Yates and Clapper Bomb Out, But the Media’s Flynn Narrative Continues
May 9, 2017
RUSH: All right, look, folks. To be quite honest with you, this Sally Yates business and Clapper up there, it bores me. After all of this, I still don’t even know what Flynn did! What is the one definitive thing that Flynn did that’s causing all this? And the answer is, nobody can tell you. That’s number one. Number two, she’s the second… Well, not the second. She’s like the fourth or fifth official (the others have been judges) to determine that what Trump’s executive order wanted to do should not be done because of what Trump said during the campaign rather than what was in the executive order.
She’s a leftist hack, and the whole thing yesterday was a big bomb. It is amazing to me that the media — and remember (and we’re gonna demo it again today) the media is running this show. I’m gonna add one perspective to this, because there’s some people — not many, but there are some people — emailing me that they know what I’m trying to say about the media actually leading the progressive movement; Democrats are an arm of it.
But they think that I’m missing the fact that the Democrats don’t run the show, and I want to ask you to think about it this way. I have made the point ad infinitum (or “ad infin-i-tum,” depending on how you pronounce it) that the Democrats have been losing elections left and right. It’s an established fact. There’s no argument about it. I’ve also made the point that despite that, the left doesn’t the look like it’s lost anything. If you watch the news every day, you’d think they’re still running the show, that Trump is a pretender.
He’s a fraud — that most people realize it and wish he was gone and have regrets and so forth. So the picture being painted every day in the Drive-By Media is that the left still dominates. They’re still the majority of thinking in the country and we’re somehow up against some dark forces that have thwarted them. The Democrats… I was thinking about this last night. The Democrats themselves, the elected Democrats themselves are acting like they’re the minority. They are acting like losers. When they speak, when they react, they do know that they are the minority.
They do know that they’ve lost elections. They do know they’ve lost the White House. They do know they’ve lost the Senate. They do know they’ve lost the House of Representatives. And if it weren’t for the media carrying the water, the image every day would not be that they are dominant, that they are the majority, that they have won and Trump’s a pretender. So I think it buttresses my theory even more that — take your pick — Schumer, Pelosi (chuckles) Maxine Waters (the left made her a hero, a star; it’s unbelievable) no matter where you go, elected Democrats are assuming the posture of minority.
It’s the media, my friends, which is providing the counterweight. It’s the media that sets the tone, establishes the notion that they do represent a majority of thinking, they are the majority of thinking and all this other stuff. But what it relates to as far as Sally Yates is concerned, is Sally Yates did what she did when? Back in January? This is May. From January to May, apparently nobody on the left talked to Sally Yates about what she knew or about what she was gonna say.
Because when they had that hearing yesterday, the media portrayed this as there was gonna be a bombshell. “We’ve got a bombshell! Finally, Sally Yates is gonna show up and testify, and we’re gonna get Trump. We’re gonna prove the Russian connection! We’re gonna prove that everything was stolen from us. Sally Yates!” Could they not determine in the five months since Sally Yates had her 10 minutes of fame, between then and now, that she didn’t know anything? She had nothing to offer. There was…
It was a nothing burger. There was nothing added to anything. The only real questions that were not answered was: Who’s doing the unmasking. Who in the Obama apparatus is unmasking Flynn and unmasking all of these people? Who’s doing the leaking that got all of this started? And right in the center of that, once again, will be the media. But I found it pleasing, very satisfying, that once again — and it happens frequently, more frequently than I think it should.
The media — the Democrat media-political complex — portrayed Sally Yates’ appearance yesterday as an upcoming bombshell. “We’re gonna finally get to the bottom of it all! Sally Yates is the one who knows everything, and she’s gonna drop the bomb.” This is kind of like lawyers granting immunity to somebody without knowing what they’re gonna say, and then putting them on the stand and finding out they don’t know anything or they may even be counterproductive to your case.
Why in the world would they bring her up to testify if that’s all she had? And the answer is so as to be able to continue this phony, false narrative, that there is no evidence for. And it was announced yesterday again. (paraphrased exchange) “Uh, General Clapper, do you have any evidence that Trump colluded with the Russian?” “Not at this time.” “Did you have any evidence last week?” “No.” “Did you have any evidence back in December?” “No.” “Have you ever had any evidence?” “No.” “Do you expect to see any evidence?”
“I can’t say.” “Ms. Yates, have you seen any collusion the Trump campaign and the Russians?” “I can but I can’t. Uh, I need a closed hearing.” “You mean you know? You know something but you can’t tell us without a closed hearing?” “I can’t say! I need a closed hearing. But I would not infer from that, Senator, that I have an answer that will satisfy you.” “But i-i-if we gave you a closed hearing, maybe you have something that we don’t know?” “I can’t say, Senator.”
There’s nothing. There was nothing other than an opportunity to continue this lying, false, phony-baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock ‘n’ roller narrative that is the only these people have. There is a devastating story in the New York Times today by… I think his name is Nick Cohn, not to be confused with Nick Silver. Wait! Not Nick Silver. Nate Silver! It’s Nate Cohn, N-A-T-E, Nate Cohn. Mr. Snerdley, I know you’re screening calls. I want you to hear this. This guy has gone out and analyzed preelection polling data based on two criteria: when the poll was taken and when the poll was released.
