Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Let’s go to the audio sound bites. As I said, I want to start with Mrs. Clinton and fundraising, and then we’re going to move into the Drive-Bys desperate to find out why we haven’t gotten Bin Laden. I will give you the answer to why we don’t have Bin Laden. First, on Sunday night. This is the big Univision debate. It was the Democrat Spanish debate. I don’t know what network it was on. Was it Univision? I, ladies and gentlemen, was watching football. I didn’t bother watching this so it came as a bit of a shock to me that Mrs. Clinton trashed me in this debate. Well, it’s not a shock, because it happens all the time, but I didn’t hear about it ’til the next day. Here is a question from moderator Maria Elena Salinas: ‘Senator Clinton, the negative tone of the immigration debates left the country polarized and has created certain racist and discriminatory attitudes toward Hispanics.’

HILLARY: Well, I think this is a very serious problem, and as I said earlier, there are many in the political and, frankly, in the broadcast, uh, world today who take, uh, a particular aim at our Latino population, and I think it’s very destructive.

RUSH: I’ll tell you, these people have done their best. They shoot at me constantly. They blamed me for the Oklahoma City bombing. Now you ask, ‘Rush, aren’t you a little bit big for your britches here? How do you know that she was talking about you?’ Well, because of the New York Times! The spokesman for Mrs. Clinton after the debate was asked, ‘Who was she talking about here: ‘political and, frankly, the broadcast world?” The spokesman said after the debate, ‘She was referring to Lou Dobbs at CNN and radio host Rush Limbaugh.’ Naturally, when I hear that she’s got a problem with broadcasters, who else is there that she’s going to be concerned or worried about? By the way (snorts), it’s silly to have to defend this. Illegal immigration is not about anything but American culture. It’s not to do with racism or anti-Latino or anti-Hispanic; that’s how the Democrats want to play it. This was pander, pander, pander. But, ladies and gentlemen, anybody can claim anything, anybody can say anything, but I want to demonstrate here my lack of prejudice and bias. I’m going to play for you illegal immigrants in this office what Mrs. Clinton said with the Spanish translation.

TRANSLATOR: (Spanish translation of Mrs. Clinton’s response)

RUSH: Como esta? Muy bien. See, I, ladies and gentlemen, am not a racist at all. I’m just exhibiting max fairness here making sure the illegal immigrants in the audience would understand what Mrs. Clinton was saying. By the way, it’s not just Mrs. Clinton that Norman Hsu was giving a lot of money to. He gave a lot of money to Ubama, Barack Ubama as well, and both Hillary and Ubama claim that they want disclosure of bundlers and their cash hauls. They both voted for disclosure of future bundlers, like Norman Hsu, last month. But, when it comes to Norman Hsu, they’re stonewalling. They won’t release — or say they can’t release, actually — records that would provide the media a road map to Hsu’s friends and what they might have wanted. Folks, it’s right out of the Twilight Zone. This is a repeat of ’96. You know, 1996 and 2008 in the Chinese calendar are both years of the rat, and something does stink here. Her refusal to reveal her donor information just invites all these comparisons to back in 1996 and Johnny Chung. Remember these names here: James Riady, John Huang, Johnny Trie. There were 22 people in all who pleaded guilty after the 1996 scandal, and it seems like the Clintons are trying to repeat history. Whenever they get in money troubles, they seem to go to Asia. They seem to go to China. Now Mrs. Clinton is getting all kinds of praise here.

In fact, by the way, the LA Times had a fascinating story: ‘Donors’ business under FBI scrutiny. An investment pool run by Norman Hsu raised profits and questions.’ Listen to a couple of quotes from the LA Times here. ‘One investor said she made donations to Clinton via Hsu solely to stay in Hsu’s good graces and she knew others who did so as well is. ‘They knew they had to do it or they were out,’ said the investor who asked to remain anonymous. ‘There were people who maxed out every credit card they had to give the maximum $4600 in donations.’ She said she opposed Clinton’s presidential bid but she gave money to her campaign anyway. ‘I can’t stand the woman,’ the investor said.’ So it’s just one story. It’s anecdotal. But she’s making it clear that she was forced into this for fear of retribution from Norman Hsu. Then the AP story here: ‘Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign…’ (By the way, she didn’t say it. ‘The campaign’ said it. ‘The campaign’ now has the human ability to talk do you know that? It’s just like ‘the White House.’) ‘The campaign said Monday it will return $850,000 in donations raised by Norman Hsu…’ Oh, they’re going to vigorously review their fundraisers in the future! They’re going to really vet these people. Now, folks, I’m from Missouri, and the campaign is going to have to ‘show me’ where this money went. They’re not telling us who the donors are, and that’s the key, and they’re not telling us where this money is being returned to. As somebody from Missouri, you need to show me.


