RUSH: Kate in Carson City, Nebraska. Great to have you on the program. Is that right, Nebraska?
CALLER: No, Carson City, Nevada.
RUSH: Yeah, I thought it was Nevada.
CALLER: I actually came from Fairfield (unintelligible) now it’s Carson City.
RUSH: I didn’t think there was a Carson City in Nebraska. Carson City is where the Cartwright clan was in Bonanza.
CALLER: Yeah. (chuckling) Not to my knowledge. Not in Nebraska. Hey, Rush. You pretty much stole my thunder. But I’ve been a student of yours for 31 years, and as soon as I heard Evelyn Farkas say, basically, “Don’t worry. Even if he is elected, he’ll be impeached or someone else will have to take over the government” (and who the hell knows what that means) I thought to myself, “Well, now, how is she so confident of that?” And then I thought, “Well, she’s so confident of that because she knows all of the intelligence gathering that’s happening on the Trump administration. She knows what the plan is. She knows they’re gonna push this Russian involvement in our election and she believes that they’re gonna get away with it and that they’re gonna be able to accuse the Trump team of some kind of collusion and they’re gonna be able to take him out. She knew all this in October, 2016.
RUSH: Sure as hell sounded like that to me. Now, also, let me add this. In October, before the election… I went and looked this up. I wanted to make sure. You know, I have a very fertile and fine memory. But even I need to back-check myself at times, and I found I’m right about this. October is when the New York Times first published its claim that there was longtime contacts, collusion, between Trump aides and the Russians. That was also the time that Hillary and Harry Reid both said there was evidence of collusion. So Farkas had to be tied into all that. Remember, she was working for Hillary at the time! Hillary had left the Obama administration Pentagon; she was working on the Hillary campaign. So your instincts are even more confirmed with this, in terms of what she would know.
CALLER: Well, and they said it to the New York Times. I mean, the whole thing has been — and they have such chutzpah to think that they could get away with this. But the reason they thought they could get away with it, Rush, was because they forgot they were dealing with Donald J. Trump. They weren’t dealing with any regular politician, and they weren’t dealing with a Republican who was gonna fold, who was gonna run away, who was gonna go find his own safe space and let them win. They’re dealing with a street fighter who’s not gonna let them win.
RUSH: Right. Hang on just a second. That inspires a question. Do you believe that the New York Times and the Democrat-media complex back in October and November when they start this campaign…? Do you think that they all thought they would have gotten rid of Trump by now?
CALLER: I think they thought they’d get rid of him by probably, I want to say, this summer. Summer of 2017, they figure he’s gone.
RUSH: So you don’t think they’re surprised yet that he’s still hanging on?
CALLER: No, not yet. Not yet. But they’re surprised that it’s not going as well as they thought it would go.
RUSH: And so what does Evelyn Farkas mean when she says “pretty quickly”? When she says, “If Donald Trump is elected, I believe he’d be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government.”
CALLER: Right. She’s talking maybe six months, and six months would be summer of 2017.
RUSH: Do you know this ’cause that’s a woman thing in terms of being able to estimate time?
CALLER: Pretty soon? Hmmm.
RUSH: “Pretty quickly,” yeah.
CALLER: Yeah, “pretty quickly.” Yeah, well, when I say, “Pretty quickly I’m gonna buy new furniture,” that’s a couple days, but that’s a different thing. I think “pretty quickly” was her way of hedging it because they weren’t sure exactly what was going to happen.
RUSH: Okay. Let me ask you this, since you have a shrewd mind. Do you think that the Democrat-media complex is feeling alarmed that maybe this campaign to get rid of Trump isn’t working as well as they had planned?
CALLER: They’re very alarmed and they’re very surprised. But, again, it’s all because they’re dealing with Trump.
RUSH: Well, how does that square with the fact that…?
CALLER: They’ve been at this since 2016 and they haven’t been able to take him out.
RUSH: How does that square with the fact that they gave themselves until midsummer to get rid of him?
CALLER: (chuckles) Well, because they thought they could get rid of him the way they’d get rid of any other regular Republican politician.
RUSH: Well, wait a minute. The way they do that is to mostly force them to resign.