He looked specifically at the last preelection poll in Florida, a poll that was taken before James Comey’s October 28th letter to Congress claiming he was reopening her investigation. The poll concluded the day before but was not released for two days until the following Sunday. The pollster decided to keep it for a Sunday release rather than Saturday ’cause nobody reads the news on Saturday. The upshot is — and it’s right there in the New York Times in this story — that the Comey letter probably had nothing to do with Hillary’s defeat.
If you look at the polling data, Hillary was already plummeting in every poll this guy looked at. In battleground state elections, she was already plummeting long before that Comey letter to Congress ever took place. In other words, the people polled had not even known, did not even know that Comey was going to reopen this thing with Congress because he hadn’t done so yet. Further, Hillary had a slight rebound in all of these states after the Comey letter.
She did not continue to lose ground. She was trending down. When the Comey letter was released on October 28th, she had a slight rebound. Probably nothing to do with the Comey letter. More likely to do with the timing. We’re getting closer and closer to the election; people are more and more honest as we get closer, and the pollsters try to be as honest as they can and get it right on their last polls before an election because that’s what they have to live with reputation-wise until the next election.
But these polls this guy looked at indicate that the Comey letter had no impact — very little if any impact — on the way people voted in several key battleground states. And there’s another story out today — I will have details for you — and it purports, after having examined actual voter-turnout data and statistics, that the reason Hillary Clinton lost is that the black turnout in this election was down dramatically while the white turnout was up moderately. Overly, white turnout was up about 2.4%; black turnout down anywhere from 4% to 6%.
Now, that dovetails with one of the theories that Hillary wasn’t able to turn out Obama’s base, and that’s why she lost. There’s nothing in this story about the Russians. There’s nothing in this story about any conspiracy. It is all about how she was just a horrible candidate and did not hold any attraction or allure for people. And this story purports to illustrate… It doesn’t say this specifically. The inference she draws for the reader is that the African-American vote is crucial in presidential politics, and if it doesn’t show up for the Democrat, they’re in deep doo-doo.
So now we’ve got a that book Shattered (which they’re gonna make into a movie or a TV show) and we got Nate Cohn in the New York Times. Now this other story with three different theories about why Hillary Clinton lost. None of which have anything to do with the Russians. None of which have anything to do with anything other than her horrible candidacy and campaign, pure and simple.
RUSH: All right. This is classic. So I got an email during the break. “Rush, you’re wrong about Flynn. Obama fired Flynn. We know what happened to Flynn. Obama fired Flynn because he was talking to the Russians and Trump fired Flynn because he lied to Pence.” That’s not why Obama got rid of Flynn. This is my whole point. Nobody knows what Flynn did. The Drive-Bys are not telling you any of this because they’re so focused on Flynn being the go-between between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Let me give you this one minor detail. Do not doubt me on this about Michael Flynn. He was not fired by Obama because of his close relationship with Russia. He was not fired by Obama because Obama didn’t trust him, thought he was undermining relations with the Russians. He was not fired by Obama for any of the reasons you think you know. He was fired for saying that Obama should be tougher on Syria.
Flynn ran the DIA for Obama, the Defense Intelligence Agency. It’s the defense department’s version of the CIA. He ran it. He, in his day, had one of the greatest reputations as a great patriot, very pro-American. He had a keen eye on America’s enemies and gave them no quarter. And when he thought that he saw policies that were unfavorable to America, he spoke out about it, and Obama looked at Flynn as disloyal. It was nothing more than that.
Flynn was fired for saying that Obama should be tougher on Syria. Obama’s out there claiming red lines here and red lines there and threatening Assad. “If you cross that line, I’m coming after you, my man! I’m Mr. Obama, and I’m really tough, and I’m not gonna be bamboozled by you,” and Assad continued to bamboozle Obama. Assad continued to cross the red lines; Obama did nothing. He never intended to do anything.
Flynn thought this was weak, so he publicly stated that Obama would be better off to be tougher on Syria. Syria, by the way, is Russia’s client state. So Flynn was essentially saying that Obama should be tougher on Syria, which also means be tougher on Russia. But that doesn’t fit the narrative that Flynn was in bed with the Russians, and so they don’t tell you why Flynn was fired, and that’s why Obama… This story just happened. Obama did tell Trump, apparently, to stay away from Flynn.
But it was based on the fact that Obama thought Flynn was disloyal. You go back to the campaign and Flynn was one of the most vocal and loyal campaigners and supporters of Trump. I don’t know if you remember it or not. Flynn spoke at the Republican convention. It was so passionate. It made some people nervous, in fact. Not in the sense that he was a problem. I mean, he was just… He was wired. He was no nonsense whatsoever.
