Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Yeah, yeah, I do, I do. I think I’ve got a solution to all of this. In a few minutes I will get there. I’ve been thinking about this. Anyway, folks, great to have you here. There is soon to begin in the White House — and we’re not gonna JIP this. The Trump administration has gotta learn you don’t start things at 12 noon. This program’s gonna start no matter what they’re doing there.

There’s a joint press conference being held with the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the president, Donald Trump. By the way, great to see the prime minister of Israel in Washington in the first month of a new administration and arriving, and probably leaving, through the front door. As you know, Obama made Netanyahu leave through the back door a couple times after slapping him down after making him work on a proposal while Obama went up to dinner. There was a clear disrespect from Obama to the Israelis and Netanyahu, which is, of course, is not happening today.

If anything does happen at this joint presser, we’ll of course JIP it. Our microphones are there and we’re ready to if anything happens. But these joint pressers do not lend themselves to the singular press conference where the jackals get to have at Trump and Trump gets his turn going back at them.

Telephone number, if you want to be on the program’s 800-282-2882, and email address, ElRushbo@eibnet.us.

All right. I think it’s been pretty much established what’s going on here now in terms of the whole Michael Flynn situation. It’s pretty much documented that what’s driving this is the fact that the Democrat Party really doesn’t exist as an electoral operation. It doesn’t function as an entity that wins elections. And because, in that sense, in the sense that there is no Democrat Party, there is no way that the Democrat Party can be the opposition party anymore.

They don’t have the strength or the numbers to be the opposition party unless, of course, Republicans cross the aisle and join them. There just isn’t any “there” there. The Democrats are down 1,200, 1,300 seats. They only run five states. They literally are a regional political party and the battles that they’re having internally to come up with a new chairman are an embarrassment.

The Democrat Party really, really is dwindling away before our eyes. But don’t misunderstand me. It’s precisely because of this that the unelected Democrat Party, which is embedded in our nation’s bureaucracy, has taken over the role of the opposition party. And by that I mean all of the Obama appointees in the intelligence community. All of the Obama and Clinton appointees at the departments of justice, departments of state and the defense department, they are all there, and they are working to sabotage the administration of Donald Trump from within. They are doing this with the aid and cooperation of the media.

Now, the media isn’t who they used to be, either, just as the Democrat Party is really not a functioning political party. Now, don’t misunderstand me on this. I’m not saying that they’ve been defeated forever and gone away, but as currently constituted, they are not an opposition force that can stop anything. They simply don’t have the numbers in the House, in the Senate. In the true representative republic sense of our country, they don’t have any power.

And so they have to turn the country into something other than a representative republic, something other than a democracy, which is what they are doing and which is why what they are doing is far more dangerous than anything Flynn may or may not have done. It’s far more dangerous than anything Flynn may or may not have said. And this effort to deconstruct and transform this country began in Ernest with Barack Hussein Obama and it continues from the shadows of the embedded bureaucrats all throughout not just the federal government, but in the judiciary and in certain levels of state government.

And in this sense our country today is not functioning as a representative republic. I’ll give you an idea of how this can be envisioned. In the old days — and these are not too far long ago, and it’s still the way I operate by the way. I come in here and do my program every day, and you are the audience. And my objective here each and every day for 30 years, 29, whatever it is, has been to reach you, to inform you, to educate you, and to hopefully persuade you to agree with my side of things so that when there are elections that you go out and vote the way I do.

Because that’s what I’m here for. I believe that what I believe is right, and I want as many people believing it. So I’m taking the advantage of the opportunity I have, which I have earned via hard work in the capitalist system, I have this microphone, and I have 600-plus radio stations, and I have my shot at you. I have an opportunity. You’re free and clear to reject it, go away, not listen. You’re free and clear to accept it and act on it.

In the old days, this is what the Drive-By Media did as well. The media’s audience used to be you. The media’s audience used to be the voters. And the media used to be in that same arena that I find myself in. You see, I don’t have any other power. In fact, I don’t even function with a consciousness of any power that I have. I look at what I have as an opportunity.

I have an opportunity each and every day to tell you what I think is the truth and to try to persuade as many of you as I can to see this country as I do and to try to preserve it as I wish it preserved. But beyond that, I don’t have any power. I can’t decide that somebody in office needs to be destroyed and go do it. But the media can now. See, I can’t, and nobody else in conservative media can do this.

