The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




RUSH: I mentioned near the beginning of the program that I had something today that I wanted to talk with you about that is, perhaps, one of the most astounding things I’ve seen. I didn’t want to overemphasize it. The old raising expectations so high they can’t be met. But it floored me. I’m debating whether or not to put it off until tomorrow, even though it fits. It’s that astounding to me. I’m wondering: Would it be better to do it in and of itself unlinked to this specific event, or does it attach itself to this event in a way that makes what’s astounding about it astounding to me?

So I’m gonna go for it. But I’m gonna tell you at the outset: It is fraught with potential distractions. You know, one of the things I have never done on this program — and when the program was new, I had to resist it. I have never participated in these contrived and phony feuds with other people in the media. When this program started back in 1988 and we were trying to get the program affiliated on stations in as many cities as we could, in a couple of places in a couple of markets, the local program director said, “You know what would really make this work is if we take your show and then you immediately start ragging on our afternoon guy.”

I said, “I don’t want to rag on your afternoon guy. I’m not even gonna hear your afternoon guy. You’re where you are, and I live in New York.”

“Oh, we can take care of that. We can tell you what the guy says. But then this guy could turn back and rag back on you, and it’d be great. We get this feud going and –”

I said, “But it wouldn’t be real.”

“Well, who cares? It would be great radio. It would sound awesome.”

I said, “Stop and think of the business aspect of it: What is the decent…? What’s the good business sense in two people that work for the same radio station ripping each other to shreds every day?” I said, “It doesn’t make any sense to me. Plus, it’s not what I want to do.”

But I had to. I had to agree to do it in a couple of different places. So I modified it once we’d get the program cleared, and I actually converted these hosts with whom I was supposed to have these imaginary feuds into the opposite, almost like quasi-mutual admiration society. Now, I mention all this to tell you that that’s why I’m not gonna mention the name of the host here. I mean, the purpose of this is not to call anybody out.

The purpose of this is not to call attention to anybody because what’s written here I, sadly, think represents a lot of thinking on our side of the aisle. What I’m talking about here coming from our side of the aisle is what makes this astounding. Let me preface or give you a prelude by saying this, which most of you probably either have figured out or already know. From the very beginning, whenever it was — it could have been March of 2016, whenever it began.

The idea that the Russians had hacked into and tampered with our election… Now, remember when people were saying that, when Democrats were alluding to the possibility, when Obama refuted it twice in March of 2016 and in December 2016. But whenever it came up, it was always implied that the Russian hackery affected the outcome of the election. The implied message was that. It was sometimes alluded to but was never directly stated. It was simply reported in such a way that your average news consumer would believe he or she was listening to a story about how the Russians had chosen Trump president because they were afraid of Hillary.

They didn’t want her to be president. So the Russians rigged the election and worked with Trump to steal it from Hillary. That was never stated; it was always implied. All they had to say was — particularly after the election — Russians hacked, Russians stole, Russians colluded. You, as a news consumer, were to conclude that the Russians hacked and got in the way of the vote count and the Russians stole the election for Trump. That’s why we should hate Trump. Hillary was the big victim here, and our precious democracy had been tampered with.

I, at the outset, did not believe a syllable of it. From the get-go. Now, I realize that not all of you could listen all the time to every program. You’re going to have to take it on faith. Some of you do listen that often, and your memory will probably tell you. I never bought into this. Even the Podesta email leaks that ended up on WikiLeaks, I did not think that the Russians did that. I have never denied the Russians try. The Russians and the ChiComs and the Israelis and the Turks, everybody is trying to influence what happens in Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C., is the most powerful town, the most powerful city in the world because it’s the capital of the United States of America. It is also the wealthiest city in the world, because every dime the United States government collects via taxes, via user fees, via arms sales, via whatever — every penny of it — flows to the United States Treasury. Which means that every year there is a hard, cold $3 trillion sitting somewhere in Washington, and everybody wants to get their hands on as much of it as they can.

As a result, everybody in the world, everybody in the establishment of the world — the United Nations, European Union, the Chinese, you name it. There isn’t a country in the world that doesn’t have people trying to influence what happens in Washington. They try to influence the way people vote; they always have. They try to influence the way members of Congress vote on legislation; they always have. They try to influence the way lobbyists write legislation so that they can get some of the money from the Treasury.

