019s a lot better than hillary@statedepartment.gov. ‘Cause everybody\u2019s got a statedepartment.gov address that\u2019s there, but nobody\u2019s got the Clinton e-mail address. So it\u2019s a vanity reason, it is maybe an identification reason. She might claim it\u2019s a security reason as well, but believe me, the main reason for her to do this is that when she deletes e-mails, they\u2019re really gone. She controls the server. <\/p>\n

By the way, I don\u2019t think she has the slightest idea about any of this stuff. She\u2019s got an IT guy that set all this up. Somebody did this for her. She doesn\u2019t get down and dirty in these kind of details. Somebody set it up and based on what she said that she wanted, and she trusted that it was set up that way, and she trusted that she could use the system, and she trusted that when she deleted something, it would literally be gone, or when she trusted this IT worker of hers to delete the stuff, that he would do it. ‘Cause I don\u2019t for a minute believe that Hillary Clinton had the slightest idea how all of this actually works. <\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think Hillary Clinton could set up her own e-mail server and domain without anybody knowing. She would need assistance. Most people would. But this is some of the intricate things that she would farm out. And the primary reason for doing it is total, total control. She knows as well as anybody, when you work for the government, every e-mail, Federal Records Act or not, every e-mail is expected to be kept. <\/p>\n

I used to now and then e-mail with President Bush, before he became president. He stopped e-mailing everybody when he became president. And if he kept up with people, I don\u2019t know, might have been a very small group, but he didn\u2019t do it precisely for this reason: There was no way it could be kept private. And Hillary knew that. That\u2019s precisely why she did all of this. So it does raise legitimate suspicion, what did she not want people to see. And that\u2019s why the media is reacting the way they are to her midnight tweet last night: I want America to see my e-mail. <\/p>\n

They know she doesn\u2019t mean that. They know that the reason she did this was to keep anybody and everybody from actually seeing what she was doing with her e-mail. That\u2019s not a mystery, and it raises more suspicion. And if we are to believe the Democrats and the media, they\u2019re worn out. They don\u2019t want to have to defend her anymore. They don\u2019t want to have to come up with every kind of excuse once a week when one of these things pops up, that they\u2019re just tired of it. <\/line><\/p>\n

I have a little bit different theory. That may be true as far as it goes. But I don\u2019t think a no-name senator who had been there for 156 days could have wrested the nomination from Mrs. Clinton in 2008 if the powers that be in the Democrat Party didn\u2019t want it to happen. I\u2019m not talking about anything conspiratorial. But remember, Mrs. Clinton and many people have been operating on the notion that the presidency was hers as a payback for all that she did in preserving the presidency of Bill Clinton. <\/p>\n

And make no mistake, she did give up a lot of her own individuality. She gave up a lot of her life. She totally devoted her life to his. She moved to Arkansas. Oh, my gosh, can you imagine that, just the culture shock of that. She moved to Arkansas and her husband\u2019s running around on her and the whole time she\u2019s the breadwinner at the Rose Law Firm, and all the people they\u2019re running around with have tons of money. <\/p>\n

And Bill\u2019s making 25 grand as governor; she\u2019s making a hundred grand at the law firm. They\u2019re paupers. They\u2019re not players. Everybody they know is players. They go to Whitewater, try to get rich quick, which is what they think all rich people did, was get rich quick. And Clinton\u2019s running around, the bimbo eruptions and who knows whatever else, and Hillary\u2019s right in there standing right by him, making sure that his political career is not derailed. <\/p>\n

And for all of this, the presidency was supposedly the Democrat Party\u2019s payback. And 2008 was gonna be a coronation, except it didn\u2019t turn out. Can you imagine the anger and the shock in the Clinton campaign when out of the blue here comes Barack Hussein O, who hasn\u2019t done anything besides community organize, and remove his opposition candidates from the races by producing secret data on them, Obama\u2019s been in the Senate 156 days, and half of the Democrat Party runs away from Hillary and signs up with Obama, can you imagine how she must have felt? <\/p>\n

Can you imagine how she must have felt betrayed? That was hers, folks, that was an implied promise, the presidency was hers. They gave her health care in the first Clinton term, also as a payment for her loyalty to her husband and making sure that his career wasn\u2019t derailed. They gave her health care. They gave her any number of things to operate. She was the first Claire Underwood. She hadn\u2019t earned anything, but they gave her all of these things. <\/line><\/p>\n

