RUSH: Okay. Congressional hearing today, a committee. House Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department, the report about Hillary Clinton’s email investigation, the IG report. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified. So did Christopher Wray, the FBI director. And Ron DeSantis, who is running for governor of Florida, we want to start with this. DeSantis asked Rosenstein about his involvement in the investigation.

DESANTIS: They talk about the Mueller investigation. It’s really the Rosenstein investigation. You appointed Mueller. You’re supervising Mueller. And it’s supposedly about collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia and obstruction of justice. But you wrote the memo saying that Comey should be fired, and you signed the FISA extension for Carter Page. So my question is to you: It seems like you should be recused from this more so than Jeff Sessions, just ’cause you were involved in making decisions affecting both prongs of this investigation. Why haven’t you done that?

ROSENSTEIN: Congressman, I — I can assure you that if it were appropriate for me to recuse, I’d be more than happy to do so and let somebody else handle this. But it’s my responsibility to do it. And, uhhhh, all — all I can tell you —

DESANTIS: Then how did you have an obstruction-of-justice possibility for a president exercising his powers to fire an FBI director that you said should be fired? And, oh, by the way, the IG report makes it clear Jim Comey should have been fired. So why are we still doing this with the Mueller probe?

ROSENSTEIN: Sir, I am not commenting on what is under investigation by the Mueller probe, and to the best of my knowledge, neither is Mr. Mueller.

RUSH: Mr. Mueller is commenting. Mr. Mueller went out there and said that New York Times are a bunch of people who are publishing things that aren’t true. Mueller went out there and said that the predawn raid into Manafort’s house, they didn’t beat down the door and they didn’t pick the lock, and he got mad that the New York Times and the media leaked that. BS! Somebody leaked it to ’em! Mueller’s just trying to get his handle on the leaks and make it look like his office had nothing to with ’em.

But who else would know what happened in that entry into Manafort’s house? But DeSantis here is simply… It doesn’t matter what Rosenstein’s answers were. The question here was designed to get that information out there, ’cause those are all legitimate questions. If it was justifiable to fire Comey, then what the hell is this investigating Trump for obstruction for doing it? Now, Rosenstein, I think, is involved. He did not follow Justice Department regulations when he impaneled Mueller. He did not give him a crime to investigate.

It was open-ended. And when people figured that out, he came back and wrote a memo and practically backdated it, which then spelled out specific areas for Mueller to investigate, which then includes everywhere Mueller has gone. But I don’t think anybody doubts that the purpose of this investigation from the moment it began — even before it began — is to get Donald Trump. Up next is Matt Gaetz. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, is asking Rosenstein about the FISA warrant…

GAETZ: Did you read the FISA application before you signed it?

ROSENSTEIN: I’m not going to comment about any FISA application.

GAETZ: So you won’t say to this committee whether or not you even read the document you signed that authorized spying on people associated with the Trump campaign?

ROSENSTEIN: (stammering) Well, I — I — I dispute your characterization of what that FISA is about, sir. Uh, uh, I’m not —

GAETZ: Did you read it or did you not read it?

ROSENSTEIN: I’ll happy to review — I’ll be happy to discuss the details with you. Uh, uh, as I told you, sir.

GAETZ: Well, did Peter Strzok brief you on it.

ROSENSTEIN: No.

GAETZ: Did Lisa Page brief you on it?

ROSENSTEIN: No.

GAETZ: Did Sally Moyer brief you on it?

ROSENSTEIN: Let me explain the process if I may.

GAETZ: Did Trisha Anderson brief you on it.

ROSENSTEIN: No FBI personnel briefed me on it. The process, sir, is these FISA applications and renewals first come up through the FBI chain of command. They are sworn under oath by a career federal agent! We sit down with a team of attorneys from the Department of Justice, all of whom review that, provide a briefing for us about what’s in it. And, sir, I’ve reviewed that one in some detail. And I can tell you, sir, that the information that’s public about that doesn’t match with my understanding of the one that I signed.

RUSH: Okay. Now, this is interesting, because what’s being discussed here is the Steele dossier. The golden showers story. It’s a fake story. It’s a fake dossier. It was Hillary Clinton opposition research that was passed off as legitimate intelligence, collected by intelligence agents all over the world — and that was to give it credibility. And it was used to get a FISA warrant. And what Gaetz is asking here is, “Did you know that? Are you aware that they misled the FISA the court?”