They always have! There is nothing new whatsoever about the attempts of people, good and bad — evil, diabolical, and angelic — to try to influence events in Washington. Everybody does. You do; I do, by virtue of the way we vote. Everybody is trying to influence what goes on there. But not everybody has an equal amount of influence. Some have a great deal; some have none. But it doesn’t mitigate the fact that everybody in the world is trying to influence what happens there.

It is not news that outside agents have attempted to impact and change the outcome of United States elections. The 1960 presidential election was stolen by the Kennedy machine in both Chicago and West Virginia. Not the Russians. The Democrat Party did it. It’s common. It’s outrageous and it’s despicable and all that, but it happens. The Florida recount in the year 2000. Look at the attempts to influence that recount, the hanging chad recount.

My point, folks, is that it’s nothing new that the Russians or the ChiComs or the Democrat Party or the Republican Party would be attempting to interfere in our democracy. Nothing new. This is one of the reasons we have an FBI. This is one of the reasons we have an NSA. It’s one of the reasons we have a CIA. It’s one of the reasons we have a DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency. There’s a number of agencies that we use to protect our secrets, our way of life, our Constitution — and certain people who work in government pledge an oath to do just that.

There are constant attempts to undermine the United States of America because we are the lone superpower in the world. As such, as the bastion, as the light, as the repository for human freedom and dignity on earth, we are the target of every despot and tyrant and dictator on earth, and we have been since the days of our founding. It’s one of the astounding reasons we have survived, in my estimation, because there’s just that piece of paper that has kept everybody honest.

Stop and think about it. Human beings are human beings. They’re greedy, they’re selfish, they are deceitful, they lie. Others are virtuous and honest and have character. We have all kinds. We have all kinds running for office. We have all kinds in office. We’ve had all kinds be elected president. We’ve had despots; we’ve had idiots; we’ve had unqualified people; we’ve had everything.

The United States Constitution has held, but it is also under constant assault. In our lifetimes never more than this moment is the U.S. Constitution under assault, and never more in our lifetimes has it been under assault than since 2008 and the election of Barack Obama, who openly pledged to transform this country away from its founding ideals because he found them to be injurious. He found them to be illegitimate. He found them to be rooted in racism and bigotry and homophobia and whatever else the left holds dear.

So the idea that the Russians came along last year sometime and tried to hack our election, I’m sorry, folks, it fell flat. It was nothing. I never believed a word of it. Not that they were trying. I never believed that our outcome, the presidential election, happened because of anything the Russians did. I never for a moment believed it, because I don’t believe they could have. State voting machines are not networked. There are simply too many precincts. There are too many counties, too many different supervising organizations.

It would be a total crapshoot for an outside vendor to try to find out what voting machines in what states and precincts would have to be targeted, because, of course, ours is an election determined by Electoral College votes, not the popular vote. And that simply is too complicated, impossible to actually pull off. Efforts to attempt to influence events in America take place in much easier ways. Infiltration of the faculty on college campuses, for example. Infiltration into our entertainment pop culture.

If you, by definition, have communists everywhere, leftists and socialists everywhere who are influencing what your children are taught, what your children watch, if not just promoting leftism, liberalism, and communism, but if they’re at the same time mocking, laughing at, making fun of conservatism and Republicans, then, you know, why do you need the Russians to hack an election? Except we’ve reached a point where the Democrat Party can’t win them. And so the media has become the prime mover of American liberalism now, and the media is simply an arm and extension of it.

Because the Democrats lost, Hillary lost, she thought she’d be a landslide victory even at seven o’clock on election at night, she thought — nine o’clock they thought they were gonna win in a landslide. Everybody did, even the Trump people. The media, their polls, their Nate Silvers, their analysts, their prognosticators, their scientists all predicted a Democrat landslide. They all believed it. In their arrogance and hubris, they ignored what was right in front of them. They ignored the excitement Donald Trump had created with five rallies a day, with audiences from 15 to 25,000 people.

At the same time Hillary Clinton was either ensconced somewhere taking anti-seizure medicine or drawing crowds of 200. They looked at this and they saw this and they ignored it, and they said, “It doesn’t matter. Trump is an idiot. Trump is a barbarian. Trump said bad things about McCain. Trump Trump Trump is hateful. We hate Trump. Everybody hates Trump. Trump doesn’t have a prayer.”

