RUSH: I appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday with Chris Wallace. It was a 12- to 13-minute segment, and I have always suggested to the Fox people, “You know what you really ought to do is have my segment and have it go as it goes and then near the end of the program in your roundtable bring me back for the roundtable to analyze what I said. That has never been done.” And of course they’ve never taken me up on it.You know what I thought I’d do, I thought I’d do it today right here on this program. Play the sound bites that we’ve chosen from my interview with Chris Wallace and then analyze ’em and talk about what was good, what was only so-so, what could have been better, whether or not I disagree with what I said, today. (laughing) Anything can happen. So we’re gonna do that.
Media today, major theme of the program as I started separating things and organizing everything I had put together, there is a sizable media Stack here that we’re going to spend some time on as well as other substantive news. I just want to give you an example of how the media — and I’m long past being mad about this, ’cause it’s just the way they operate and nothing is going to change them. So the way we deal with this is to point out the purposeful mistakes they make — well, if they’re purposeful, they’re not mistakes. The purposeful things they do that occur in editing and in writing.
Now, for example, yesterday, under intense grilling from Chris Wallace on Fox News I made a point. You’ve heard me make it here, but I’m telling you I don’t see the point made on TV so I hope you don’t mind that I was a bit redundant. But I think it’s absurd and preposterous to assert and to believe that the Russians affected voting, that the Russians hacked the election and that meant that they changed the results.
That did not happen and nobody has alleged it, but they want you to think that’s what they mean when they say, “The Russians hacked the election.” The hacking, if there was any, was of computer networks, the RNC and the DNC, and the RNC, the penetration didn’t work. Republicans have a lot of successful condoms on their networks, and the Russians were not able to penetrate. But the Democrats, their security had holes in it, and whoever it was (if it was the Russians) was able to hack. They got Podesta’s emails.
And the media is doing their best — and I, by the way, made it a point of defining “the media” yesterday on this program. Not just everybody. It’s the old monopolists. When I think of Drive-By Media, it’s ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times. Maybe throw USA Today in there. That’s the media. It’s not meant to include everybody, certainly not every blog, not every website. But those are the elements that I mean when I describe media. And the Drive-By media, clearly, in their reporting, want viewers and readers to believe that the Russians determined the results of the election.
That is their mission.
The point that I made yesterday was it was preposterous to assert this. It’s ridiculous and absurd to think that the Russians could do it. And, by the way, folks, nobody has alleged it. And, furthermore — as I also said yesterday — the New York Times has run two stories on this whole thing (one last October, one last week) and they’re essentially propaganda pieces. They’re not news pieces, and in both of these pieces, both these stories — if you read deeply enough — the New York Times clearly states that none of their unnamed sources has any evidence the Russians did anything.
All of this is supposition and conclusion of the nameless analysts, most of them in the deep state, working for Obama and Clinton (their holdovers in there) and those are the people talking to journalists, and that’s why I say the journalists are joined the deep-state Obama operatives in trying to destroy the Trump presidency. I don’t think there’s any doubt that they’re trying to do this. They will deny it left and right, but there’s no doubt they’re trying to do it. Just — and I’ll tell you what: They destroyed Nixon.
And ever since that they’ve been trying to destroy every other Republican president. If not get them out of office, ruin their presidency. Take a look at every one of them! George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Ronaldus Magnus. Now they’re trying it on Trump. They never make one move of this kind toward any Democrat president. They spike news that could harm Democrat presidents. There’s no question about this. The idea, however, that the Russians affected voting? Nobody in the mainstream media is even asserting that. They wouldn’t dare.
