RUSH: There are all kinds of stories today about Bill Clinton and his sexual predator behavior back in the nineties. Some of these stories are literally fascinating. Some of them are about how the Clintons don’t seem to realize the potential minefield that the Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and others story is, as though they’re in a state of denial. Why wouldn’t they be? They got away with it. What happened to Bill Clinton was, and compared to what could have happened, he had to settle with Paula Jones for $850,000. This is after James Carville had said, yeah, yeah, that’s what you get when you drag a dollar bill through the trailer park. You never know what you’re gonna get, and Paula Jones is what you get.
So it was perfectly fine to rip women who had come forward, alleged sexual abuse, alleged that they’d been raped or whatever, perfectly fine for Clinton and his team to put them down, to impugn them, cast them as liars, and it was Mrs. Clinton in charge of all that. Clinton lost his law license for a year, he had to settle with Paula Jones for 850 grand, and that was it. And then after that he assumes the position of brightest star in the Democrat Par. Why wouldn’t they be in denial? If they got away with it then, why should it be a factor now, in their minds? How can anybody dredging it up cause them any harm today when it really didn’t hurt ’em back then? And what they’re not counting on is the cultural differences.
It’s a different country today, particularly among young people. Millennials. It’s a much different country than it was back then. Back then it seems like the majority reaction was, “Hey, hey, it’s just sex, and it’s not getting in the way of his job. Come on, it’s just a bunch of Republicans trying to nail the guy, no big deal, back off.” But that’s not the cultural attitude toward the abuse of women today, particularly on college campuses and other places that Millennials hang out. But there are even liberal Drive-By Media types writing stories about this, and they are revisiting some of the juiciest details of all of this. By the way, a confirmation, there’s another story — all of this — I’m setting the table. We’ll get to this as the program unfolds.
And I mentioned yesterday that I had seen — or maybe it wasn’t yesterday. I saw it on Monday. This is Wednesday right? So, yeah, Monday, Clinton’s in New Hampshire, as his first campaign appearance for Hillary. And I thought… I looked at it. It was going on during show prep and so during the show prep, this guy looked old, looked feeble, looked fragile. He was rambling incoherently. The crowd was not mesmerized, and he did not have them in the palm of his hand, particularly the women.
He had a bunch of women there. As they’re wont to do, they stack the crowd behind the podium, so when the person’s speaking, you see a supposedly adoring crowd at rapt attention. Well, they did that, but there were women rolling their eyes, and Clinton, he didn’t even address it. He was just really, I thought, strange. It was not in any way remindful of the Bill Clinton of the nineties. And a couple people writing about it today had the same reaction to it. Some are even contrasting him to Trump.
You know, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are the same age, and you wouldn’t know it by looking at them. Clinton looks like he could be Trump’s dad. The energy level? No comparison whatsoever.
RUSH: The New York Post editorial board, “The Clintons Are in Denial About Bill’s Sex Scandals.” There’s a number of these stories today, variations to one degree or another. This is a New York Post editorial. So the editorial board put this together.
“Even though Donald Trump had already warned that Bill Clinton’s past indiscretions would be ‘fair game’ in the presidential race, the ex-president seemed surprised to face the issue as he began to take a prominent role in his wife’s campaign. Asked by ABC News if his past should be ‘fair game,’ Bill stammered for several seconds about how ‘the Republicans have to decide who they want to nominate’ before declaring, ‘I think there’s always attempts to take the election away from the people.'” He didn’t answer. He was asked if his past peccadillos are fair game, and Clinton said (impression), “Well, you know what?
“The Republicans gonna have to decide who they want to nominate, and I think there’s always gonna be attempts to take the election away from people. All right?” He didn’t go there. The answer is incoherent. “At a New Hampshire rally, Hillary dismissed a heckler who asked about previous sexual-assault claims against Bill by saying the questioner was ‘rude.'” That’s a rude question! But look at what’s happening. You’ve got terrorism, immigration. This thing is happening in Germany now. Have you seen the latest about what’s going on in Germany? I should get into that. After all this immigration in Germany that Angela Merkel opened her arms and welcomed in, now women are getting raped left and right in Germany, Cologne. They’re being sexually abused. And you know what? They’re being told to be less seductive.
