RUSH: We’ve got the Wolff book out there, and there’s something about the Wolff book that it just hit me today, and I don’t think anybody has put this together. If they have, I haven’t seen it. What is one of the big claims in this Wolff book? And that is that Trump never wanted to be president, right? Never expected to win, did not want to win. Melania Trump was in tears on election night after they won. Okay. Fine. Then why was Trump colluding with the Russians to tilt the election against Hillary? If he didn’t want to win, what the hell was he colluding with anybody for to try to win?
Now, this Wolff book — people don’t know this — this Wolff book was supposed to be about the first hundred days, and it was supposed to have been out long before now. And I’m wondering if this Wolff book ended up being a little bit delayed precisely because of that. You cannot put this book out with one of the central themes being that Donald Trump didn’t want to win and didn’t expect to win. You can’t put that book out right smack-dab in all of that stuff last year about Trump colluding.
I mean, think about a year’s worth of stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, with all these deep state people leaking and claiming things, there was never any evidence, but all of these leaks and all the claims in the Mueller investigation, the firing of Comey, all this stuff. If this book had come out and the author goes on TV, let’s say in March or April saying, “Yeah, the guy never wanted to be president. He never expected to win.” If you want to undercut the Russia investigation, that’s what you would do.
Now the Russia investigation’s kind of gone by the wayside. Now they’re looking at Trump colluding, or obstructing, I should say. And they’ve dropped — well, they haven’t dropped it, but in terms of the media and the daily soap opera script, the Trump-collusion-with-Russia angle has kind of been dropped and now they’re looking at obstruction and other kind of things.
But this just undercuts the whole premise of this last year, that Trump did not want to win, really didn’t want to be president. If that’s true, why would he have risked his business and his brand to collude with the Russians to win the election he didn’t want to win? It doesn’t add up. And that could be why Wolff waited to come out with this.
Remember, it was supposed to be about Trump’s first 100 days, but he waited until Trump had completed 200 days in office to turn in the manuscript and all that. You suspect he was really waiting for the collusion narrative to collapse so that he wouldn’t be attacked for undermining it, because he clearly would have undermined the whole thing.
If this book had come out six months ago — think of that — if this book had come out in September, it would have undermined everything they were using at that point to get rid of Trump. That didn’t work. And it may well be this obstruction angle isn’t working because now the entire focus is once again back to Trump being insane and unfit and unstable, which is also not new. It’s something they have routinely used about every Republican president in our lifetimes.
Now, as to the Wolff book, I learned over the weekend that I’m mentioned in this thing. It’s not a big mention, but it’s totally false. And I’m just gonna throw my experience of being in this book in the column of “it’s fake.” I mean, it is so untrue, it’s not even close. There’s not even a single word in this reference that is anywhere near the truth.
Grab audio sound bite number 11. The guy who read the book live — I can’t believe this, if you’re gonna write a book, then do the audio version yourself. I do. Every one of the Rush Revere books I read. Can you imagine going out and buying the audio book Rush Revere Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans “as read by,” and then pick your favorite name.
Why wouldn’t Wolff read his own book? “Well, it’s hard.” Yeah, it is hard. It takes weeks. And you can’t make a single noise when you’re narrating. If a paper crackles or if you pound a table or something, gotta go back and do it again. It’s painstaking. Minor point.
By the way, do you know where Wolff went when he went to the White House? He was in the White House 20 or 30 times. You know where he went? You know where? His headquarters was Bannon’s office. According to Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, Wolff’s — you know, I have a question, before I get to this sound bite.
Look at what happened here. I saw a piece where somebody mentioned David Stockman and now Bannon. They’re not the only two, but here’s the thing. What did David Stockman do. Do you remember David Stockman? David Stockman was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration. And David Stockman went public, he called William Greider, who ended up at The Village Voice I think or something, he was New York Times, maybe the Washington Post.
He called William Greider, a reporter, and said, “This is bogus. This is nothing but trickle-down. This is never gonna work. This Reagan tax cut plan’s absurd. It’s obscene.” And of course that’s all it took. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the media has everything they need to begin their revisionist history about the Reagan tax cuts.
Okay, jump forward, here’s Bannon, and Bannon is leaking like a sieve in the White House, and then who did he call? Kuttner, Robert Kuttner, well known leftist at The American Prospect and gave an interview that somebody says, “Well, he thought was off the record.”
What’s he calling this guy in the first place for? Here’s the question. Why is it, be it the Reagan administration, be it the George W. Bush administration, be it this one, why is it that people in these Republican administrations feel the need to call the liberal media and unload?
Can you tell me, did anybody in the Clinton administration ever call here or National Review or, take your pick, Fox News, and unload about what was really going on in Clinton administration? No. Did anybody in the Obama administration ever betray it by calling or appearing on conservative media to undermine what was go? No. And so the question, why?
Why is it that almost every Republican administration there’s at least one member who feels the need to call somebody in the liberal media and unload? There is an answer to this. And yet the libs never do it, they never betray, but that’s not the sole answer. It’s not a matter of, “Well, we have people that are not that loyal. They betray.” That’s not the answer. What do you think the answer is? I know the answer.
Snerdley is saying that he thinks they believe they’re bigger than the cause itself and that they’re investing in their own future. Okay, fine. But that still doesn’t answer the question. Why call the liberal media? David Stockman could have called Bill Buckley at National Review. I mean, remember, the Reagan administration had no conservative media aside from William F. Buckley and National Review. That was it. But he still could have called Buckley. Could have called anybody there and unloaded. And he could have done it in a protective way, said, “Look. Mr. Buckley, I don’t think what we’re doing here is right.” No. He called the New York Times or the Washington Post, I forget which, knowing full well why.