But the media long ago abandoned any pretense of having the objective be to bend and shape public opinion. They lost that battle when we came along and busted up their monopoly. So now the media operates in a totally different plane, a totally different sphere. The media is no longer trying to shape public opinion or inform public opinion so that the people in our representative republic determine the course of events. The media long ago stopped trusting you, and instead the media has thrown in with a political party.

They’ve always been tight with them, but now it’s official. The media has thrown in not just with the Democrat Party; the media has thrown in with the Barack Obama shadow government and the Barack Obama administration. And the media’s objective now has nothing to do with informing you. Their objective now… I mean, they want you to be misinformed. I mean, they are still reporting fake news, made-up news. They are lying about things, hoping to make it easier for them and the Obama shadow government to eventually get rid of Trump and everybody in his administration.

Now, they ultimately / eventually will need public support for this, because the Democrats do not have the votes to say impeach, to convict Donald Trump. But that’s not where they’re focused. They’re focused on things like Flynn resigning and then other scalps coming along. And the media no longer is in the arena of ideas. Forget that. The media has thrown in with the Barack Obama shadow government. Now, the thing that is propelling this assault on Trump is a story that even the people reporting it admit there’s no evidence for.

There is one thing — and I’m just trying to simplify this for you. There is one thing that keeps propelling this story forward, and it is that the Russians stole the election for Trump by hacking the Democrat National Committee and its servers and John Podesta’s email. There’s no evidence. In fact, you can state with ontological certitude that the Russians had no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the election. It wouldn’t have been possible. But even if you want to live that lie and say that they did, then you would have to say they wanted Hillary Clinton because she won the popular vote, and that’s about all any outside force could hope to affect.

When you start trying to hack and manipulate outcomes in the Electoral College battle, there isn’t a single source anywhere that could do that. Otherwise if somebody had figured that out, whoever that guy is with would always win. So the lie that is the engine and the fuel for all of this that we’re going through is that this election was illegitimate, that the Russians hacked it — and, furthermore, that Trump and his campaign staff were in regular contact with the Russians during the campaign. This story has run twice now in the New York Times, and both times the New York Times admits that there is no evidence whatsoever.

They have no evidence.

It’s akin to the “seriousness of the charge” being so grave that we must continue to look into it. There is no evidence for the primary assertion that is driving this entire attack on Trump. This attack is coming from the shadows of the deep state where former Obama employees remain in the intelligence community. That would be at the CIA; that would be at the Defense Intelligence Agency; that would be at the National Security Agency. They are there. They were not elected. They were appointed.

Maybe Bill Clinton put them in there, and they have remained, and it is they who are leaking elements of, say, the Flynn phone call with the Russian ambassador. They are not providing a transcript of the entire call. They are only presenting excerpts they want us to see. It’s kind of like the way NBC edited the 911 call of the “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. It’s much akin to what happened to me during my 60 Minutes profile. They collect hours and hours of videotape and then they alone decide what they’re gonna use and what they’re going to cut.

The same with this phone call of Flynn and the Russian ambassador. They won’t release the whole transcript because they know the whole transcript does not help them. In fact, my guess is the entire transcript of that call would undercut the illusion that they are trying to present. And that is that Flynn gave assurances to the Russian ambassador on the very day Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats. “Don’t sweat it! As soon as Trump’s in there, the sanctions are lifted and your guys are back.” There is no evidence whatsoever that that was ever discussed or said in a direct fashion.

And yet the news stories every day are trying to convince you that that is exactly what happened — and that, furthermore, there’s even more damning news and damaging news to come. So what we are living in the midst of here is — and look, I’m not trying to pat myself on the back, but I warned everybody that this is who Barack Obama is and this is what he was gonna do. The only thing I was wrong about was the technique. I thought Obama’d be on TV bitching and moaning about Obamacare being unraveled.

Obama’s not on TV. His embedded employees are doing the dirty work, and they are leaking to people in the media. But they’re not leaking to people in the media. They’re leaking to friends. They’re leaking to compatriots. The people in the media are the neighbors and the friends of (and in some cases having affairs with) the people in the intel community that are doing the leaking. It is a symbiotic, incestuous relationship within the Washington establishment. And they are all aligned. They do not like the result of an open and free election.