The women of Germany are being blamed. You’ve gotta learn. You’ve gotta understand what’s happened. You’ve got to understand the kind of men that have been permitted to come into Germany here, and it’s up to you to not be sexually abused or raped. You’ve got to understand what kind of people we’ve let in. So it’s the people of Germany here being told, “Hey, you gotta learn who we let in here and you’ve gotta change the way you behave accordingly.” It’s huge. There are three stories alone on that that I was able to put my fingertips on. We got Clinton and the sex scandal here. You got these big stories out there, immigration, terrorism, and Hillary and Bill are being asked about Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey and all this and being heckled about it.
And in the midst of all this, Hillary Clinton is trying to make women’s issues central to her campaign because she wants to try to continue this silliness that the Republicans are conducting some kind of War on Women. Well, when she wants to talk about women’s issues she’s gotta talk about such things as sexual assault and harassment and campus rape, and she’s gotta condemn all the men who do it. She has to universally support all the women who claim they have been raped or abused. She’s even publicly said that every woman should be believed. We shouldn’t question any woman who claims it. From a woman who called women who erupted against her husband bimbos. The very people Mrs. Clinton now says we need to believe, we never need to doubt, we need to take them at their word, these are the very women that Clinton administration, led by Hillary and Betsey Wright, tried to destroy when they erupted and said that Bill Clinton had harassed them or abused them or worse.
And Trump has let it be known that all of that is fair game. If Hillary’s gonna start running around as a champion of women’s rights and defending women against predatory men, well, hell, there’s a predatory man that happens to be married to Hillary, and his actions as president are fair game. There’s another story here in the Stack about how the Clintons don’t seem to be aware of how they are vulnerable on this. Oh, it’s a lib. It’s this guy Ken Silverstein writing in the New York Observer. It says here the Observer. I think it’s the New York Observer. This is one of the most convoluted stories I’ve ever read. Let me just read a pull quote from this. This guy’s an avowed leftist, as he would be, writing for the New York Observer.
His piece is about the Jeffrey Epstein affair. Jeffrey Epstein is a huge, huge Democrat donor. He has donated to major universities funding libraries, any number of science departments. He’s done everything he can to clean up his image. But this is the guy who had 12- and 15-year-old girls at his house for massages. This is the guy that, you know, Prince Andrew would show up. Anyway, Bill Clinton’s flown all over the world on this guy’s jet. This guy has a private island where it’s filled with teenage girls doing “massages” for Epstein and his guests, and Bill Clinton has been a frequent guest. Epstein’s flown Clinton all over the world for supposed Clinton charitable efforts and who knows whatever else. Epstein spent a year in jail here in West Palm Beach after being convicted of some sort of stuff going on at his home here.
Now, so far Clinton has escaped any direct allegation. He has not been identified by any of the teenage girls that were employed here, or abused. But you still can’t get past the fact that Clinton has been in the presence of all of this, and he’s been palling around with the guy who ran the whole operation, Jeffrey Epstein. So we got this guy in the Observer writing a story about it: “The Jeffrey Epstein Affair Imperils Hillary ClintonÂ’s Presidential Prospects — The case of the high-flying (alleged) pedophile reveals a broken American political process.”
This guy is a liberal Democrat. I want to read you two pull quotes here, two paragraphs. By the way, you hear what Joy Behar said on The View the other day? When Clinton’s past, when Clinton’s sexual predatory behavior came up, Joy Behar said she would vote for a rapist if the rapist votes liberal, which means that she already has. But she made it clear, if the candidate’s a conservative and the Democrat’s a rapist, she’s supporting the rapists if he’s liberal. He gets the benefit of the doubt.