You know, it was supposed to be a celebratory occasion, the convention, where you lay out the agenda. And Flynn’s just kicking ass up there! And also he’s touting Trump as the best thing that’s ever happened to this country; we’re finally gonna set things right. He was early on a Trump supporter and very, very loyal to Trump. So during the transition, Obama gets hold of Trump and says, “This Flynn guy? You can’t trust the guy. I wouldn’t have him in there.”
This phone call that Flynn made? He already had the highest clearance you can get as the director of the DIA! He had every clearance, in the security sense, that anybody had. When talking to the Soviet ambassador, nobody has ever proven that he spoke about lifting sanctions once Trump was elected. There’s so much BS in this. And when you boil this all down, what did Flynn actually do compared to the news…? I’ll guarantee you.
The average, ordinary American who watches 20 or 30 minutes of news maximum a day — and if they watch the mainstream media — they’re gonna the highway Michael Flynn’s the biggest villain this side of Richard Nixon. That’s the way he’s been cast. That’s the way he’s been reported. They don’t know why. They don’t know what. They just know, “Obama fired him, Trump had to get rid of him,” and they think they know that he was colluding with the Russians, because that’s been the substance of the reporting.
But when you get down to it, Sally Yates had no bombshells yet on Flynn. Clapper didn’t have any. Nobody has. If anything, Flynn has become a pinata to absorb all the negativism that’s associated with the Trump campaign and transition during this period as almost like a fall guy. I mean, the things they’re attributing to this guy? It’s… (sigh) Well, I can’t… (chuckles) Folks, it’s just flat-out mean what is happening to Michael Flynn. But this happens in this world. To people in this world, protecting their own skins — their own images, reputations, policies, administrations — is paramount.
There are people that bite the bullet, take the fall left and right throughout our political system. Some are compensated for it privately; some are not. Some just get an excrement sandwich thrown at ’em and they got no choice. The media has needed somebody. They’ve needed a face that they can portray as the conduit between Trump and the Russians, and they’ve got Flynn talking to the Soviet ambassador, the Russian ambassador, which everybody was doing. Ambassadors are salesmen.
I mean, the Soviet ambassador, Russian ambassador, talked to everybody. What Flynn… The big mistake that Flynn actually made was for some reason not telling Pence about his call with the Russian ambassador. Pence went on TV and repeated that story, and that was bad. That was actually a mistake that Flynn made. But beyond that, what did Flynn really do? Nobody knows! Yates didn’t have any bombshell. Clapper didn’t have any bombshell. Comey hasn’t had a bombshell. The FBI doesn’t have a bombshell.
Nobody has anything. Susan Wright doesn’t have a bombshell. All they’ve done is unmasked the guy, which is a real question here. Who’s been doing that? Who’s been doing the leaking? Who has been tarnishing all these public figures and assassinating their reputations? Now, Yates and Clapper both vehemently denied under oath yesterday that they’ve been leaking anything or that they’ve been unmasking people, but that’s it. A giant, big nothing. Flynn was not fired by Obama because he was anything other…
He was disloyal, in Obama’s view. He was in the Obama administration as the head of the DIA, and he was criticizing the administration. That’s a fireable offense. And it is, by the way. But he was just out there saying that Obama’s too soft on Assad, that all of this posturing and not following it up with anything was not helping anything — and he’s a Democrat. Flynn’s a Democrat. But he was anti-Obama. This was one of his appeals to Trump, I believe.
The big thing that you also might have heard, Yates made a big deal yesterday of saying that Flynn was blackmailable. Can I tell you how laughable that is? Why was he blackmailable? “Well, he had talked to the Russian ambassador! The Russian ambassador was being surveilled by the NSA, and so Flynn’s conversations — and who knows what Flynn said? But the Russians know, and that means that the Russians could have blackmailed Trump.”
Well, that’s gone. Flynn’s gone. There’s no possible blackmail. It’s a bogus charge anyway. How about Hillary Clinton being blackmailable? If anybody was blackmailable, it was Hillary Clinton. She’s the one that had an illegal email server. She’s the one that was soliciting donations from foreign capitals, foreign individuals in advance of her presidency. She was selling her presidency before she was even nominated. She continued to sell her presidency after she was nominated. Talk about blackmailable!
What a flimsy allegation. So Yates is saying, “I was saving my country. I was destined to save my country because we had somebody high up in the Trump transition who could have been blackmailed.” You can only be blackmailed if the people you’re working for don’t know something. Flynn was not doing anything that nobody knew about. He was talking to Russian ambassador on orders.
This is so specious and it is so bogus, and it is so fraught with lies. I think it’s just… All of this time, we’re now December… It was six months. Six months and nothing, and yet the posturing goes on. The narrative survives, and a nothing story like yesterday is reported as containing grains of potential bombshells to come, necessitating the continuation of the investigation.
RUSH: The Drive-By Media’s going nuts. Apparently, Sean Spicer, during the press briefing, referred to Sally Yates as a political enemy of the White House, and the Drive-Bys are going nuts! “How dare you call her a political opponent of the White House!” Well, she is. She probably voted for Obama. It doesn’t matter. She did everything she could to undermine Trump’s executive order. She’s a holdover from the Obama administration. Hell, yes, she’s a political opponent of the White House! Half of the deep state is.