They cannot accept it. They have constructed this lie to assure themselves that they didn’t lose, and that is that the Russians tampered, the Russians hacked, that Trump worked with the Russians, and that they and Hillary and the Democrats got screwed out of what is rightfully theirs, and that is never-ending entitlement to power. They reject an election. They reject and hold in contempt the people who voted in that election, and they’re now trying to reverse the results of that election in as undemocratic and un-American a manner as could exist short of a military coup.

And they are doing this in consort with the American media, which is not media. Meaning they are not competing for your opinions. They’re not competing for your support. They’re not in the arena of ideas. They are on the side of the embedded shadow government attempting to destroy political opponents they don’t like. This is the kind of thing that happens in Cuba, banana republics, Venezuela, the lesser developed nations that don’t even make a pretense at democracy or representative republicanism or anything of the sort.


RUSH: I want to now delve back into the specifics of what is going on in the deep state, the embedded bureaucracy where the Obama shadow government is doing everything it can to overthrow the Trump presidency. And make no mistake that is what’s happening. And make no mistake that the media has thrown in with it. The media is now doing the bidding of the Obama shadow government, the remaining Obama administration members, all of the intelligence agencies at the defense department, at the State Department, all of these people leaking made-up things, nonfactual things that allow the media to continue to run stories that are nothing but speculation, that fall under the rubric of the seriousness of the charge.

Whatever Flynn did, whatever Flynn is alleged to have done pales in comparison to what’s happening to our country by the Obama shadow government. And I choose to the word that way because that’s what it is. It’s a bunch of former Obama bureaucrats that he put in the various agencies that didn’t leave when he did. Clinton has some people that are still there and this is how the left operates.

Because, folks, the Democrat Party has ceased to function as an opposition force. The Democrat Party really, without the assistance of the media, can’t stop anything. They don’t have the numbers. They have lost over a thousand seats. You know the drill. The Obama shadow government, the deep state, and all of the leftist judges throughout our judiciary make up now the official opposition to the portion of our country that believes in America as founded.

And look at what’s happened here in just the span of one week, if I may put this all in perspective for you. In the span of one week, we have seen left-wing tyrannical courts seize control of immigration. In the span of one week, we have seen left-wing tyrannical bureaucrats attempt to seize control over national security, Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution. In this same week we have rogue leftists and Obama administration leftovers in the intelligence communities violating civil rights and exposing intelligence-gathering methods and leaking all kinds of national security secrets in criminal acts. This indeed is action in violation of federal statute.

We have read that there are indications of the undermining of the Trump presidency by Barack Obama and his shadow government and by his network of 250 community organizing chapters. Now, this sabotage — and make no mistake that’s what it is — the sabotage of the Trump administration began well before Mike Flynn’s resignation. It began well before Donald Trump was inaugurated.

The attempt to sabotage the Trump administration can be traced back to even prior to the election. But you can certainly trace it back to after the election when the New York Times first ran its story that elements of the Trump campaign were in contact with officials in Russia during the presidential campaign. That’s the only story. There is no evidence. There is just an allegation that Trump campaign officials — and who they mean by this is Paul Manafort. Now, Paul Manafort, former campaign manager, he was the first one, Paul Manafort has been doing business with Russia long before he ever started working for Trump.

So you take a little irrelevant indiscriminate fact over here, then you take the Trump campaign and you put the two together where they don’t fit and you’ve got a news story. And you’ve got Trump officials talking to Russian officials during the campaign, which the media insists the Russians hacked. There’s no evidence for that. There’s never been. It’s cut-and-dry. There’s never, ever been any evidence that the Russians had anything to do with the outcome of the election. There’s no evidence, and if you look very closely, you don’t find that specific allegation because the people who are making the allegation know full well it didn’t happen.

The Russians had nothing to do with who won the presidency. They had nothing to do whatsoever with it. There isn’t any evidence to suggest it, not in terms of the vote, not in terms of casting ballots, not in terms of counting ballots, the Russians had nothing to do with it.

Now, the Russians did try to hack both parties’ political career networks, their computer networks. They apparently failed at hacking the Republican network, but they succeeded hacking the DNC and the email account of John Podesta. Those things were put on WikiLeaks, and it was said the Russians did it, the Russians did the hack, and the Russians gave the data to WikiLeaks, who then ran it. The guy at WikiLeaks, “We didn’t get it from the Russians.” He said if he said it once he said it 20 times.