RUSH: Okay. This guy’s name is Ken Silverstein. I don’t know who he is. He’s a writer for the New York Observer column. What does it say here? Ken Silverstein, staff writer at Harper’s, the LA Times. So he’s a Drive-By. Listen to these two paragraphs. Again, the headline: “The Jeffrey Epstein Affair Imperils Hillary ClintonÂ’s Presidential Prospects.”
“WhatÂ’s worse, at least from my personal standpoint, is that if Ms. Clinton were to become the Democratic nominee I still might vote for her –” This is after going through, after he writes all the problems with Bill and his past and Hillary defending him and all the bimbo stuff, “– at least from my personal standpoint, is that if Ms. Clinton were to become the Democratic nominee I still might vote for her because the likely Republican candidates have retrograde and vile public views about race, class, gender and gay rights, and those are important to me, and especially because the two main parties are virtually indistinguishable when it comes to fundamental economic policy.” Remind me to comment on that later. “Because both are bought and paid for by Wall Street and financiers like Jeffrey Epstein, as well as other powerful interests who overwhelmingly fund our political campaigns.”
So there’s no difference in the two parties economically, so he’s gotta go with Mrs. Clinton no matter what this other stuff because Republicans are racist, sexist, bigot homophobes, okay? But then the next paragraph.
“Actually, I still might not vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee, but I probably will if my college-age daughter asks me. Even though I donÂ’t think she likes Ms. Clinton all that much — and I expect she likes her husband less — she is appalled and outraged by the GOPÂ’s stone age social politics and because she would like to see a woman become president. And thatÂ’s a good enough reason for me. Maybe. This is why the Epstein affair is a national disgrace and shines a bright light on the current tragedy of American democracy and this countryÂ’s abysmal national political and media elites.”
So the Republicans are so vile, they’ve got such a Stone Age social policy. And his daughter hates the Republicans. I might vote for Hillary even though I might not. Even though the Epstein affair is a national disgrace and shines a bright light on the current tragedy of American democracy in this country’s — what’s the tragedy? It’s a Clinton thing. Epstein’s a Democrat. What is this national tragedy crap? The Republicans haven’t done diddly-squat the last seven years. What in the world is there to oppose? The Republicans haven’t stood for anything. I’m talking about standing up and announcing opposition and actually trying to push back or stop any of this. There hasn’t been. They might privately oppose it, but they haven’t taken any action to stop any of this.
That’s my whole point. Why is Mrs. Clinton, as her campaign says, trying to fix what’s broken? How is anything broken? The Democrats have had seven years now, into our eighth year of doing exactly what they want to do. Why isn’t she running around promising to continue this? Remember George H. W. Bush, when he ran in 1988 promised the Reagan years were so great that his campaign was, “My presidency will be the third Reagan term.” Well, why isn’t Mrs. Clinton saying that? Why is she running around promising to fix this, the economy’s broken. How can it be broken? What tragedy? I’ll tell you, these people are so convoluted and deluded and deranged, it’s dangerous.
RUSH: That’s right. A man, a legend, a way of life. Okay, so this guy, Silverstein, and the New York Observer, essentially what this guy said as he’s going on (imitating Silverstein), “My personal standpoint, uh, if Mrs. Clinton were to become the nominee I might vote for her, but then I might not. I might not. But I might. Depends on what my daughter does. But I can’t vote for Republicans. Stone Age social policies. Rapists, sexists, bigots.” Right.
So here’s a guy openly admitting that he would vote for people that support baby butchers and abortionists, that he would vote for people who have been involved in sexual harassment, perhaps rape, sexual predatory abuse, Bill Clinton, and friends of pedophiles. He would much prefer to support friends of pedophiles, baby butchers, and abortionists and sexual abusers than Republicans and their Stone Age social policies. And this guy is not alone. They think they are enlightened. These people are inflicting great damage on our culture, whether they are aware of it or not.