Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: I want to go back to a couple of more WikiLeaks email dumps and then get back to the audio sound bites, ’cause it all triggers other things.  But when I first saw this today, I said, “You know what? I want independent confirmation on this.  I don’t want to run with this yet.” 

So Mr. Snerdley has been eagerly independently confirming, and we have indeed found this now on the WikiLeaks site.  And it is the email in which a Clinton campaign aide admits that Hillary Clinton has begun to “hate everyday Americans.”  It’s Part 3 of its Podesta email release today, and this is a jaw-dropping revelation.  And there’s another one, too.  Let me reach back here to the printer.  Do you know that Hillary Clinton, in this email dump, has been expressing…?

In some of these speeches that she has made to the banks and other places, she’s been expressing support for fracking!  Now, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.  And as a party, the Democrat Party hates drilling for oil in the United States.  They despise fracking as a party.  They despise it. One of their number one donors is an environmentalist wacko by the name of Tom Steyer.  He’s from Hollywood.  He has donated I don’t know how many millions of dollars to the Democrat Party on the premise that they are going to oppose anything to do with fossil fuels.

That they instead are going to endorse and support and invest in so-called clean and renewable energy like windmills and solar panels and the rest of the stuff that doesn’t matter a hill of beans to genuine energy output.  And the reason for that is that’s where he is.  That’s how he makes his money.  He wants subsidies. He wants government money coming back to his businesses, and that’s why he donates.  Plus it’s ideological.  But the point is the entire Democrat Party and the American left…

Barack Obama? You go back to 2007. We’ve got him on tape promising to put the coal business out of business.  We’ve got him on tape saying, “If you want to invest in a new coal-fired power plant, you go right ahead, but you’re gonna go broke because of what we’re gonna do with taxes and so on,” and they are doing it!  They are impugning, they’re ripping to shreds, they’re attacking coal mines and the whole coal industry and putting coal miners out of work. 

And they’ve got their voters convinced and they hate fossil fuels, and it’s all because they’ve got their voters convinced that they, too, believe in climate change and global warming and the earth is under assault from American progress, and the earth can’t stand any more American progress, so we gotta go backwards.  And part and parcel of that is they hate drilling for oil, and they hate fracking.  This is the official Democrat Party line.

This is why they oppose the Keystone pipeline.  They don’t want any more oil.  They don’t want any more drilling for oil.  They don’t want any more energy produced from fossil fuels.  This is why they go overboard and tell their voters that they are anti-fossil fuels — save the planet, climate change, you name it — and fracking has come in for particular criticism.  They blame fracking for earthquakes! They blame fracking for climate change.  They blame fracking for poisoning the water. 

And yet here is Mrs. Clinton in private expressing support for and even claiming credit for its invention.  From Investors.com:  “During the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton cast herself as a skeptic of hydraulic fracturing — the controversial process to extract natural gas. But newly released documents purporting to show excerpts of her paid speeches show that Clinton proudly touted her support for fracking, which environmental groups say can pollute groundwater and undermine the fight against climate change.

“The excerpts also show Clinton saying that some environmental organizations trying to restrict her work to promote fracking were front groups for Russian oligarchs.” This is now the second instance I’m aware of where Hillary has blamed whatever’s going wrong on “Russian oligarchs.”  Now, you might be wonder, “Well, who are these Russian oligarchs?”  Well, one of them happens to own the Brooklyn team in the NBA.  They own mega-yachts. 

One of ’em owns a big house in Palm Beach that he bought from Trump.  They are part of the Russian elite that just made gazillions of dollars when communism fell and the state released control of various elements of the Russian economy. These guys swooped in — and because they’re Russian, we call ’em “oligarchs.”  It’s got a negative connotation to it, but they’re no different than our elite wealthy here.  Same kind of thing, same kind of people, same kind of reasons they’ve gotten rich. 

They own mineral businesses and commodities and this kind of thing.  And they’ve been very, very closely supported by government, Vladimir Putin of the KGB.  So it’s all incestuous.  But she’s holding these people up for ridicule.  They’re out to get her! They’re out to harm her. Russian oligarchs are responsible for this and that. Now she’s blaming them here in fracking.  But the point here is, “WikiLeaks published the document as part of what it says is a tranche of emails from John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“Podesta has refused to say whether the excerpts are authentic but has not denied their authenticity, either. The document published by WikiLeaks shows what purports to be an 80-page memo of excerpts of Clinton’s speeches — which she refused to publicly release during the primary campaign.” She won’t release these like Trump won’t release his tax returns.

This one “appears to be attached to a January 25, 2016 email to Podesta and other Clinton campaign aides. In one excerpt of a speech to Deutsche Bank in April 2013, according to the document, Clinton boasted about the federal government’s support for fracking and her own work to promote the process across the globe.”

She is quoted as saying in a speech to Deutsche Bank… This is one of these speeches for $250,000 or $300,000. She did two years of these that earned $20 million for 20- to 30-minute speeches. This is one of those.  She said in her speech, “Fracking was development at the Department of Energy.  I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government.”

