The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




RUSH: Let’s do some audio. Let’s not get too far behind here in the story so I don’t have to double back too much. Where we’ve left off here is that Susan Rice — by the way, CNN is now saying that she’s denying having done any of this. And that is the general accepted way. You’re caught cheating, you’re caught breaking the law, just deny it, and that’s what Susan Rice is now doing. Denying that she unmasked, denying any of this is true. CNN remains dedicated to protecting her and the Obama administration on this in an unseemly, unsightly display.

Whatever CNN is, I mean, it’s a laugh that they even describe themselves as journalists or being involved in news. That’s not what they are. Now, they can be whatever they want to be. They can do whatever they want to do. It’s the misrepresentation of who they are to everybody else that is giving them problems. There’s so many people on the left and in the Democrat Party that are descending so deeply into this that they’re gonna reach an abyss where returning from it is gonna be a problem. These agencies, these news organizations need more than just the low-information and lunatic Democrat base in order to survive.

So Joe diGenova has confirmed that Susan Rice ordered spreadsheets of Trump campaign calls, unmasked Trump individuals in those calls. And again, folks, it’s very important to remember, the White House does not investigate. They don’t do investigations. They order them. You know, Trump orders an investigation into this or Obama orders an investigation, but investigating collusion between, say, a presidential campaign and a foreign government, the White House doesn’t investigate that. The FBI does, the CIA does, the NSA.

The White House can order it. The White House is not officially charged with investigating anything. Yet Susan Rice is doing just that. She cannot even legally request the unmasking. She has to ask the investigating agencies to do that. She can’t do it herself. She can’t order it done, to be more precise. She can ask for it be done, but she can’t command that it be done. So if any unmasking is relevant to, say, this investigation of collusion between Trump and Russia, then it would have to be done by either the FBI, the CIA, or the NSA.

And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in foreign surveillance efforts, then the agencies that collect the information and do the investigations would have unmasked it because they are the agencies who collect and refine intelligence products for the rest of the intelligence community. In other words, as Comey pointed out, Susan Rice, Obama, the White House, they’re consumers of the work the intelligence agency does.

The intelligence agencies and the FBI conduct the investigations, they do the analysis, they assemble reports, they submit this. The president’s daily brief is an example, any number of other examples, and then the executive branch and anybody authorized to see it are then the consumers.

The data is the product. The rest of the intelligence community then sees it, and they are responsible for any unmasking. They do it under minimization standards that James Comey described as obsessive in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans. And that’s what this is really about in one sense. Susan Rice cannot just randomly ask and demand that anybody she wants to know about be unmasked. The intelligence agencies, the investigatory agencies do that, and they must, as Comey admitted in testimony, they are very obsessive about this. Because they are focused on protecting the identity and privacy of Americans who were not being surveilled and who are not guilty of everything.

So the bottom line is this: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. The important thing here is the investigation does not require Susan Rice needing people unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities of Americans caught up incidentally in this surveillance, the unmasking would have been done by the FBI, the CIA, or the NSA. But there is no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask.

And the point that I’m making is since she did it, there’s no official intelligence or, therefore, understandable or legal need. She was engaging in the politics of all this by requesting those names. By requesting those names and obtaining those names, she has them now as a political operator and is — well, I don’t know if you could say free to disseminate, but clearly that’s what she wanted to be able to do. She’s the national security adviser. She’s not an investigator. She’s a staffer in the White House and as such, she is a consumer of intelligence. She does not generate it. She does not collect it.

If she was unmasking Americans it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests. It was to fulfill a political desire based on Democrat Party interests. And that’s why the media’s trying to cover this up, because those objectives are theirs as well. In other words, there was no intelligence need for Susan Rice to know these names to further the understanding and knowledge of whatever is being investigated.

She was not needed; she was not necessary for it; she’s not required; she’s a consumer, not a generator. If she wanted Americans unmasked, it was because of a political desire based on Democrat Party interests.

To the audio sound bites we go. We’re gonna start here with Susan Rice back on NewsHour on PBS. This is March 22nd with Judy Woodruff, who ask her the following question: “House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said today that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration. What do you know about that?”

RICE: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today. Let’s back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign. Nothing of the sort occurred, and we’ve heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI who also pointed out that no president, no White House can order the surveillance of another American citizen. That can only come from the Justice Department with the approval of a FISA court. So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring.

RUSH: Well, but she did. She most certainly did. “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.” She’s surprised that she’s been caught. She’s surprised that she’s been found out. You wait. It isn’t gonna be long before all of a sudden somebody did a video that’s causing this to happen. That excuse worked for them once before.