RUSH: Trump’s not gonna quit.
RUSH: You think that’s what they were angling for, Trump to resign? In what? Disgrace, out of guilt?
CALLER: Probably out of frustration. Probably out of frustration.
RUSH: You think they really thought they could do that? See, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you. I think all these… They’ve got this pipe dream that Trump’s gonna go. They’re not —
RUSH: I mean, if they’re not… (sigh) I don’t think they know how. It’s just a belief they have, almost like a religious-faith belief that Trump can’t last, that Trump’s gonna go.
RUSH: Interesting. Well, look, I’m glad you called, Kate. Thanks much.
CALLER: Thank you.
RUSH: The Evelyn Farkas… This woman’s a gold mine. I mean, this woman is divulging… Every time she opens her mouth, she’s giving the game away. “Well, don’t worry about it, you people here at the Warsaw Defense Council. Even if this guy does win…” So that means they’re open to the possibility he can win, which I think is true. I think all this stuff that he didn’t have a chance and that Hillary was gonna win in a landslide? I think they were going through mixed emotions.
Their intellect, their head and their polling data was telling them that it’s just gonna be a slam dunk. But their hearts were looking at all the Trump rally crowds and the fact that Hillary couldn’t duplicate any of that, and Hillary stumbles and nearly slips to the curb trying to get in a giant Mercedes van. All these things that gave them pause and doubt. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign? She wasn’t going to states they thought were a lock. So they were conflicted. But at the end of it all, even on election night, I think they still believe they’re gonna win in a landslide.
But Evelyn Farkas is admitting that there was some doubt about it and that they were already planning for the eventuality that Trump won. I don’t think… Folks, none of this is a revealing shock per se. We’ve witnessed it. We have watched it take place. It’s just that they’re confirming it for us. The Susan Rice news. The Evelyn Farkas divulgences. I mean, we are having all of this stuff confirmed for us every day by the media and the Democrat Party’s behavior in and of itself.
Mark in Fort Worth, Texas, you’re next, and it’s great to have you. How are you?
CALLER: I’m great, Rush. Dittos from the great state. Playing off something that you mentioned in the first hour when you said that the New York Times has had this story for at least the last 48 hours if not longer. It tells me something that I think is really important, and that’s something that’s not going on. If they’ve had this news for that long and there’s still no coordinated response, no coordinated talking points, no narrative that’s been constructed to rebuff all of this? That means they know it’s true and they really don’t have any way to argue back against it. One of the reasons that they love being so intertwined between the party and the media is everybody gets a heads up so that everybody can create the narrative so they’ve got a unified response.
RUSH: You know, this is an interesting observation. There is no media chorus. In other words, nobody, there is no phrase —
CALLER: There’s not a narrative.
CALLER: There’s not a narrative.
RUSH: There’s not a narrative. There’s not a phrase. There’s not a word that everybody in the media’s using to describe this as there is for everything, “Oh, that looks bad. Oh, Cheney has gravitas.” These media montages we put together that display the coordination, there is no coordination here on the, quote, unquote, defense of Susan Rice. About all we’re getting is from CNN, “Don’t even watch it! Don’t even pay attention to it! It’s a distraction! Trump colluded with the Russians, and this is a distraction. We’re not even gonna report it.” They’re not seeking to defend her.
RUSH: That’s your point.
RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. Great call.
CALLER: And that’s also one of the reasons that Nunes went straight to the White House instead of sharing that information with Pencil Neck. Because if he shares that information with Pencil Neck, they’ve got the information they need to create a narrative and to respond to it.
CALLER: So he goes straight to the White House.
RUSH: But Pencil Neck saw it Friday. Pencil Neck went up there and saw it. In the middle of last week, Pencil Neck finally couldn’t contain himself, is out there claiming that there is proof of a collusion between the Russians and Trump. He couldn’t help himself. Then he went up and saw it on Friday, what Nunes saw, goes on the Sunday shows and has to walk it back, saying (paraphrasing), “We still don’t have any definitive evidence or proof. We need to keep investigating.”