So she’s out speaking to these bankers claiming government credit for creating fracking because of research they did, they invented.  Now, if Hillary supporters and if those who support her who were originally Bernie Sanders supporters, if they find out about this, they are going to feel as sold out as if you learned that the Republicans you’ve been voting for are secretly pro-choice. 

I’m not exaggerating.  I am not exaggerating this.  You must not doubt me when I tell you how much the average Democrat voter despises fossil fuels, despises oil, hates the oil companies, hates fracking.  They are a special kind of stupid who have been made to believe that oil and drilling for oil, and now fracking, is destroying the climate and that we will not have an earth that is habitable in another 40 to 45 years. 

They are as much pro-climate change, meaning anti-industrial, anti-corporate, anti-progress, anti-fossil fuels as any of you are pro-life.  And if they were to find out that Mrs. Clinton secretly supports it, has secretly been bragging about it, has secretly been accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in speech income to say this, and, furthermore, bragging about it to banks which they hate as a close second to oil companies, I wonder what the impact would be. 

These special kind of stupid Democrat voters on this issue, they are dead serious.  They’re also dead wrong, but it doesn’t matter in this case.  They have been made to believe that every day, ordinary American life is destroying the planet.  Fracking is the newest technological development to extract natural gas and oil, and they hate it.  And Mrs. Clinton campaigning publicly opposes it. 

She tells them in speeches that she’s going to make the oil companies pay, that we are going to develop new sources of clean energy, wind and solar, which we’ve been doing for the last eight years and they haven’t amounted to diddly-squat.  But she’s gonna keep doing what we’ve been doing, and she tells these people voting for her that she’s with ’em.  She believes climate change is destroying the planet, carbon emissions, fossil fuels gotta go, gotta stop it.  Oil companies gotta be punished.  And here she is in private bragging about fracking, taking credit, government credit for its development and implementation.

“Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” she said. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world.”

Well, she hasn’t, in her public speeches.  She hasn’t, as far as the Democrat public is concerned.  They think the exact opposite.  Some of them may know.  I mean, look, some of them know she’s hypocritical on a number of things.  Some of them know, for example, she’s in bed with some of the banks.  The Bernie supporters know that she’s in bed with the banks.  They hate the banks. 

Look, the average Democrat voter hates everything.  They hate oil companies. They hate drug companies.  They hate everything but government.  They love government, they love everything government does.  Government is infallible.  They love the state.  They love anything to do with the state.  They hate everything that we call the private sector. 

They hate Big Oil.  They hate Big Pharma.  They hate Walmart.  They hate the banks. They hate the housing industry. They despise literally everything where there might be even a tinge of capitalism attached.  And every damn Democrat candidate running for office convinces them that they are exactly the same, and Hillary has done that.  She’s got them believing that she hates the same things they do, and not only that, she’s gonna hold all those things accountable.  She’s gonna get even with ’em, they’re gonna get punished. 

And here she is being paid 300 grand by Deutsche Bank, 250, whatever this speech got her, and she’s telling these people who invest in this and try to throw off big profits that she’s all for it.  And, by extension, she’s going to permit it to continue.  Her voters think the exact opposite.  And then what I had to get confirmed independently on the WikiLeaks site, this is the email in which campaign manager John Podesta acknowledges that Hillary has begun to hate everyday Americans.  The email was sent by Podesta on April 19th, 2015.  It contains a discussion on what talking points Hillary should be using in framing her candidacy for president in order to get a good head start. 

Remember, now, this is April 2015.  This is the Crazy Bernie era.  And Podesta writes, “I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.”

What they’re talking about is how she needs to start calling herself the champion of everyday Americans.  And he’s saying, even though I know, I know that Hillary has begun to hate everyday Americans, we still need her to say just once, just to get the ball rolling, that she’s the champion of everyday Americans.  “I think if she doesn’t say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.”

“Jennifer Palmieri, Director of Communications for Hillary’s presidential campaign, agreed with Podesta’s summary, responding simply with the word ‘truth.'”  To emphasize Podesta is in black in white admitting that Hillary hates everyday Americans and may have trouble selling the idea that she is the champion of them.  But they need to try.  They need her to say it.  We’d have never known this.  I wonder when Hillary’s voters find out about this, if they ever do — don’t look for any of what I just told you to be in ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, it’s not gonna be there.  


RUSH:  What, are you saying people are misinterpreting this “has begun to hate everyday Americans”?  What are they saying that we’re misinterpreting?  What term?  Oh!  Oh!  I see.  So what now apparently — no, the leak is there.  We found the WikiLeaks page.  Apparently some people are backing off of this now because there supposedly is a misinterpretation of this.  And what they are now saying is it’s not correct to say that Hillary — the quote “has begun to hate everyday Americans.”  What that means is she hates the term “everyday Americans.”  I guess prefers “ordinary” to “everyday.” 

I’m just gonna read the quote to you.  It’s Podesta in an email.  “Hillary has begun to hate everyday Americans.”  Okay, that translates itself.  So people have run with it.  Now the official response, I guess, is becoming, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no.  She doesn’t hate everyday Americans.  We were discussing what to call Americans as we begin the campaign, and she’s gonna be the champion and she doesn’t want to say this, she’s the champion of everyday Americans, she hates the term.”  So that’s what they’re saying now?  Okay.  Fine.  Well.