They spread rumors about her being the smartest woman in the world, the most qualified. Hillary\u2019s botched everything she\u2019s ever touched. And the powers that be know it. And at the moment of truth each and every time, 2008, they derailed her campaign, and they\u2019re doing it again here in 2005. That\u2019s what I see. I\u2019ll let you hear some of the audio sound bites of some of these people doing the derailing when we get back.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: And let\u2019s not forget, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs. Clinton was not the only person using the clintonemail.com domain. Huma Weiner was also using it. That would be Huma Abedin, the wife of Anthony Weiner. (I don\u2019t know if he participated in the penis size survey or not.) But, nevertheless, she used the e-mail address, and some other people did. But Mrs. Clinton was using it to send to people. People in government had to know!<\/p>\n

When they get an e-mail from hdh22@clintonemail.com, they had to know that that is not the State Department server. I\u2019m sure that she sent the media e-mail from that address. They had to know. What\u2019s all the shock here? What is this really, really all about? Right now I think all we can do is guess. I mean, we got enough stuff on the surface here that could be credible, but there\u2019s gotta be more to this. <\/p>\n

Go to the audio sound bites, Mark Halperin last night on Bloomberg TV\u2019s With All Due Respect. Here\u2019s fill-in cohost Phil Mattingly speaking with the other cohost, Mark Halperin, about Hillary\u2019s speech to Emily\u2019s List. That\u2019s another thing. She went out and made a speech at Emily\u2019s List. It was her comeback speech, the first that anybody\u2019d heard from her in months. It was a dud. It was like the book tour; it was a dud. It was like the reaction to the book being published. It was a dud. She was boring. It was dull, it was uninspiring, it wasn\u2019t charismatic, and so Halperin\u2019s being asked about it here: “Does Hillary need to be more interesting than she was last night at Emily\u2019s List?”<\/p>\n

HALPERIN: I\u2019m gonna choose my words, oh-so carefully here. Yes, she does. Part of what the presidential race comes down to is, “Who do you want in your living room for four years? Who do you like? Who do you want to listen to?” At her best moments, she was not that interesting. I fell asleep twice during this speech. I would not fall asleep during a Bill Clinton speech or a George Bush speech or a Barack Obama speech. If that\u2019s the best she\u2019s got, the country\u2019s going to be sick of listening to her after a few months. I just think unless the Republicans nominate a piece of plywood, there\u2019s a good chance the American people are going to say, “I would rather listen to that person [bell sound] for four years.”<\/line><\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay, now, does anybody else — does anybody besides me — have the obvious question here? Hillary Clinton has always been dull giving speeches, except when she gets shrill and starts yelling and screaming like a banshee. She\u2019s always been dull. She has always been boring. There was nothing new about Hillary Clinton in her Emily\u2019s List speech, and yet all of a sudden now they start noticing or all of a sudden now they start pointing it out?<\/p>\n

All of a sudden now? She\u2019s been this way since she first popped up on the scene in the nineties! She\u2019s always been dull. She\u2019s always been obfuscating. She has always been boring. “I\u2019m gonna choose my words oh so carefully here. Yes, she does. Part of what the presidential race comes…” She was no different than this 2008! Something is going on here, folks. Something that we can\u2019t see yet is going on here. <\/p>\n

They\u2019re acting like Mrs. Clinton is behaving in ways that they\u2019ve never, ever seen, and she\u2019s behaving to type. So on the Today show so he had Savannah Guthrie speaking with Mark Halperin, the guy you just heard. Question: “What are Democrats telling you, Mark? I mean, here\u2019s somebody who certainly knows what it\u2019s like to be under scrutiny, Hillary Clinton. To set up a personal e-mail account, to use it exclusively at the State Department, to have her own server — even if there\u2019s nothing nefarious about it — it looks bad, right?”<\/p>\n

HALPERIN: Dumbfounded. Look, it\u2019s a testament to how Hillary Clinton\u2019s aides are concerned about this, that she\u2019s done something I\u2019ve never seen her do since I started covering her in the early nineties. She\u2019s giving in to the Republicans and to the press by saying she\u2019s gonna release some of these e-mails. She never gives in. There\u2019s no history of this. They know this is a big problem, \u2019cause they\u2019re hearing from the same Democrats I\u2019m hearing from who say, “This looks bad.”<\/p>\n