The point is there’s a bogus allegation that is fueling all of this. The Flynn resignation, the Flynn controversy, everything about this that you’ve seen in the last however long you’ve been watching, two days, three days, two weeks, three weeks, it is all fueled by the New York Times leading the pack for the Democrat Party to assert that the election was hacked by the Russians. The Russians worked together with Donald Trump to screw Hillary Clinton out of the presidency. It is a lie that they have told themselves so much, I actually now think they believe it.

They cannot accept the fact that they were rejected. They can’t accept the fact that their boy wonder, Barack Obama, was rejected. That doesn’t compute. So they’re unable to accept the hard, cold reality of what happened all during the campaign and the election. So they’ve constructed this alternative reality with alternate facts. And this whole Flynn story is predicated on that assumption. The Russians hacked, Trump helped them, and Hillary lost. And even in the news stories reporting this, you will find the phrase “investigators have found no evidence to prove.”

So all there are are conclusions, conclusions by analysts who’ve looked at the evidence and who are concluding. But conclusions are just somebody’s random thoughts. They are not evidence in any way, shape, manner, or form. New York Times today: No evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in hacking Democrat National Committee and the election. It’s right there in their story. It’s buried. It’s way at the end of this. You’ll not see it unless it’s pointed out to you, but it’s right there. No evidence the Trump campaign colluded.

No evidence, yet. Yes, we must continue to investigate. We must continue to look. We must continue to listen to our people in the deep state, the embedded bureaucrats at the intelligence agencies, departments of state and defense, who are continuing to look deep to see if they can find the link between the Trump campaign and the Russians and the hacking. As of now, no evidence. The New York Times has run this story twice. They ran this story last fall. They ran it again yesterday and the day before.

Last night the New York Times put out a breaking news alert. I happened to receive it. “Intercepted calls show members of the Trump campaign had repeated contact with Russian intelligence before the election.” This breaking news went out last night around 9:15. I was minding my own business bothering nobody and I get this alert. I looked and I knew immediately that it was a crock. I knew immediately that this is bogus because intercepted calls, this is the intercepted call, one of these intercepted calls is the call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador for which they will not release the full transcript.

So we have to trust those who have heard the transcript of the call. “And why was there a transcript of the call?” you might ask. Very simple. The National Security Agency has been bugging the Russian ambassador. They’ve been following him. It’s what we do. They’re an enemy. The Russians are an enemy; the Iranians are an enemy. We keep track of ’em. And so Flynn called the Russian ambassador, so they heard the call. And I’m here to tell you, if they heard Flynn openly say anything about sanctions being removed, they would have touted this when it happened. This is all speculation.

“Intercepted Calls Show Members of the Trump Campaign Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence Before the Election, Officials Said.” It is unadulterated McCarthyism. They’re going to take Trump out from the get-go. They are making no bones about it. But if you read further, what you find is there isn’t actually any evidence. This is a fake breaking news alert. It’s designed to pollute the minds of people who read it, who will never read the full story and who will never read “analysts have yet to find any evidence linking the two.”

All we have here are “officials suggesting that intercepted calls show repeated contact.” Well, there’s nothing unusual about repeated contact, if you know anything about this. This hit piece that ran yesterday in the New York Times was titled, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence,” and they cite “more leaked intelligence information targeting Trump that shows repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.” The implied allegation is obvious: Trump colluded with the Russians to take down Clinton and thus steal the presidency!

There’s just one problem here, folks.

It’s a 1,300-word article. In the third paragraph, the New York Times admits that its sources, quote, “said that so far they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.” Well, then why run the freaking alert last night when in the third paragraph of the story following the alert, you will find “so far they had seen no evidence of cooperation”? So last night we get a breaking news alert that experts monitoring intercepts have found contact between Trump campaign officials and Russian officials! Sound the alarms bells!

