RUSH: The Drive-By Media and the American left are at DEFCON 1. It’s all starting to unravel on ’em so badly that they’re admitting it. They’re admitting it, trying to limit the damage. When corroborated information is released, it details exactly what these people have been doing the past year and a half to try to damage the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency.
Greetings, my friends. So good to be back. Rush Limbaugh back here behind the one and only EIB golden microphone. Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882. The email address, ElRushbo@eibnet.us.
Okay. Since Monday when I was last here and my dulcet tones were reverberating coast to coast, there have been at least four events that have gotten the Drive-By Media clinically hysterical and at DEFCON 1.
In that hysteria, in their status at DEFCON 1, the Drive-By Media have firmly now come down on the side of Islamic terrorists. They’ve come down on the side of Hamas. They are actually hoping that the pot-bellied little dictator in North Korea, Kim Jong-un, does not get rid of his nukes, so as to embarrass Trump.
They are totally lying about Trump’s comments regarding the violent gang known as MS-13. And the New York Times, it’s not every day that I have a conspiracy theory. Well, I don’t call it a conspiracy theory. It’s a theory. It’s not every day that the New York Times confirms practically verbatim a message I had for all of you on Monday’s program. And the New York Times has done it.
They have published a completely rogue FBI, DOJ story designed to limit the damage that the upcoming inspectors general report on the FBI, the DOJ in the past year and a half will obviously conclude. In the process, what has become unmistakable is that the Drive-By Media, led by the New York Times, is firmly on the side of the American left and the Democrat Party, and is indeed state-run media for the Democrats, for the American left.
And I think that it actually demonstrates my theory again that it is the media that is running much of this, the thinking, the strategy that is being used on the left. I’m not saying the media’s complicit in the Obama administration spying on Trump, but it could not have happened without them. It could not have been nearly as almost as effective as it was without the media playing willing accomplice. And, in fact, they were doing more than playing willing accomplice; they were active in the conspiracy to derail the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump.
Let’s just review some of these four things. North Korea’s announced — well, except they haven’t told Trump yet. The White House says they haven’t heard from the Norks on this, but the Norks have announced they may pull out of the summit in Singapore next month. This is the one they asked for, by the way.
The reason they say they’re gonna pull out of this is because, well, South Korea and the United States are engaging in war games, and little Kim Jong-un says this is a prelude to an invasion of us here in the north. And if they’re gonna do that then we may walk back our thing to get rid of nukes. The Drive-By Media is cheering the fact that Kim Jong-un may not get rid of his nukes. Anything to embarrass Trump. Anything to make Trump ineffective.
Hamas — are you ready for this? — Hamas has publicly admitted that the peaceful protesters of the embassy move were actually members of their gang sacrificed for optics. They needed the blood. They needed the deaths. They needed the mayhem to be able to blame Israel for it. And once again, here were our friends led by the New York Times and the Drive-By Media facilitating the political aims of terrorist organizations aligned against Israel. Stunning.
Stunning stuff, clear and available for everybody to actually see. Hamas wanted photos of bloody, wounded, dying protesters to show the world how horrible Israel is. And the American Drive-By Media now at DEFCON 1 fell right in line with all this propaganda for two days, filled the air with condemnations of Israel and blame for Trump and even the lovely and gracious Ivanka.
In a very clear comment in a meeting with people in California against sanctuary cities, Trump at a sanctuary city seminar meeting at the White House, Trump referred to — and this was clear as a bell — he referred to the gang MS-13 as animals. They are a vile, violent, scary bunch of marauding invaders. Trump said they are not people. They are animals.
Fairly accurate, if you ask me, but the entirety of the leftist media jumped on that and used it to lie and try to claim that Trump was talking about all illegal immigrants. They know he was talking about MS-13, but they purposely took his comment out of context in order to print or report that Trump was referring to all immigrants. I mean, they literally cut and pasted the comment to fit their narrative.
And then we come to the New York Times. And I have to say, folks, I read this with some pride, if I must admit, because it’s not every day that I, El Rushbo, have my theories confirmed by the New York Times. Now, they didn’t do it to confirm my theories, but nevertheless, they did. They didn’t mean to. Don’t misunderstand.
In fact, I spent a lot of time on Monday, for those of you who were here, reviewing what I had learned about the idea that the FBI had a spy or an informant in the Trump campaign. And I spent most of the first hour of Monday’s program detailing it, explaining it how it was a setup, how they planted information in an unwitting Trump aide and then had that Trump aide repeat that information they had told him to an ambassador from Australia who then reported back to the original planters of the information.
Guess what? I was with this Trump guy, and he says that the Russians have thousands of Hillary Clinton emails. Well, the people that planted the information with the Trump aide then said, “Oh, my God. Oh, my God. We’ve got a story here. This guy has told the ambassador from Australia that the Russians –”
So the Trump campaign was said to know that the Russians had hacked Hillary Clinton emails. And that, according to the New York Times in December of last year, is what triggered the special counsel investigation. Well, the investigation into Trump. Because the dossier version had blown up on ’em, once it had been discovered who paid for the dossier, then the FBI said, “No, no, no, no! The dossier didn’t have anything to do with the FISA warrant. No, you guys are misunderstanding that. What really triggered it was this guy Papadopoulos!”