They have nothing, because there isn’t anything. How long has this been going on? This has been going on at least a year, according to the news on Susan Rice, that the surveillance of people by the Regime hoping to Hoover up Trump officials in that intelligence, that’s a yearlong operation. And the best they’ve got is a phony dossier claiming that Trump hired a bunch of prostitutes to urinate on Michelle and Barack’s bed at a Moscow hotel. That’s it! And that thing’s made up.
You would think after a year, if they had collusion evidence, that we would know about it. They would not have been able to withhold it and contain themselves. There isn’t any evidence. That’s why this is all getting out of hand, folks. I know, I know, every time I embark on the discussion of a theory of how anything like this is gonna come back and bite the media, I hear from you. I hear from you. You send me email, “You’re forgetting what you tell us! You always tell us they always win. You always tell us it’s never gonna change. And then here you are thinking that they’re damaging themselves.”
And I do, folks. I do think they’re damaging themselves. CNN doesn’t have any audience, for example. But I think in the long-term big scheme of things they are damaging themselves. How that’s gonna end up manifesting itself, I can’t begin to tell you. But these are little things that collectively add up, such as something I mentioned previously. Every year until the last two years the Democrats loved the Russians, and they loved the Soviet Union, and they loved the KGB, and they loved the instruments of authoritarian power wherever they found it around the world.
Now they hate the Russians. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe they’ve actually turned into us on the Russians. Do you? We’re supposed to sit here and believe that they have become anti-communist, anti-authoritarian, anti-Russian, after decades and decades of being pro all of that? When Julian Assange first surfaced and began leaking the Edward Snowden stuff, they loved Assange and they loved Snowden because he was betraying authoritarian governments, although there was Obama. Now they’re embracing all these people that they used to despise and dislike.
This whole story is causing them to do 180-degree shifts of loyalty. And that’s what I mean by discombobulated, because the sole focus they have been consumed with — they’re a big hate group now, and they’ve been consumed with their hatred for Trump, consumed with their hatred for the American people who voted for Trump, consumed with their hatred for open elections, consumed by their hatred of the fact they can’t get rid of Trump.
Folks, the only thing I’m telling you is, in terms of humanity, that you do not build good, positive, growing movements from a foundation or platform of hate. And they are consumed by it now. They are ravaged by it, and they have become completely irrational to the point of even openly acknowledging the abandonment of the sacred principles of journalism in order to stop Donald Trump.
RUSH: All right. Here is Al in Orleans, Massachusetts. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call, Rush. I have a theory. It’s a little bit different, which is that this is ordered from the president of the United States based on a personal vendetta for the birther conspiracy, and it goes like this. Mr. Obama, President Obama did not think that Trump was going to win, so they wanted to find evidence of corruption in his business practices or anywhere so they could have a show trial after the election when Hillary wins to make sure that nobody ever challenges the deep state establishment ever again like Trump did and make an example out of him. And that they had no concept of him winning and Rice was preparing transcripts of the phone calls and everything for presentations to the president and his staff.
RUSH: Wow. Show trial of Trump after he loses to dissuade any upstart outsider from even thinking about trying it again. And that Susan Rice was preparing the transcript — (laughing) Well, there’s no way of knowing that. I can see if you have a certain impression of Obama that such a thing would happen. I have a different theory about one aspect of what you said. I’ve been going back and forth on what I really think about what they really thought, the days leading up to the election and election night.
Now, I know I have said that even as late as nine p.m. on election night, they still thought they were gonna win in a landslide. I think that that’s true of media people. They were doing the polls. The Clinton campaign was feeding them the drivel that all was looking good. But I think if you look closely, that you could find evidence that they, the Clinton campaign, knew she was gonna lose. I think Evelyn Farkas has given it away here with that bite we just found from last October.
Why even be contemplating about getting rid of Trump? If you really think you’re gonna win here in a landslide, what in the world are you even thinking about getting rid of Trump for, after he’s elected? Didn’t they cancel celebratory fireworks or something? The fireworks on election night, they cancelled that two days before the election. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think the Hillary camp knew. So a lot of this outrage has had to be manufactured to make it look like they thought they were a slam dunk and had it stolen from them.