Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH:  They keep trying to suck us into this, and, folks, I got no choice. I gotta get sucked in.  I gotta let the suckers succeed here in order to obliterate what they’re talking about, but I still resent it.  This whole election-was-hacked thing is a full-fledged joke.  And get this.  There’s a new poll out from the Fox News Channel.  Fifty-nine percent of the respondents said that all of this had no impact on the election. 

The Democrats are gonna look at that and they’re gonna start pulling their hair out because everything is boomeranging on ’em.  You realize that?  While it may look to you like the Democrats are carrying the day here because they’re defining the narrative and what everybody’s talking about, don’t forget who won the election and who lost!  And don’t forget who was rejected!  And don’t forget who was repudiated:  Obama, Hillary. 

It was an Electoral College landslide, folks.  She was sent packing, as was Obama and his agenda.  And that hasn’t changed, the American people’s minds haven’t changed, they don’t regret the way they voted.  So all this stuff the Democrats are doing is really boomeranging on ’em.  The media is aware of it but trying to hide that, and they’re getting more angry by the day that what they’re trying to do isn’t working so they’re intensifying the effort, and that’s where we are. 

Greetings and welcome.  It’s great to have you.  Rush Limbaugh here at the EIB Network.  Another three hours of broadcast excellence. 

Something’s wrong, folks.  Something is terribly wrong.  Mr. Snerdley brought me the evidence today.  I’m holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a printed copy of a story from TheHill.com.  The headline:  “Limbaugh: No One Can Prove Russia Hacked Election.”  I said, “What’s the big deal about this?” 

He said, “They reported it accurately.  There’s no snark.  They don’t refer to you as conservative blowhard.  They don’t refer to you in any kind of derogatory term.  They really just quote what you say, and that’s it.” 

I said, “Let me see that.”  So I grabbed it and I looked at it and I’ve got it right here.  And Snerdley’s right.  This is not good, folks.  I mean, they’re reporting on me accurately.  This is not normal.  There is no snark.  There is no reference or there are no allusions to how I am off on a wacko conspiracy theorist tangent.  All they do is report me and quote me accurately.  But I pointed out nobody’s alleged that the Russians actually hacked the election.  To hack the election, they would have to do one of two things.  They would have to hack the way people voted or hack the way the votes were counted.  That’s how you hack an election, if you even can. 

But nobody’s alleging — we’ve had three recounts, and in all those recounts the original count was pretty much concerned.  There isn’t any evidence whatsoever to suggest there was any kind of fraud.  Jill Stein, bye-bye.  Hillary Clinton, bye-bye.  Now, what they’re alleging is, ladies and gentlemen, that the Russians stole the election.  That whole narrative hinges on the preposterous supposition that millions of people voted for Trump instead of Hillary because of what they saw in the Podesta emails. 

Now, never mind at the time when the Podesta emails were being reported on, and the Drive-Bys did, they reported on ’em, I mean, it was too juicy not to.  But while they were reporting on the contents of the Podesta emails, the Drive-Bys, the media was assuring everybody there was nothing to see here, there was nothing new, that the Podesta emails revealed nothing of any real importance. 

Let me do a little pop quiz.  How many of you, if I had you on the phone right now, could answer a question, what do you remember that was in the emails?  You got 10 seconds.  Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.  What do you remember?  Can you cite for me one thing you remember?  Well, Snerdley you can ’cause you’re a nerd.  What do you remember?  Okay, how they diss their own donors, made fun — yes, yes, of course.  But my point is that not enough of that could have happened for the election to be elected by it. 

The latest news is that Putin was directly involved.  Yeah, it came all the way from the Politburo.  It came all the way from the Kremlin.  Putin himself was involved.  And now Josh Earnest, White House press secretary — oh, is the media in a dizzy over this.  Remind me, press briefing, that’s all you gotta say.  Josh Earnest is out there saying, “Trump was in on it.  Trump knew.  Trump was urging Putin to hack the Democrats.”  It’s a laughable joke. 

I’m sure many of you remember, but what happened was Trump cracked a joke in a debate about the missing 33,000 Hillary emails.  There were 33,000 that she had deleted of the 60,000 that were on her server. She told us there’s nothing to see there, Chelsea’s wedding and yoga classes and the wedding reception and the registry, there’s nothing to see there. 

But late in the campaign there were all kinds of allusions to the fact that somebody had those 33,000 emails and was gonna release them, but it never happened. So during the debate Trump cracked a joke, “Maybe the Russians can find them.”  That’s all they’ve got because people are humorless.  The people on the left have no sense of humor. They are supposedly the greatest comedians in the world and the finest minds in the world, but they have no sense of humor, and particularly if you’re laughing at them or mocking them. 

So Trump comes out, “Maybe the Russians can find them.”  So immediately the Drive-Bys translate that into Trump urging Putin to continue hacking the Democrats.  There’s no way.  Trump was making a joke about it.  The White House is now running with it. That is the source, that’s the Trump comment that Josh Earnest and all the Democrats are using to say that Trump knew about the hack and was encouraging Putin to do it. When the truth of the matter is — and we revealed this yesterday — Barack Obama knew the hack was going on all the way back in September of 2015. 