The New York Times admits it. New York Times admits that there was a spy. The New York Times admits that there was an informant from the FBI in the Trump campaign. They title their story, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane.” You know what that’s in reference to? Jumping Jack Flash. It’s the opening line of the song by Mick Jagger and the Stones. “I was born in a crossfire hurricane.” Jazz, jazz, jazz. Anyway, the story is just incredible.
And the reason the story is out is because the inspector general of the FBI has been conducting a very, very long investigation where apparently everybody believes that what the IG (his name is [Michael E.] Horowitz) is gonna release is going to be devastating. So the people that are gonna be named and called out in this report have decided to leak a version of what the IG report’s gonna say in a sympathetic, totally understandable way. “It makes every bit of sense why the FBI would do this kind of story!”
It’s a preemptive story designed to lessen the impact of the inspector general’s report that’s due out sometime this month. And it means that the people in the FBI — and we’re talking from Comey on down to Strzok to Bill Priestap, to Andrew McCabe, to Lisa Page. They all know apparently that they are gonna be called out, and so they called their friends at the New York Times and started, quote-unquote, “leaking” various aspects. Stuff that we have uncovered and have informed you about have now been admitted to in one form or another.
Most of the New York Times article is devoted to covering the rear ends of James Comey and the rest of the FBI. It almost reads like it was dictated to the New York Times by Comey or maybe his law professor friend from Columbia. You drill down… This story is almost 4,000 words. It took four or five writers. If you drill down to the 2,186-word portion of the story, you find this stunning admission:
“The FBI obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.”
My exact word to describe what went on — entrapment — regarding Papadopoulos. You know, something funny. I did not hear this, but of course, I heard about it. I was away at a semiannual (well, it’s every other year) Boys & Girls Club charity golf tournament. And this year we played Shinnecock because where the U.S. Open is. And, by the way, folks… Oh! I had a great round yesterday in a steady drizzle and 59 degrees. I finished, and I was soaked through and through. But I was striking the ball yesterday. Anyway, I arrived Monday after the program.
So I got up there to Southampton at about 6:30, and there was a reception/cocktail party, and I showed up, and people said, “Man. I just came from getting ready. You’re all over Fox News. Fox News is talking about you!” And I said, “What about?” Well, I looked into it later and found out that they had spent a lot of time — Hannity and some others, and then on Tuesday too — of playing audio sound bites from my Monday program on the whole Papadopoulos, FBI spy informant story and how that was the trigger.
By the way, it turns out that the Papadopoulos story to the Australian ambassador? It turns out that may not have actually been the official beginning of the investigation. It may have predated that because people at the FBI knew what Papadopoulos said before he had talked to the Australian ambassador. Which would makes sense because they’re the ones that fed Papadopoulos the news. Anyway. So Fox apparently spent… I’ve got the sound bites here. I didn’t see or hear any of it, ’cause I was off the grid up there.
But I found out later that they had spend a lot of time on Hannity and some during the day at Fox News. And then somebody sent me a link to a story at Mediaite. This is just classic. It’s funny. Some young punk writer at Mediaite’s writing this story up as though I am some Looney Toon conspiracy theorist, referring to what I’m saying as loony and out there and jumping all over Fox for giving it any airtime whatsoever. I couldn’t possibly be true. It’s the rantings of a lunatic right-wing talk radio host.
And then the next day (laughing) the New York Times writes the story and confirms practically all of it and much more! We’re gonna dissect the Times story after the break that’s upcoming, because, folks, it’s classic. This is what I have long theorized, that the Mueller investigation — all of it. I mean, it had as its objective… If they could have gotten Trump, they would have. If they could have found a way. But their problem — and Andy McCarthy makes this point in his piece today — is they didn’t have a crime! There was never a crime.
When they appointed Mueller, before Mueller, they had no crime. Trump had not committed a crime. Nobody could find a crime. There was no reason to investigate Trump for anything. The crimes happened on the Clinton side, which the FBI had covered up, which the FBI had exonerated her for! They couldn’t find a crime! So they had to start conducting a counterintelligence investigation, which is why we have spies and informants and a number of other things in this story. It’s why we still don’t have a crime.
There still isn’t a shred of evidence that there was any collusion. And the New York Times story admits it again today, if you read about 70% into this 4,000-word story. What really has been going on is the Mueller investigation is, in large part, an attempt to cover up what the New York Times has reported today. It’s an attempt to cover up all of the outrageous, insidious, perhaps illegal spying and actions the Obama administration undertook and sanctioned to try to destroy the candidacy of an opposition presidential candidate.
And having failed at that, their effort to destroy his transition, and having failed at that, the effort to destroy his presidency. The Mueller investigation is a cover-up of all of that that took place. But a lot of people have gotten too close. And so the people at the FBI about to be named in the IG report had to go to the New York Times to admit to certain things within certain connections to try to limit the damage of the blow when that report comes out.