RUSH: Speaking of where this $850,000 in donations from Norman Hsu to Mrs. Clinton… She’s going to send it back, and you have to figure that it’s either going to go back to Hsu or it’s going to go back to the people he bundled, in which case one of the people that he bundled was this family from Daly City, California I keep talking about: the mail carrier, the Paw family, Maw and Paw Paw. They have lots of pets, no money. He makes $45,000 a year, but in two years the family donated $244,000 to the Democrats, and I think $55,000 or $60,000 of it went to Mrs. Clinton. Now, you would think that these people are going to go to their mailbox one day this week and they’re going to have a huge amount of money in their mailbox! I want to know, folks. I want to know who these donors are. She’s not saying, and neither is Ubama, Barack Ubama. I don’t know if Mr. and Mrs. Paw and their children, the Paw kids, will be allowed to keep the money they get. They donated it! (Laughing.) What’s going to stop them? You gotta hear how the Drive-Bys are dealing with this. Andrea Mitchell marvels here at the ‘smart’ Clinton Inc., dumping the Hsu money on the eve of 9/11 and the Petraeus testimony. She was on with Joe Scarborough today, and he said, ‘My gosh, this Hillary Clinton story just continues to move like a freight train going from Los Angeles to Chicago.’

MITCHELL: This is one of the biggest refunds in political campaign history. Clearly they’ve figured out that there is likely criminality involved in this on the part of, you know —

RUSH: Stop the tape a minute. That’s not what happened. They discovered there’s likely criminality that’s going to be found. (laughing) To say that they have discovered criminality is to like saying Newton discovered gravity.

MITCHELL: — the bundler Hsu and some of the contributors, not the campaign itself, and they’re trying to get out in front of it. Of course they released this at night, quietly, on the eve of 9/11 —

SCARBOROUGH: (laughing)

MITCHELL: — and the day of the Petraeus report, so you have to think that the smart folks over at, uh, Clinton Central figured this would not get very much attention.

RUSH: Yeah, the smart folks over at Clinton Central! Ohhhh, how we marvel at the brilliance of the Clintons, ladies and gentlemen! The Drive-Bys, they just bare all! They just undress and say, ‘Please, do me!’ Yes, Mr. Snerdley? Mr. Snerdley, the official program observer, asks: ‘How does Andrea Mitchell know that the Clintons are not involved in this for a certainty?’ It’s very simple. I’m surprised that you would ask such question. The answer is simple. I’m sure if Andrea were here, she would say because the Clinton team told her. The Clinton team told her. They don’t doubt the Clintons. The Clintons are oracles. The Clintons are the gods of the Democrat Party. So Scarborough says, ‘Well, they knew what was going on,’ the Clintons did. ‘Now, obviously Barack Obama is her challenger. Would we expect Barack Obama to come out and attack her on this fundraiser or is he concerned about his own Chicago fundraisers?’

MITCHELL: Barack Obama’s political action committee accepted money from Norman Hsu in previous years, not in this presidential campaign, but before he was a presidential candidate. This was when Hillary Clinton was desperately trying to camp — to compete with Barack Obama to draw in the most money and actually she lost in that round to Barack Obama, in this recent campaign cycle, and they were just taking the money from wherever they could get it.

RUSH: Oh yeah! That’s it. It was just as innocent as it could be. Ubama was mounting a challenge that Mrs. Clinton wasn’t prepared for. She had to go out there, just get the money wherever they could. Wherever the Democrats have to win, folks! You have to understand the Drive-By Media narrative and template is: ‘Whatever they have to do to win is fine. We don’t question it.’ Do you think the coverage of this would be anywhere similar if this were, say, Rudy or Mitt Romney? They’d be delving into Norman Hsu’s religion! ‘Is this guy a Mormon convert?’ They’d be doing all kinds of investigations. They wouldn’t be stopping. They wouldn’t even be paying attention to Petraeus. With Rudy they’d ask, ‘Are there any mob ties in this money? Is that why Rudy is giving it back? Where’s this money going?’ the Drive-Bys would say. Of course with Fred Thompson: ‘Is it lobbyist money? We’re going to find the roots of this if Fred Thompson was being forced to do give back 850 or sixty thousand dollars!’ With Mrs. Clinton, it’s just, ‘Wow! Are they not sharp? They saw what happened and they knew they had to get rid of this money, and they did it the night of Petraeus’s testimony. Whoa! They are really smart over there at Clinton Inc.’

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This