The New York Times, the Bible, the gospel, the New York Times, the Bible and gospel on the left, had the story yesterday.  It was in a story about Syria, actually, in part, and we had a caller about it.  So I went into great depth after the caller to make sure people understand what the caller was talking about, and in that story we learned that Obama and the White House had known of Russian attempts and desires to impact or affect the election.  Obama sat on it.  He didn’t do anything about it, and the reason he didn’t do anything about it is ’cause he didn’t want to irritate the Russians ’cause he needed the Russians for whatever his policy in Syria happened to be, which is also blowing up on him. 

So Obama knowing about it from September 15th of last year has become Trump knew, Trump urged, Putin was involved.  I’m telling you, they’re flailing, folks.  They are flailing away.  They are in wandering desperate search for anything they can grab onto to give them any sense of hope that what happened didn’t happen.  They are desperately trying to convince themselves they were not summarily blown out.  They are trying to convince themselves that they were not sent packing.  They are trying to convince themselves that they actually won this election, that the American people still love them, the American people still prefer them, if it weren’t for this cheating that the Russians did. 

But again, nobody can prove the Russians hacked the election.  The only thing that can be said is that — and, by the way, I don’t even buy the fact that Russia is involved in the WikiLeaks dump of the Podesta emails.  I’m at a point, folks, where I don’t believe anything.  My first gut reaction to anything I see in the news is to question it and to check it myself and to not believe it.  And the idea that the Russians had people running around hacking Podesta’s emails and then giving those over to WikiLeaks, the WikiLeaks people say it wasn’t Russia and they’ve been insisting this for a long time. 

The U.K. Daily Mail has a story documenting with great detail who actually did this.  It was a Democrat committee member insider upset at the fact that Hillary Clinton had rigged the game against Bernie Sanders.  U.K. Daily Mail.  Why isn’t anybody paying attention to that story?  ‘Cause it doesn’t fit the narrative and the daily script, soap opera, that the Russians did this ’cause the Russians wanted Trump and the Russians didn’t want Hillary. And it’s all about the Democrats trying to prove to themselves they haven’t rejected to the extent that they have been.  They want to continue to live a lie, and they’re doing a good job of convincing themselves. 

So we have a circumstance where the U.K. Daily Mail details the scenario, how it happened.  An insider at the Democrat National Committee or somewhere in the Democrat Party all mad about how Bernie Sanders is being treated, decided to do the hack and release what he had to WikiLeaks.  There’s just as much evidence for that as there is the Russians.  Now, the Russians and the ChiComs and the Norks and the Venezuelans, everybody is trying to hack everybody every day, all the time.  It would be ridiculous to assert the Russians were not hacking, were not trying to, just like it would be absurd to insist that the ChiComs weren’t doing so, either. 

I don’t believe it.  Too many people, the conventional wisdom has become the Russians did it.  That’s reason number one for me to doubt it, and plus the people behind it and promoting it are people I don’t trust anyway, people who have ulterior motives, people who politicize everything, people that just got creamed.  You know what the final electoral vote count is, the tally?  The 50 states and the District of Columbia had all certified their results as of Monday, three days ago.  And here’s the final:  306 votes for Trump, 232 votes for Hillary Clinton. 

Let me tell you about that 232.  This is a little fact that you’re not seeing much out there.  232 electoral votes is the fewest electoral votes for any member of the Democrat Party since 1988.  Fewer electoral votes than Bill Clinton.  Fewer electoral votes than Barack Hussein O in either of the elections that they won and other Democrat losses.  Fewer electoral votes than John Kerry in 2004.  Fewer electoral votes than Algore in 2000.  Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate.  And now you know who they’re blaming at the Hillary campaign? 

They’re dumping it all on Huma.  The insiders, some of them in the Hillary campaign, some in the Democrat Party are dumping it all on Huma Abedin.  It was Huma’s fault.  Huma got too close to Hillary, thought she was a star, thought she was about whom everything was circulating, and she shielded Hillary from some brilliant ideas that other members of the campaign staff had.  It’s classic. 

And this, folks, is humiliating: 232 electoral votes when you need 270.  So now the attack on the Electoral College is intensifying.  I watched this morning — I could barely avoid spitting out my coffee — Martin Sheen and a bunch of literally B-list celebrities (some of them that I didn’t recognize, and even when I found out their names, I’d never heard of them) with a video urging electors to not vote Trump.  They don’t care who the electors vote for.  Some of them suggest Romney, and they make a point of saying, “We’re not suggesting you vote for Hillary.”

They go on and on and on about what they think are Trump’s lack of qualifications, lack of temperament.  It’s led by Martin Sheen, the pretend president that liberals think was the president during the days of the West Wing TV show.  We have some excerpts of it coming up as we get to the audio sound bite roster today.  Folks, it’s funny because all of these celebrities refer to one Founding Father: Hamilton.  It’s the only Founding Father they know! The only Founding Father is Hamilton, and the only reason they know that is because there is a big musical about Hamilton, and so it’s pop culture city. 

They urge electors to do what Hamilton would have done; behave as Hamilton would have behaved.  What these people don’t get is Donald Trump is Hamilton! When it comes to immigration and a number of key policy ideas, Alexander Hamilton and Donald Trump are very, very close.  These Hollywood waste cases are out suggesting that electors study up on Alexander Hamilton and do what Hamilton “would have done.”  Hamilton would be embracing Trump today for much of what Trump is doing.  

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This