Bannon didn’t call Fox News. Bannon calls Robert Kuttner at The American Prospect and apparently Maggie Haberman at the New York Times. Why? Your answer, they think they’re bigger than the cause, it probably would apply in some instances to Bannon, but I still don’t think that explains it. I’ll tell you right now what explains it. The left runs that town. The left runs the town. And if you want to be in the with the town, that’s who you have to kowtow to.
I think it has to do with security, insecurity, confidence, lack of confidence, or what have you. But if you’re a Democrat and you’re working in the Obama administration, you already know that you’re safe and protected, you are preferred, you have no reason to be nervous, you have no reason to be feeling persecuted or without any confidence. But if you’re working for a Republican administration, and particularly this one, which is just reviled on a daily basis by the American left and the media, then it’s what I’ve always said. The left runs that town, and if you want to be, whatever, in or accepted or included in that town, that’s who you have to kowtow to.
Now, it still doesn’t explain why the betrayal. That’s a whole other explanation. But the reason the media is called by people on the right and they never do it — you know, somebody working for Obama would never call the Washington Post or the New York Times. Let’s say Hillary was president. Let’s do it this way. Let’s say Hillary’s president and somebody in her administration knows everything there is about Hillary’s emails. You think they would call the New York Times, and if they did, would the New York Times publish it? No.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected, would there have ever been a story on Harvey Weinstein? I submit to you that there would not. The Golden Globes would not have been what they were last night had Hillary Clinton been elected because nobody, if there even had been somebody in the Hillary campaign who wanted to unload on Weinstein while she’s president, or unburden themselves on Hillary and Huma and the emails and all this stuff, or the dossier — you know, we wouldn’t know anything about this dossier if Hillary had been elected. We wouldn’t know how corrupt our deep state is. We wouldn’t know any of this.
And even if members of the Hillary administration, had she won, called the media and told ’em this, they would have not run it. But when somebody’s a member of a Republican administration and for some reason wants to unburden themselves or wants to betray, it’s apparently a no-brainer: Call the liberal media. And this is another reason why your average, ordinary Republican voter today cannot be talked out of his support for Donald Trump, because this kind of betrayal Trump voters and average, ordinary Republican voters are so used to that they’re fed up with.
But I think it’s a very interesting case study. Stockman, Bannon, and there have been others of lesser stature that have tried it. And even the FBI agent during the Clinton administration that wrote a book about the way Hillary and Bill treated uniformed — (interruption) Gary Aldrich. Yeah. It’s buried. It’s buried. It remains a book, but it’s not hyped at all like Wolff’s book is and the Drive-By Media ignored it totally. Anyway, back to this reference to me in the Wolff book. Holter Graham is the narrator. This is from Fire and Fury. I don’t know what page or what chapter. It doesn’t matter. Here’s the bite.
NARRATOR: “His funeral in Palm Beach on May 20th was quite a study in the currents of right-wing ambivalence and even mortification. Right-wing professionals remained passionate in their outward defense of Trump but were rattled, if not abashed, among one another. At the funeral, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham struggled to parse support for Trumpism even as they distanced themselves from Trump himself.”
RUSH: Now, this is at the Roger Ailes memorial, the funeral, what have you. And it was… I mean, the… Well, it was in May, May 20th. The date’s right and that’s all. At the funeral, nobody spoke other than members of the family. It was at the memorial that people took turns speaking. But, folks, I can tell you, Donald Trump never came up! The subject of Donald Trump was never discussed at the memorial, much less “Trumpism.” I don’t even know what this means.
“Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham struggled to parse support for Trumpism even as they distanced themselves from Trump hims…”? And Wolff was there! And Wolff came up to me as the memorial ended and said, “I think I…” Well, I introduced myself to him, and then he said, “I think I owe you an apology.” I said, “What for?” He said, “Well, I misquoted you or got something wrong in a story some years ago.” And I said, “Well, you know, get in line.” But this didn’t happen. I don’t even… I really don’t even understand what it means.
But at the memorial for Roger Ailes, there isn’t a single person that… Look, Trump’s name may have come up with people telling stories (I don’t even think that) but there was no discussion of the Trump presidency or of Ailes’ involvement in or Trumpism, and there certainly wasn’t anybody who tried to distance themselves from Trump or Trumpism at the Roger Ailes memorial. This is entirely… I mean, it is completely made up. I don’t even understand what the basis for that little reference is. ‘Cause it’s totally fake, a hundred percent.
RUSH: I’m trying to think about it, maybe you can people remember if it’s happened, but I don’t think I have ever struggled on this program to parse support for Trumpism. You know what that means, right. “Ah, Limbaugh really didn’t want to support Trump. He thought he had to and so tried…” I don’t think I have ever been halfway on this. And then this business about Laura Ingraham and Limbaugh distancing themselves from Trump himself? Have I ever done that here? No. It’s just entirely, totally made up.
Try this headline. This is from Newsweek. “Trump Could Destroy the Entire Human Species, Says Yale Psychiatrist Who Warned Congress Members.” They say Trump is deranged and unfit? A Yale psychiatrist poisoning the minds of young students? Trump could destroy the entire human species? Via Twitter, he means, I guess?