So I, on Fox News Sunday, authoritatively confront them on this, and I point out that it’s absurd and preposterous to think so. So here we go to The Politico. The Politico has a little brief story on this, and the headline of The Politico piece is, “Limbaugh Dismisses Russian Influence on Trump’s Election as ‘Preposterous.'” Well, yeah. I guess you could say dismissed it. It’s like kind of like saying “claimed” or “concludes.” But “Limbaugh dismisses,” as though Limbaugh’s out on an island all by himself that’s shrinking because of climate change and Limbaugh’s dismissing this. Now, here’s what they write:
“Rush Limbaugh says he doesn’t buy the notion that Russia influenced the election of President Trump.” Not what I said. It is not what I said. Next paragraph. They quote me: “‘It is preposterous to believe the Russians had any influence on the election,’ the conservative radio talk show said on Fox News Sunday.” It’s not what I said. What I said was the Russians had no effect on the outcome. The Russians had nothing to do with votes. They don’t even mention this in the story. So The Politico is positioning me as a contrarian.
They’re positioning me as saying the Russians didn’t do anything, when I have acknowledged that the Russians hack, the ChiComs hack, we hack. Everybody hacks everybody; it’s part of espionage. I’ve never denied that. What I am authoritatively stating is that the Russians had nothing to do with who won this election. Nothing whatsoever. We’ve even got polling data of voters who said that what was revealed and released in the Podesta emails was interesting but it wasn’t a large factor determining who people voted for. It made for interesting news.
By the way, nobody’s ever denied any of the contents of the Podesta emails. Not a shred of it. Not a word of it’s been denied. But it’s a big leap to say “Limbaugh dismisses Russian influence” and not reference what I’m actually talking about. This is how they do it. So people who didn’t see the interview, read Politico: “Limbaugh Dismisses Russian Influence on Trump’s Election as ‘Preposterous.'” What I said was, what I “dismissed” was that Russia determined the winner. Russia did not determine the winner of the election!
And I’ll tell you, this is important because that is the one thing driving everything else the media’s doing. That one assumption, unstated. The media’s never stated it. They leave it for you to conclude. “Russia hacked the election! Russia influenced the election!” They don’t say the outcome. That’s why I’m challenging them on it ’cause they’re leaving it to conclude. They’re repeating over and over “Russians hacked! Russians influenced!” The Russians did not determine who won the election, but that is what is driving every bit of this.
Because when you say that the outcome of the election — or when you imply the outcome of the election — was determined by the Russians, then you’re halfway home to declare the Trump presidency illegitimate, the result of fraud, the result of cheating. And that then justifies everything else you do to take Trump out. If Trump benefited because the Russians helped him win, if Trump benefited because the Russians made sure Hillary lost, then that alone in the media world justifies everything else they do to destroy Trump.
Because they think they’re preserving democracy. No. ‘Cause all this is a joke. They know this isn’t true. This is the insulting part of this. They know they’re making it up. They know they’re extrapolating. They know exactly what they’re doing. They are misleading. They are using misdirection. They’re using assumption. They’re using nameless sources that supposedly are authoritative in their own right because they come from “intelligence community sources” and so forth and so on. But, you see, if Trump is not a illegitimate winner?
Well, then his presidency is not legitimate, and therefore his agenda is not legitimate, and therefore his agenda ought not sail through. And therefore none of what he wants to do should happen because he wasn’t really elected. And that’s the foundation for everything else they’re doing. It is the justification for everything else they’re doing. The attacks on Trump, the attacks on Trump’s supporters, the attacks on Trump’s cabinet, the attacks here, the delay of Trump’s cabinet. Everything! Everything that’s being done to stymie and stop trump is taking place top of the foundation that it’s all necessary ’cause Trump shouldn’t have even been elected.
And that’s the great unspoken thing that is providing the fuel for every other assertion of scandal or incompetence or what have you. And that is why I tried to make a big deal out of it yesterday. And the fact that the media here — at least The Politico — did not even quote me accurately, I think makes my point and the fact I haven’t seen anybody else in the media when they’ve reported on this quote me accurately, either. And, by the way. I’m not complaining. Don’t… I’m not whining. I’m informing you.
This is all part of the class on how to understand and analyze the media, and it is a classic teachable moment. Because if you take away the idea, if you take away the belief, if you take away the assumption, take away the conclusion — if you eliminate the fact that Trump’s election was illegitimate, that Trump’s victory shouldn’t have happened; it was fraudulent — if you take that away, then the basis on which the media does nothing but attack and try to destroy Trump is taken away.