RUSH:  So are you telling me that the Clinton campaign’s trying to walk back this whole “everyday Americans” thing and Hillary hates it? They’re trying to walk that back somewhere?  What’s wrong with the term “everyday Americans”?  How’s that any different than “ordinary Americans”?  All right.  Well, here, try this.  Try this.  Ladies and gentlemen, let me set this one up by telling you that back in my days as a novice, as a naive young whippersnapper doing this, when I had a totally wrong idea of what the media was…

I actually thought when the media wanted to talk to me, it was ’cause they were genuinely curious about what I thought, were genuinely curious about who I am, and they wanted to interview me to tell people about me. Because I had read profiles of people and I thought they all came about because the media/journalist involved was independently interested and pursued the story.  I had no idea that all this stuff was fake. I had no idea that it’s all the fault of public relations people pitching stories related to books, movies, TV shows, and what have you. 

I was that naive.

So when I was sitting down being interviewed by these people, I’d be honest.  I’d open up and I’d tell ’em ’cause that’s what I thought they really wanted.  I didn’t have the slightest idea they showed up with an agenda already in place that was to make me not look good.  It didn’t take me long to learn it, but there was a time where I didn’t know it.  And I can tell you, on a couple of occasions I asked the journalist, “Can I rephrase that?  I don’t like the way I said whatever I said.  I… I… I…” And they would not let me revise it. 

“No!  You said it.  No, our policy manual does not let us change quotes.  We can’t let you write the story,” they told me.  “You said it, and that’s what we’re going with.”  Okay.  There’s an email in the WikiLeaks dump from Mark Leibovich of the New York Times asking Jennifer Palmieri of the Clinton campaign permission, after an interview, to use a bunch of Hillary quotes.  So this guy sits down, does an interview with Hillary, goes back, and starts writing the story.

He calls the campaign and says, “Hey, I’d like to use what she said here about Sarah Palin. I’d like to use what she says here about gay rights and so forth.” And they said, “No.”  So he didn’t write what Hillary said. (interruption) Damn right.  The campaign is dictating to the news, just like John Harwood was helping the campaign, the Democrat Party during these Republican debates.  It’s all over these dumps.  It’s all over this WikiLeak dump about the coordination and the helpfulness of the media with Hillary Clinton. 

In this case, this was an email where a New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich asks Jennifer Palmieri permission after an interview. Permission to use some things that she said!  This is incredible.  He does the interview, then goes back and starts writing the story and calls them back, “Can I say here what she said?  Do you want me to say this?”  One of the things was about Sarah Palin and Hillary talking about how, “Hey, it’s no big deal. I love moose! I’ve eaten moose! I love moose stew.” 

And there was another quote that Hillary said. I don’t know the details but it has to do with the speed of gay rights versus other rights movements.  She apparently said something very interesting to the New York Times about how rapidly they were trying to get gay rights advanced versus other groups’ rights, and the campaign denied him permission to use those quotes.  And he ends his email to her where she denies him the permission to use the quotes Hillary said, Hillary uttered — he ends up his email — “Pleasure doing business.” 

Now, I, folks… I’m not surprised.  I have known that there is no line of separation between particularly the Clinton campaign and the media and the Obama campaign.  Not every Democrat gets this kind of treatment with the media, but the party in general does.  But I’ve never doubted there was cooperation, joint operations. I’ve never doubted it.  So this doesn’t surprise me.  I don’t know how many other people it’s gonna surprise.

But I can tell you this: They would never call me and ask permission to use a quote that I had said.  In fact, if they had to they would alter something and I said and make me claim that they’re misquoting me.  They would never let me or anybody else revise. Remember CBS was doing an interview with John Kerry in the 2004 campaign?  They asked Kerry a question.  He just botched it.  It was embarrassingly bad.  It was along the lines of when Roger Mudd, in 1980, asked Teddy Kennedy why he wanted to be president.

Teddy Kennedy just mumbled and stumbled, literally didn’t have an answer.  Well, they asked a similar question of Kerry at CBS, and the answer was so bad, they did take two.  The CBS reporter said, “Senator Kerry, you want a redo? You want to try this again?”  ‘Cause it was so bad.  People on our side do not get this kind of latitude, leeway, treatment, or whatever.  And, by the way, all of this — asking permission to use quotes after the fact — is a direct violation of the New York Times’ own policy on after-the-fact quote checking.  The New York Times has not explained this, and they won’t. 

They don’t think they have any reason to explain it.  


RUSH:  I don’t think there’s any question about it, folks. I am convinced that they released the audio of that Trump thing with Access Hollywood and all that with Billy Bush last Friday to distract everybody from what’s in WikiLeaks. ‘Cause what is in this WikiLeaks dump is devastating. 

It’s just rolling in now, Hillary giving up more national security secrets in terms of military strategy and other things, fracking, but any number of things that would just be very problematic for her if her voters found out that this is what she’s saying in private to her donors, but it’s all being missed because of Trump stuff.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This