The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




RUSH: Gary in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Great to have you, Gary. What’s up?

CALLER: Maha. Great to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.

CALLER: You probably are the only one in the country that can answer this question. When the Uranium One investigation goes full swing, whether or not they elect a special prosecutor, what happens to Mueller and the — you know, who appointed him? They would be at least questioned, if not investigated. And would they have to resign or step aside? And what happens to the current investigation that’s going on with all this Russian crap?

RUSH: Wait a minute, now. I need to set the table here. You are under the impression that there will be a special counsel to investigate the Uranium One deal?

CALLER: I certainly hope so.

RUSH: Okay. And so if there is one, you think that this would impact Mueller in — how do you think it would impact him? Because he didn’t look into it, that he would have to resign in disgrace because he would have been exposed as somebody who —

CALLER: No. Because he would be under investigation with part of the Uranium One deal —

RUSH: Oh, I gotcha. I gotcha. Yeah.

CALLER: So wouldn’t that be a conflict?

RUSH: Yeah, but it’s a conflict in the swamp. Therefore it’s not a conflict.

CALLER: Well, yeah.

RUSH: Look, a conflict is only a conflict if somebody’s gonna say it is.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: What I mean by that is, the swamp’s got its own court, if you will. I mean, look at Obama. Obama was acting outside the Constitution every day practically when it came to Obamacare.

CALLER: No one challenged him at all.

RUSH: That’s exactly my point. So if nobody’s gonna challenge him on it, then what’s gonna make him stop?

CALLER: An indictment?

RUSH: Well, that’s my point. There wasn’t an indictment. There wasn’t even a call for an investigation. There were people that went on TV and whined and moaned about it, but there wasn’t any serious effort to stop. Everybody talks about Sessions and his lack of effectiveness as an attorney general. They’re trying to drum up again here that Sessions was lying about meeting with Russians and his recusal is only half-baked and so forth. Let me tell you, folks.

Jeff Sessions is as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow compared to Eric Holder. You know, we hear all this talk about Trump, Trump, you know, he can’t talk to Sessions, Trump can’t tell Sessions what to investigate. What do you think happened with Obama and Holder?

For crying out loud, I think Eric Holder, if you want to talk about corruption at the Department of Justice, that’s where you have to look, just day-to-day political corruption of supposedly an agency or an area of the bureaucracy that’s supposed to be out of bounds for any partisan impulse. My goodness. And everybody just overlooked it because nobody was willing to go up against Obama on anything like that because of the racial component.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: About the last caller, a special counsel looking into Uranium One. Uranium One, to categorize it properly, Uranium One is not so much a national security issue as it is a corruption story. And right in the middle of it, right smack-dab in the middle of it, the Clintons.

Now, whether or not there’s a special counsel appointed — this came up yesterday when Sessions faced his gruelling interrogation at the House Judiciary Committee. And here’s a story. This is from the Washington Post. “Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ public suggestion that he may appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton has alarmed current and former Justice Department officials who fear he will further politicize the embattled agency.

“Sessions said at a congressional hearing Tuesday that he will weigh recommendations from senior prosecutors on whether to appoint a special counsel over a 2010 uranium company deal and other issues, including donations to the Clinton Foundation. Such an appointment could give President Donald Trump and Republicans a political counterweight to the ongoing work of special counsel Robert Mueller.”

Now, Sessions actually, if you look at what he said, he threw — it wasn’t cold water, but he threw water on the idea of a special counsel. He openly said that for there to be a special counsel, there has to be a crime, and he doesn’t know of one yet. As I heard him answer this, I didn’t hear him say that they are likely or are intending or trending toward a special counsel. I heard him say just the exact opposite, which, believe me, is gonna frustrate a lot of people.

But this story here, “Attorney General Sessions’ public suggestion,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, “alarmed current and former Justice Department,” meaning ex-Democrats, “who fear he will further politicize –” further politicize? This agency has been politicized thanks to Obama and Holder just like the IRS was. What is happening now is an attempt to depoliticize it.

That’s what Sessions thinks his mission is. Sessions believes the law is pure. In terms of an attorney general who holds the law in the deepest respect and reverence, you couldn’t find anybody better. But as such, Jeff Sessions does not look at the law as a weapon, not the way the Democrats do. The Democrats look at every government bureaucracy as its own potential weapon to use against political enemies. Jeff Sessions doesn’t see it that way at all. Whereas Rod Rosenstein can appoint Mueller as a special counsel without a crime.

The regulations in the Justice Department that govern the appointing of a special counsel require there to be a crime! You can’t start an investigation without a crime. Well, here there isn’t a crime! There is no crime that Mueller is investigating. He’s looking for as many as he can drum up and find. Sessions saying essentially that there isn’t a crime with Hillary and uranium is baffling to me because it seems to me there are more of the requirements for a special counsel are met in pursuit of the Clintons than what’s been impaneled here to pursue Trump.

And this is why there are those who think that Jeff Sessions could be replaced by somebody who would be better served to use the Justice Department as — let’s say properly. Because there is crime. There is criminal activity, clear suggestions and allegations of it that we know of with Uranium One and with the things the Clintons have been involved in. Far more criminal activity than appears obvious than anything they’re going after Trump on. So there’s a huge conflict here, divergence. And a lot of people are frustrated.

This is a long way around saying, I’m not convinced at all that Sessions is gonna appoint a special counsel on anything. But this business here that former DOJ people, which all that means is former Clinton and former Obama DOJ members are worried about further politicization. That’s such a crock. They’re worried about getting caught. They’re worried about being named. They’re worried about being exposed. Politicization my ass. Republicans don’t have half the talent at politicizing things that they Democrats do, which is one of the greatest source of frustrations we experience here.

Here is another story related. This is in the New York Times. “‘Lock Her Up’ Becomes More Than a Slogan — President Trump did not need to send a memo or telephone his attorney general to make his desires known. He broadcast them for all the world to see on Twitter. The instruction was clear: The Justice Department should investigate his defeated opponent from last year’s campaign.

“However they were delivered, Mr. Trump’s demands have ricocheted through the halls of the Justice Department, where Attorney General Jeff Sessions has now ordered senior prosecutors to evaluate various accusations against Hillary Clinton and report back on whether a special counsel should be appointed.”

“‘Lock Her Up’ Becomes More Than a Slogan. Look, I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not seeing what Sessions is saying is conclusive evidence that he wants a special prosecutor, wants to name one. I’m seeing, in fact, maybe the opposite. Hope I’m wrong.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This