The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




RUSH: But here is Stewart in Clover, South Carolina, with a different take on it. What say you, Stewart?

CALLER: (silence)

RUSH: Stewart, are you there?

CALLER: Yep. Yes. I’m here. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet. What’s your theory on this?

CALLER: Well, my first reaction was what everybody else is thinking, too, like, “Oh, my gosh, he recused himself!” But like you just said, if they stay there and they come to the conclusion — the inevitable conclusion — that there’s nothing there to this Russia probe, they’re gonna scream and cry and say it was tainted and all that. But what people are doing, making the mistake of doing is combining the Russia probe with the surveillance scandal. Every other Republican on that committee should do the same thing that Nunes just did and recuse themselves.

Say, “Fine, Democrats. If you want to keep pushing this…” We know that they’ve been surveilled for a year now. Whether or not the White House and Susan Rice wants to admit that they were targeting the Trump team or whatever, we know that they were listening to ’em. If after all that, they still don’t have any proof of any collusion, it’s a futile effort. It’s the Russian probe to nowhere. We should all do… They should is all do the same thing, say, “I’m gonna recuse myself. This is going nowhere. We’re gonna start an investigation into the real scandal,” and start by sending a subpoena Susan Rice.

RUSH: All right. Okay. I hear you. So Stewart’s theory is: This Russian thing, there’s nothing there. There is no collusion. There isn’t any evidence. Nobody’s ever found any evidence! There clearly was no way the Russians tampered with the vote. So this is going nowhere and it’s taken a long time to get there. The real scandal is the Obama administration spying on the Trump people for a year. That’s what needs to be focused on. That’s the investigation everybody needs to go after. So Stewart saying, “Get rid of Nunes? Fine. There’s nothing there anyway. This is a distraction.

“We need to focus on the Obama administration spying of the Trump campaign, which we know happened.” And I very much admire and appreciate that thinking. Because the news continues to mount on this side that what was heretofore thought to be just not possible. “Are you kidding?” said the media. “Our beloved, godlike Obama spying on anybody? Why, that would never happen! And how dare you attempt to impugn our godlike president by saying that he would stoop to such thing!” Except that we know he has. He spied on Angela Merkel. Obama was spying on members…

When I say, “Obama,” the Obama administration. They were spying on members of Congress. Members of Congress know it! There was surveillance of Israelis during an election campaign there. This is something that we know the Obama administration routinely did. And to now all of a sudden expect that it’s not possible, that these allegations are something not being explained. It’s entirely. This is how Obama won elections was by forcing private, classified, off-limits data — sealed court documents — to be released about his opponents, their divorce records and so forth. That investigation is just ramping up, and there is all kinds of effort to stonewall it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I want to go back to our caller who suggested that this Russian investigation is gonna go nowhere because there’s nothing there and what really ought to be focused on is the Obama administration spying, that that’s what really needs to be investigated. Anything that interrupts the Russian investigation — according to our caller named Stewart — is a good thing. “Fox News Reports Intelligence Community ‘Stonewalling’ Investigation Into Obama Administration Leaks About Trump.”

The story’s from the Daily Wire, but they’re reporting what happened at Fox. “According to Fox News, legislators and investigators working with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees investigating allegations the [Regime] spied on Trump associates, claim intelligence agencies are stonewalling efforts to discover who leaked names and protected information to the media. Fox News reported, ‘Multiple lawmakers and investigators for the panel told Fox News the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency … are not cooperating'” with the investigation.

It wouldn’t surprise me. There’s a bunch of Obama holdovers there. This is the now famous “deep state” that everybody talks about. “‘Our requests are simply not being answered,’ said one House Intelligence committee source about the lack of responsiveness.” CIA, FBI, NSA. “‘The agencies are not really helping at all and there is truly a massive web for us to try and wade through.’ A Senate Intelligence Committee source said the upper chamber had the same experience. ‘Any information that will help find the wide extent on the unmasking and surveillance is purposely not being provided,’ said the Senate source.”

So Obama Regime officials are stonewalling. They’re not participating. They’re continuing to leak, and they’re continuing to do the unmasking and reporting, but they’re not cooperating. New York Times. Maggie Haberman of the Democrat National Committee and Matthew Rosenberg: “Trump, Citing No Evidence, Suggests Susan Rice Committed Crime.” That’s another way it’s done: “Trump, Citing No Evidence…” CNN runs graphics like that all the time. “Trump, despite no evidence claims such-and-such had Cheerios for breakfast,” or whatever it is.

They always throw in “despite having no evidence.” Well, excuse me, but isn’t it the New York Times that has had no evidence for every allegation they’ve been making about Trump and Russia? Excuse me, but isn’t that the case, is that every single story that they have run on this featuring leaks from deep in the intelligence community? Has not every story said, “But so far there is no clear evidence suggesting a link”? All we have is the leaking and all we have is the supposition and the speculation. No evidence.

So couldn’t you say — and be accurate in doing so — that every New York Times article cites no evidence when they report what they report? So Trump has thrown another grenade, and I just want to remind you: When Trump throws these grenades, as frustrated as people get — even Trump supporters. As time passes, Trump ends up being much more right than he is wrong, such as when he lobbed that mortar into the Democrats about Obama tapping his wires at Trump Tower.

Remember, they had a fit over that, and as time passed… Now, everybody’s acknowledging that the Obama administration was indeed spying, that there was “incidental capture” of Americans, and those Americans were unmasked. Everybody’s admitting this now. The only question is who did it. Susan Rice is denying it for political purposes. She’s admitting it happened but, no, not for political purpose, which is a big laugh. So Trump was right. Now he’s out there saying Susan Rice may have committed a crime.

This is kind of a push-back Democrats are not accustomed to, nor is the media. Now, Catherine Herridge at Fox News has what I consider to be even more blockbuster news about this. The unmasking of Republicans — Trump people — incidentally captured when foreign objects were being surveilled? Apparently, the information that has been collected on these Republicans is massive and detailed about things in their everyday lives. Peter King, Republican congressman from New York — he’s on the House Intelligence Committee — said that he’s seen some of this.

He said, “This information is about their everyday lives. It’s sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired and investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night. Then you try to piece it together later on.” Another pull quote from the story: “While not commenting on the individual case, a former senior intelligence official explained the request must be approved by the NSA. Rice would have understood that there is an extensive government paper trail…”

I mean, we’re not just talking about the transcripts of phone calls. Once these people are unmasked, a full-fledged investigation of them begins. What Susan Rice has ended up seeing is detailed! I’ll put it a different way: She is seeing countless details about these people’s everyday lives, not just what they happen to be saying on a phone call with a surveilled subject like the Russian ambassador. It’s information about their everyday lives, which leads to the possibility of blackmail.

I mean, who knows what they’re collecting and what they have? It says here that Susan “Rice would have understood that there is an extensive government paper trail” on these people incidentally captured “that can be audited within the NSA, that shows who requested the unmasking, [why], and whether it was granted. This raises more questions about Rice, her motivation and whether it was authorized higher up,” which we are not doubting that it was.

Now, “If approved…” If the request to unmask is “approved, the former senior intelligence official said, only the requester, in this case [Susan] Rice, would receive the information. Based on Fox News’ reporting, the information was shared beyond Rice, but it is not clear if those who received it had a ‘need to know.'” So the question is: Who told her to do it? Who asked her to request the unmasking? And then who, therefore, did she report to after getting the data that she got on people? This is potentially bigger than Watergate stuff, the way this is all falling out.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This