And then if you read the actual story the next day, which happens to be yesterday, you find out that in the third paragraph the New York Times admits that its sources — these “officials” who had seen the intercepts — said that so far they had seen no evidence of such cooperation. It’s a bogus story then. There’s nothing to follow. There’s no reason to print, no reason to go with it, no reason to run it, no reason to believe it. If there is no evidence of any collusion between Trump and his team and the Russians, then what the hell was the purpose of the breaking news alert last night which reads:

“Intercepted Calls Show Members of the Trump Campaign Had Repeated Contact with Russian Intelligence Before the Election”? Third paragraph: “[S]o far, they have seen no evidence of such cooperation.” They had to put it in the story. If they didn’t put it in the story, they could be brought up. It is… But the damage is done because the breaking news alert last night filled CNN and their morning news show today, filled Fox & Friends. It was all over the place. MSNBC. (impression) “The New York Times says that there was collusion! There was collusion!” And the New York Times alert said that. But the story didn’t.

And this is the second time they’ve done this, this same exact story. I compared the two. The first occurred last fall, the almost the identical story. And in both stories, there have yet developed any evidence of collusion. So in four months they have not been able to unearth any hard evidence. Even with the help of the Obama shadow government, they have been unable to unearth any hard evidence of collusion. It doesn’t matter. They are reporting that there was “contact” between Trump officials and Russian officials.

Because what’s driving this is the Russians hacked the election working with Trump to steal it from the legitimate, should-have-been winner Hillary Clinton. Another headline: “FBI Probing Russian Intel Contacts with Several Trump Campaign Officials.” And here it is again: “The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that so far they had seen no evidence of such collusion.” You want to hear what comes before this? “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

“The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians,” or just contacting them. “The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.” [HotAir:] “The probe started with the FBI concern over Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta as an attempt to sway the election. So far, though, the investigation can’t even determine if the contacts were about the election at all…” They can’t even tell us that the Trump people talking to the Russians was even about the election, and yet look at the news stories and look at the cable news networks bouncing off this, and look at what you now probably think because of it.

You are being lied to on purpose, and with full-fledged knowledge of the people lying to you, and they’re doing this under the guise of presenting to you news.


RUSH: I want to read to you from the staple story that they ran back in October.  Are you ready?  “For much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign.” This is before the election, folks. This is last October. “Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

“Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, FBI and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.” That’s from last October. They just redid the story this week adding Flynn to it and continuing the lying premise.


RUSH: Now, back to this New York Times story, there’s one more thing in this whole Flynn business, and let me restate something just to provide an umbrella for which the next comments fall. Remember that what is driving all of this, the story about Michael Flynn, the fact that he had to resign, that there’s trouble there, all of this is based on the people that write the news narratives every day — that would be the Democrats and the media — believing and trying to convince as many people as possible that the election was fraudulent, that the election was hacked, that the Russians hacked it, and that Trump worked with them to hack the election, and Trump worked with them to hack Hillary’s emails. And it is on this basis that the attack on Trump is taking place.

The media and the shadow government of Obama, the deep-state bureaucrats want you to believe the election was not on the up and up, that it was rigged because of Russian involvement and we know this, they are telling us, because Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador. Yeah. Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador and that means they had to discuss sanctions, and if they discussed sanctions, that means that Flynn was discussing with the Russians removing Obama’s sanctions, and that means there was collusion, and that means, and that means, and that means, and on and on and on.

So the fact is there’s no evidence and there never has been any evidence for any of that. There is no evidence the Russians had anything to do with votes, either casting them or counting them. There is no evidence the Russians had anything to do with any aspect of the election. There’s none. Nobody’s found it. They’ve looked. The media, the deep state, the intelligence people that are plugged in as holdovers from the Obama administration, they have searched, they have interviewed, they’ve wiretapped, they’ve hacked, they’ve monitored, they’ve looked everywhere they can, and they can’t find any evidence.

And the outrage, the latest outrage is that last night the New York Times sent out a breaking news alert at 9:15 Eastern with a report that their sources had found contact between Trump campaign officials and the Russians during the campaign. This lit up Twitter. It lit up the news everywhere. It lit up the Facebook news feed. It lit up the Kremlin. It lit up everywhere. I looked at it, said, “Damn,” because I knew it was bogus, because they ran the same story back in October.

Sure as shooting, they run their story this morning based on that news alert, and in the third paragraph they admit that their sources have not been able to provide one ounce of evidence showing collusion between Trump and the Russians on the election. Furthermore, they can’t even prove that the contacts between Trump people and the Russians during the campaign were even about the election. It is totally made up. It is full-fledged, 100 percent fake news, including the premise that the election was hacked by the Russians and Hillary should have won.