Same show, PBS NewsHour March 22nd. Next question from Judy Woodruff: “As you also know, in the last few weeks the New York Times has reported that in the final days of the Obama administration, individuals went out of their way to spread information throughout the government about what they knew about intelligence that the Russians had interfered in the election last year, and that there may have been a connection with Trump campaign officials. So, that story has now been out there for several weeks. Could there be a connection here?”

RICE: I’m not aware of any connection. I must say, Judy, as one of the most senior White House officials and the most senior responsible for national security, I found that report a bit perplexing. I was not aware of any orders given to disseminate that kind of information. So I have no idea whether that was the case. But the fact is that the president did request back in December that the intelligence community compile all of the information that it had on what had transpired during the campaign with respect to the Russians.

WOODRUFF: And was there a concern, though, inside the Obama administration, inside the White House, that the new Trump administration might not follow up on that intelligence that had been gathered?

RICE: I don’t think that was the concern.

RUSH: I don’t think that was the concern. Well, that’s not what Evelyn Farkas said. I mean, this thing is so jam-packed. “I have no idea whether that was the case. But the fact is that the president did request back in December that the intelligence community compile all of the information that it had.”

Not only that, the Obama administration ordered that it be shared with 16 additional intelligence agencies to make sure somebody would leak it. They were leaving nothing to chance. Judy Woodruff says, “Well, was there concern that the Trump administration, if they got hold of the information that was learned, would bury it, would hide it, would destroy it?” (imitating Rice) “I don’t think that was the concern.” Really? Let’s go back and revisit Evelyn Farkas on MSNBC on March the 2nd. Remember what she said about all of this intelligence.

FARKAS: I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill. It was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people: “Get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.” Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left.

So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those the sources and methods. Meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill. That’s why you have the leaking.

RUSH: Yeah. So here’s Farkas. She comes along and admits that all of this was going on, that the intelligence was being gathered, that it was being protected, that it was being procured, that it was being disseminated, that it was being gathered and organized and all that. And she admits they were afraid that it would get buried with the new regime. That’s why there was the leaking! Susan Rice says (singing), “My mind is Jell-O, Jell-O, Jell-O.”

She’s doing her own version of Pretty in Pink today with Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington. She sat for an interview with Andrea Mitchell on PMSNBC. (sputtering) “I — I don’t know! I — I — I didn’t do it! I don’t know about it. I don’t know what this is about.” Well, old Evelyn Farkas has spilled the beans of what all it was about. Let’s replay this, ’cause this is Evelyn Farkas back in October, two weeks before the election, she’s in Warsaw, Poland, at the Warsaw Security Forum.

FARKAS: Even if we have the wrong result from my perspective, America is resilient. We have a lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherently their argument. They’ve given us examples of all of our horrible presidents (snickers) in the past and the fact that we’ve endured, and we do have a strong system of checks and balances — and actually, if Donald Trump were elected, I believe he’d be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I’m not even joking.

RUSH: Two weeks before the election. What is she thinking about here? What’s she’s talking about? What…? It’s clear that… I mean, this is somebody in the Obama administration over at the Pentagon. She’s assistant secretary of defense for some such thing. And two weeks before the election, she’s acknowledging Trump could win. And they’re comforting themselves by telling themselves how many previously rotten presidents we’ve survived. And Trump’s just gonna be another. But! But! “But,” she says, “if Donald Trump were elected, I believe would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government.”

Well, how would that happen? How does somebody just “take over government”? You know, I said yesterday — and I really believe this — I think this collection of lunatics comprised of the Democrat-media complex and their insane base voters and donors, are harboring a generic belief that Trump is going to go. That this is temporary. That this is not even real. It’s of nightmare status and eventually Trump’s gonna go. It’s just gonna happen. They can’t tell you how. They can’t tell you when. They just know in their hearts (sobbing), “Gosh, this can’t be. This can’t go on! This can’t remain. This can’t…”

They know he’s gonna go. Just like when you’re waiting on news that could go either way and you have no indication. You try to be positive. You try to tell yourself it’s gonna be okay. You don’t have any basis for it. You’re just trying to cop an attitude, be optimistic, hoping you’re influencing things, not jinxing things. This is what these people are doing. “I know he’s gonna go! I know we’re gonna get rid of him. “He’s gonna be impeached or…”

What did she say? “[S]omebody else would have to take over government, and I’m not even joking.” How would that happen? If she’s ruling out impeachment, how would that happen? So clearly, they’re all thinking about this, before the election. They knew their candidate was a dryball. They knew their candidate was a deadbeat. They knew Trump was exciting people out there, and they knew Hillary was boring people.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I just caught a little bit of what Susan Rice said to Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, and she said that “unmasking is not the same as leaking.” But Andrea Mitchell didn’t ask her that. Nobody’s asked her that! “Well, you know, unmasking is not the same thing as leaking.” Wait a minute. Why are you even talking about leaking? The news is that you unmasked these people! “Well, that’s not the same as leaking.” Well, what…? You mean somebody’s leaking and you didn’t? This is really, really odd, ladies and gentlemen.