Their polls said Trump’s gonna lose, Hillary’s gonna win in a landslide. They believed it. Their voters believed it. Their media believed it. The people that did the polls believed it. Everybody believed. I didn’t. And a hell of a lot of you didn’t.

And so when the unthinkable happened — you’ll note that before the election and especially in the last month of the campaign, in October, there wasn’t a word of Russian influence. There wasn’t a word of Russians hacking the election. There was no thought given to it. There was no fear. There was no concern about it. There were no warnings of it. You know why? Because by that time everybody thought that Mrs. Clinton was gonna win in an historic landslide and there was no way that they were going to taint her victory by claiming the Russians had anything to do with it, even if it was to assist her.

Her victory was going to be hers and the Democrat Party’s alone. There would be no outside influence necessary. There would be no outside influence that would take place. There would be no Russian agents. There would be no Russian hacking. There wouldn’t be Russian attempts to sabotage, because Hillary was going to win! And then she didn’t. And so 24 hours after she lost, and according to the book that was written about her campaign, it actually states in that book 24 hours later they hatched the narrative that the Russians hacked the election, the Russians colluded with Trump.

It was the only thing they could do to explain the inexplicable: Hillary losing. Remember, that was not even considered remotely. It was not even a possibility. Except certain Democrats, when you get them drunk enough, will tell you that they were privately very worried because the things they could see that meant excitement, translated to excite, it was all on the Trump side, and there wasn’t any on the Hillary side. And when we find out that the Clinton campaign went through a billion.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look. This is admittedly a protracted, elongated way of explaining to you that I never believed any of this. And those of you who are regular listeners know. And it’s important for me to say this before getting into what I have discovered here and found is astounding. I never for a fleeting moment — I don’t know how else to say this — I never believed any of this crap that the Russians colluded with Trump, colluded with Flynn, Sessions, anybody. I never believed a scintilla of the charge that the Russians had anything to do with the outcome of our election.

I never disputed that they were trying. They always try. Everybody’s always trying to influence the outcome of elections. Some people hack; some people try to hack. But I never believed for a moment — and, my friends, what I have discovered here is that there are a lot of people on our side of the aisle who are just now beginning to consider that it’s all been a lie. There are people on our side who have apparently believed some of this to one degree or another. I don’t know if they’re Never Trumpers or Trumpists. I don’t know.

What’s astounding to me is that there are apparently a lot of people on our side who believed that Trump might have cheated, that the Russians might have tried to deny Hillary Clinton, that the Russians might have succeeded. And that all these hearings and all this news, there might be a grain of truth to it. And I have never believed it for a moment. There’s another reason I’ve never believed it. The people pushing it, Obama embeds, the media, liberals everywhere, Democrats. I haven’t believed a word of it because of those making the charge.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So I’m not gonna mention any names; I’m not gonna mention the blog, because that’s not what this is about. I’m not trying to call anybody out. I’m not trying to. That would be a distraction, because this, to me, is not about a single individual or a blog site. What’s astounding to me is that people on our side for how long have been thinking there might be something to this, when I have “known,” in quotes, that there is nothing to this, never has been. And it’s not that I know anybody; it’s common sense. It is a full-fledged understanding of the media and the left, and it’s just simply paying attention.

There was no Russian hackery when Hillary was thought to win! The whole thing is manufactured. Evidence is being manufactured and planted. This should have been rejected months ago. There is literally nothing here. But I found a blog post today with a question. “[T]he one question which seems to still be off limits for most of the [mainstream media] is the really ugly one: what if this turns out to be a dry hole?” When I saw that, I said: Are you kidding me? We’re just now considering that?

“Much of the speculation swirling around this entire saga has been based on anonymous sources supposedly spilling secrets about Oval Office conversations or supposed Russians hiding behind the potted plants. With all of that smoke, there certainly must be a fire, right? … Having hearings was supposed to clear up many of these questions.” We were supposed to get to the bottom of it. “Take[,] for example[,] the widely reported and frequently repeated assertion that the attorney general had a third, unreported meeting with the Russians at the Mayflower.