This (that the Russians influenced the election), meaning the Russians determined that Hillary lost, that justifies whatever they need to do to get rid of Trump. And sure as shooting here comes old Carl Bernstein, the father of the reporter who called Melania Trump a hooker, is now saying that this guy’s worse than Nixon. Trump’s worse than Nixon. See, Watergate is it to these people. Watergate’s why half the journalism business went into the business. “Wow, you mean as a journalistic destroy Republican presidents? Where do I go sign up?”
That became, in the modern era, one of the things that good journalism becomes known for: taking Republican presidents out. And it has been attempted. Now, ever since 1988 when this program came along and the media had their monopoly blown up, they have been on a mission to prove that they still have the juice that they had when they were a monopoly. They’re on a mission to prove they can still bend and shape public opinion and make it as easily as they did when they were a monopoly.
And that has led and created this partisanship and this partisan divide that exists out there with the media now an active political player.
RUSH: Here’s Steve in Pinehurst, North Carolina. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hey! Hi, Rush. How you doing? Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet. Great to have you here.
CALLER: That last call I had a lump in my throat. God bless that woman.
RUSH: Isn’t it amazing?
CALLER: And thank you. You’re quite a role model to help her out like that. My question to you, Rush, was basically going back to the Russians “hacking” the election — and I get confused on that. If the Russians wanted to hack the election, why did Hillary won the popular vote? I just don’t understand that. If they’re gonna hack something, they’re gonna hack it all the way and completely wipe the slight clean and just take the whole win. Why would they let partial victory?
RUSH: In fact, I made that very point in a slightly different way. I made it yesterday on TV and I’ve made it here too. I pointed out that if the Russians wanted Trump to win and the Russians were hacking the election, then why did Hillary win the popular vote? If the Russians hacked the election and Hillary got more votes than Trump, why doesn’t everybody run around claiming that the Russian hack succeeded? Because it comes to the Electoral College there’s no way to hack that. The Electoral College and knowing what states are gonna be needed and what candidate’s gonna need which states and to go out and…?
That’s why I say this whole thing and what your question is illustrate, it’s impossible. It would be impossible to… You couldn’t even hack the machines. The machines are not connected to the internet! But even if you did that, there is no way that anybody could — hack” is the word here, but — sabotage the outcome of casting and counting ballots in all of these different states that are relevant. The idea! That’s why I say it’s preposterous. It’s beyond preposterous. It is insane to believe that a foreign government could actually, by virtue of technoespionage tamper with the casting and counting of ballots.
And that’s why nobody is alleging that that’s what’s happened. That’s why they’re using a linguistic ruse. They’re saying Russians “hacked” the election; Russians “tampered” with the election. They want you to fill in the blank. They want you to think that means the Russians didn’t want Hillary to win. They want you to believe that Trump’s election is fraudulent and illegitimate — and that, again, is the founding for every other attack that comes after that. Every assault on Trump’s agenda is justified by the fact the Russians tampered with the election.
“Russians tampered with the election” is translated into “Trump should not have won.” That’s the conclusion they want you to draw. If the Russians tampered with the election and everybody’s unhappy with the outcome, it must mean everybody wanted Hillary to win and everybody expected Hillary to win, and the polls said that Hillary was gonna win and then all of a sudden Trump wins and sizably. So here comes the story: Russians tampered.
We got two New York Times stories quoting unnamed sources confirming that the Russians tampered with the election. But they never say the Russians had anything to do with votes, casting ’em or confounding them. They want you to fill in that blank. And if they can sell that, then they can sell as justified and worthwhile every other assault on what Trump wants to do because he shouldn’t be the one doing it. Therefore it’s unjustified — illegal, even maybe — and unwarranted.
RUSH: I did not say it’s not possible to steal elections. I said that you couldn’t do it by hacking. You can’t hack the counting process. You can’t hack with computers the voting process. You can certainly steal elections. Talk to Al Franken about it. Find votes in the trunk all of car. That’s not what they’re alleging with the Russians.