I mean, it indicates, I think… You know, they get together. She’s obviously huddled with people before this appearance with Andrea Mitchell, and obviously it’s the leaking that bothers them because that’s what she denies when that wasn’t part of anybody’s question. Also about Evelyn Farkas back in October, two weeks before the election… We’ve played the sound bite twice. Evelyn Farkas is not being speculative here. She’s being very declarative. She` seems very certain about Trump being removed from office.

Again, she said, “If Donald Trump were elected, I believe he’d be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government, and I’m not even joking.” Two weeks before the election, Evelyn Farkas is trying to reassure people, “Don’t worry! Even if the guy gets elected, I don’t think he’s gonna be president long.” That means, to me, says that she’s privy to a plan. What could she be talking about here? It’s almost like she knows that there’s information out there that would destroy Trump.

Like the intel — quote, unquote — about Russian collusion or maybe this phony dossier. And Susan Rice? Why was she making spreadsheets out of the unmasked names if she wasn’t preparing it to be leaked? I mean, what was the…? I mean, these people are about to leave office when all this is happening. I think that’s the key. You combine Rice with Evelyn Farkas. Evelyn Farkas is very, very concerned that all this intel is not gonna be properly preserved, the intel on collusion between Trump and the Russians, for which there isn’t any evidence.

Folks, to this day there isn’t any evidence of that collusion. There isn’t any evidence the Russians tampered with the election. The only evidence we have of tampering with the election is the United States government tampering with it, when you get right down to it. Not the Russians. There’s no evidence of anything. But here’s Evelyn Farkas talking about (paraphrased), “Oh, yeah, we had to preserve that stuff because who knows what the Trump people would do with it. They might sit on it. They might be bigger it. But…” That’s why you have the leaking! She knew a lot back in October. They all did. Don’t doubt me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Now, look, I said I was gonna move on, and I’m gonna move on.  But some things have happened here during the break that I have to weigh in on.  Number one, Snerdley, the Official Program Observer, made an observation to me. He said, “You know what?  If I don’t listen to your show, and I don’t know any of this backstory, I look at Susan Rice on MSNBC and I believe her.  I believe her!  She seems like she’s telling the truth.”  Yeah.  I can see that, I guess.

I want to go back to this Rice denial.  She did not deny… When she’s talking to Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, she did not deny requesting the unmasking of these Trump people.  And she used the term “U.S. officials” instead of “Americans.”  Now, I don’t think that’s… I don’t think… I think there may be… “U.S. officials” is different than “Americans.”  In her world, “U.S. officials” means something.  (impression) “Why, we wanted to find out what U.S. officials were being surveilled.”

But essentially, she denied requesting the unmasking, and she said it was just routine.  She said she didn’t leak any of it.  But then we have Judy Woodruff, and we just played the sound bite. She said she didn’t know even about the unmasking.  So, Mr. Snerdley, I don’t care how believable she looks. She isn’t.  This is a woman that lied five different times on five different Sunday shows about Benghazi, claiming it was this video guy that caused the riots there that led to the deaths at Benghazi.  She knowingly lied. They chose her probably because she is believable when she lies, second only to Clinton and Obama themselves.

So you have her on (I think it was March 22nd) with Judy Woodruff on PBS denying any knowledge of this.  Now she contradicts that but wants to focus on the leaking, that she didn’t do any of the leaking of this information.  Well, I don’t… So what? She may not be the one to do the leaking in the first place.  She may have provided the information to others in the Obama intel… Look, this is a swamp, folks.  The Obama administration is a swamp.  And you’ve got all kinds of reptilian types in there. They’re swimming around in there, slithering around in there.

She wouldn’t necessarily be the one to leak it. (stammering) “I — I — I — I — I didn’t leak anything.”  So now CNN’s focus… (laughing) CNN’s got a story that the White House is trying to conflate unmasking and leaking.  So now there’s some coordination going on because Rice says, “I — I — I — I — I didn’t know anything about the unmasking back on March 22nd.”  Today she admits it but says, “No big deal! I didn’t leak it.”  Now Pencil Neck is out there saying that the White House is trying to say that unmasking and leaking are the same thing, and the White House is not saying that.

The White House isn’t saying much of anything about this.  This is the vaunted right-wing media complex that’s making a big deal out of this because the mainstream media won’t.  We’re not conflating leaking with unmasking.  We know the leaking happened.  The unmasking was probably done to provide the leakers with the names they could provide to the media.  I have no doubt the Obama administration’s involved in this.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This