“That’s been stated so often that it’s basically become an article of faith on CNN and MSNBC. But yesterday Sessions was asked about it and he simply said… no. There was no third meeting.” It is a good example. All this time they’ve been thinking Sessions is now guilty. They’ve run new stories: Sessions is gonna be found guilty at the hearings. He’s gonna commit perjury. He can’t avoid committing perjury! Sessions is going to jail. Sessions was the colluder! Sessions was the guy taking the secret meetings!

This is what they were reporting, and people believed this? Not on the Democrat side. Our side! So, the blog post asks: “What happens now? Unless the New York Times can produce some video or at least a credible witness who saw Session sneaking off into the cloak room with the Russian ambassador or one of his henchmen [this Sessions thing]’s pretty much a dead end. And that’s falling into a pattern with so many other aspects of the entire tapestry of accusations against [Trump], a group of allegedly nefarious traitors who were colluding with the Russians to cripple the American elections.”

Another blogger “tackles what may eventually become the biggest question of all. What if that never happened and it was all a fictional tale assembled by the media?” What if? What if! I’m astounded! I don’t want to sound… I’m astounded that… (sigh) The reason why this bothers me is that I have been wondering why there’s so little pushback and why, with every media leak of supposedly damaging information, do so many people on our side report it excitedly? I understand there are lots of people on our side don’t like Trump.

I understand lots of people on our side wouldn’t mind if Trump were frog-marched out, sent to jail, or impeached and sent back to Trump Tower, what have you. But the thing that bothers me about all this is Trump isn’t the enemy. If it isn’t obvious within the political realm who our real enemy is, then we have a major problem. Now, I understand some people may find it just impossible to circle the wagons and defend Trump because they think he’s such a reprobate or whatever. But whatever Trump is and whatever Trump’s done, it pales in comparison to this hoax or whatever you want to call this.

The lives that it potentially could destroy, the reputations that it is destroying, the tumult that it’s causing, the paralysis that it’s causing — which is, I think, one of the objectives. We have people on our side go along with it because, “Well, it’s good news! It’s a good story. It’s fun to write blog posts about, ‘Wow, this is really cool!’ We could start cracking jokes and start making predictions about what it could all mean,” when there’s nothing there! And the fact that there’s been a lack of unity on our side in pushing back against this is what bothers me.

And it seems to all circle back to the big differentiation between some of us and others, and that is that many of us believe that the nation is facing a point of crisis. That if Hillary had won, we would have lost the country. And there are people on our side who laugh at that and think that’s hysterical and it’s just silly. “We’re not gonna lose the country.” Many of us think we were on the road and still are. We are precariously balanced even now. And to many of us it seems obvious. Just pay attention to the stuff that passes for the excuse of reporting news today.

The other blogger wrote: “While we certainly aren’t privy to all the relevant information or all the relevant testimony, nothing that James Comey said last week or that Jeff Sessions said today (much less any of the questions directed his way) contained so much as a meaningful hint that the Committee was on the verge of uncovering the political scandal of the century. Rather, the focus keeps shifting to much narrower questions regarding Trump’s decision to fire James Comey — questions that are important but far less historically consequential than any claim that a president or his attorney general are traitors to their country.”

What does narrow mean? It means we’re moving from Trump colluded to Trump obstructed. It means we’re moving from one made-up premise to the next. And I guess there’s an underlying belief with a lot of people that ’cause it’s in the news, it’s true. But how much of this has been exposed already as just nothing anywhere near factual and the truth?

To me, what’s happened in this country and the media for the last seven months is, at least in my lifetime, one of the absolute most despicable things that has been perpetrated on the country. And with so little push-back against it, I’ve been astounded. It looks like some people are waking up now, but starting to ask seven months in, “What if there’s nothing here? What if it’s a dry hole?”

“What originally was supposedly a shocking expose of Trump’s co-conspirators huddling in a smoke-filled basement office of the Kremlin with Vladimir Putin has now boiled down to an investigation to find out whether or not an anonymous source of the Washington Post was correct in saying Sessions considered resigning.”

Look, I’m glad people are getting to this, but it seems so unnecessary to take seven months to figure this out. I don’t know how else to say it. I overuse the phrase “boggles my mind.” But it does. I tell myself, I can’t be the only one that sees things this way, and it’s all based on who liberals are and what their political objectives are and just recent history of how they’re operating. I guess the fact that there are plenty of people on our side who thought there is something to this is just what’s astounding to me.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This