And it’s on that basis they want everybody to believe that all they’re doing is the honorable thing of correcting a mistake, that Hillary should be president. They may not be able to make that happen, but they can sure get rid of the guy who rigged it. And that would be Trump. That’s what all of this is, and that’s why Flynn is gone, because they were able to make enough noise, to make enough people nervous.

I think it was a mistake to let Flynn go. I think that it was an unnecessary cave, and I think it opens up additional opportunities for other scalps to be sought. I mean, once you give these people one person, they’re not satisfied, as you can see. Well, this is kind of in the weeds, but really not. Within the same framework that I have just described, there have been people who were privy to the phone conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.

The reason is that the NSA was tapping the ambassador’s phone calls, he’s a bad guy, he’s the enemy, and so we legally, FISA court permission, have been monitoring the Russian ambassador’s phone calls. The Russian ambassador knows this. I mean, anyone doing business knows the NSA’s tagging ’em and following them. There’s a transcript of the call that they will not release. The shadow government, the Obama shadow government, the deep state, the intelligence bureaucrats will not release the full transcript of the phone call.

They’re only releasing little bits here and little bits there to make their case. And one of the things the New York Times reported on that they were looking for in this phone call — well, let me just read it to you from the New York Times story. “Obama officials asked the FBI” — that’s who was monitoring the calls, the NSA. FBI see the transcript. “The Obama officials asked the FBI if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.”

Quid pro quo. A quid pro quo, had there been a quid pro quo, then Flynn would be in jail today and Trump would be under impeachment. That’s what they were desperately hoping for. They asked the people who the transcript of the call, “Was there a quid pro quo?” The quid pro quo in this case that they were hoping to hear was an offer from Flynn to lift the sanctions that Obama had placed if the Russians would do something for Trump.

They were desperate for that to be part of the call. They were desperate for Flynn to have done that. The fact that they believed Flynn was that stupid, that Flynn would be that lazy to actually offer the Russians a deal, they were desperately hoping. And the New York Times makes clear here that the deep-state players, the Obama shadow government, were hoping and praying that that’s what Flynn had done. But Flynn didn’t. There was no quid pro quo. Flynn did not offer to lift the sanctions that Obama had just placed.

This phone call, by the way, took place on the day Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats. There was no quid pro quo to bring them back. Flynn did not promise the Russians anything after Trump was inaugurated in exchange for anything. There was no quid pro quo. But leading up to this admission, the news all week has been alluding to a quid pro quo and was there one? Many experts believe there simply had to have been. Experts that we’ve talked to here at the New York Times are assured a quid pro quo was discussed, and Trump lets Flynn go. Wow, there really must have been one! But there wasn’t.

Once again: No evidence Flynn did anything wrong. There’s no evidence that Flynn did anything wrong. They were dying to make this quid pro quo thing stick. They knew they didn’t have one, but they could get the next best thing. They could induce people on Trump’s team to act like they were guilty of a quid pro quo. That’s what all this pressure did! That’s what all of this attention that Trump was gonna, all the pressure from all the Drive-Bys and all of the shadow government people was to make it look like the Trump people were hiding something, and they came along get rid of Flynn, and it furthers the idea there is something to hide, when there’s not. And you know what else?

Remember that BuzzFeed story where there is this “dossier” that was put together on Trump that not one word is true? BuzzFeed released it anyway so the American people could at least see the kind of stuff going on out there. What it really was, was a fake collection of allegations about Trump that the intel people wanted to show him as an example of the kind of bad stuff out there so that he would take a meeting with them. That dossier was totally fake, exposed as fake — everybody knows it — and yet the New York Times is still hanging their hat on it.

“As part of the inquiry, the FBI is also trying to assess credibility of the information contained in a dossier that was given to the Bureau last year by a former British intelligence operative. The dossier contained a raft of allegations…” This was exposed as a fraudulent thing three weeks ago, and here it shows up in the Drive-By Media yesterday as something that’s possibly still legitimate that is still being examined.

It isn’t. It’s done. It was fake to begin with. The people that made it up admitted so. And yet it’s included in a New York Times story yesterday as something that remains possible. Allegations of Trump misconduct and so forth. Folks, this is criminal what is happening here. And it is far, far, far more dangerous to the Constitution and to our country than anything Trump has even contemplated doing. It’s not even close.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This