Of course, Rosenstein’s not the gonna say anything in this hearing. Rosenstein’s not gonna answer anything. The thing these congressmen are up against is… Look, I have to continue to remind you: The FBI is refusing to release specific documents requested by congressional committees. The committees are entitled to them. They’ve been asking for certain things since last August. The committee is being stonewalled by Rosenstein and others in the FBI for the usual (impression), “Well, it’s an ongoing investigation, classified information. Can’t…”

“Doesn’t matter. We’re Congress; you’re not. We’re entitled to see it.” One of the things they want to see is, for example: “When did you hire these informants, and when did you embed them in the Trump campaign?” This is something that Devin Nunes has been seeking for about a month you now, and he’s being stonewalled at every request. He also wants to know: What was the actual beginning of this investigation? We now know that it wasn’t the dossier. We now know that it wasn’t Papadopoulos blabbing about the Russians having Hillary emails.

So what was it?

Rosenstein, Wray are not answering. Donald Trump could make them answer. Donald Trump could order everything Congress wants released this afternoon — and Rosenstein, et al, could not stop it. I don’t know that they would. I mean, they might try to stonewall even Trump, but he could order all of this stuff released. Now, the Trump people say that he’s not doing this because it would appear that he is obstructing the investigation, that Trump is ordering the release of information that could be very damaging to him; or it could be exculpatory.

So the question that these guys are really asking themselves — and they’re asking Rosenstein for the public consumption — what they really want to know is why is Trump not releasing the stuff? Why is Trump is not authorizing it to be released? We’ve dealt with that answer. I think Trump has assessed a political advantage to having it appear that he is this lone outsider up against this massive, massive establishment cabal trying to destroy him. That would be a political calculation. Here’s Trey Gowdy, and he just told Rosenstein off here in this sound bite, demanding to see the evidence.

What the hell is it? What are you doing up there? Why won’t you tell us?

Here it is….

GOWDY: He was talking about impeachment within three days of Special Counsel Mueller being appointed! Three days! That’s even quicker than MSNBC and the Democrats were talking about impeaching! Within three days, the lead FBI agent is talking about impeaching the president. So this is where we are. More than 60 Democrats have already voted to proceed with impeachment before Bob Mueller has found a single, solitary, damn thing! We’ve seen the bias; we need to see the evidence. If you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Trump campaign, present it to the damn grand jury. If you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the American people.

RUSH: He went on to say, “Wrap it the hell up!” They don’t want to wrap it up for a host of reasons. Here’s Rosenstein replying…

ROSENSTEIN: I certainly share your views about those text messages, and, uh, nobody is more offended than I about what’s reflected in those messages. With regard to the investigation, uhh, I’ve heard suggestions that we should just close the investigation. I think the best thing we can do is finish it appropriately, uh, and reach a conclusion. And I certainly agree with you, sir, people should not jump to conclusions without seeing the evidence.

RUSH: This guy doesn’t say diddly-squat to anything! Now, Snerdley if this depresses you, I can understand it. ‘Cause this guy, Rosenstein, he’s not gonna ever answer a single thing. He doesn’t know anything! He’s Inspector Clouseau here, and he’s happy to be.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So Jim Jordan from Ohio accused Rosenstein of withholding information. Rosenstein got on his high horse about that. Jordan said, “Why did you hide the fact that Strzok and Judge Contreras were friends?” FISA judge. “Why did you redact that in the document you gave to us? Judge Contreras is kind of important, a FISA court judge. More importantly, the judge that heard Mike Flynn’s case. Why did you try to hide that from us?”

ROSENSTEIN: I am the deputy attorney general of the United States, okay? I’m not the person doing the redacting. My job is to make sure we address your concerns. We have, sir! Now, I’ve appointed, Mr. Lausch, who is managing that production, and my understanding is it’s actually going very well. So I —

JORDAN: Again, I think the House of Representatives is gonna say otherwise.

ROSENSTEIN: But your use of this to attack me personally is wrong!

JORDAN: It’s not personal. We just want the information.

RUSH: Okay. So Rosenstein says, “Hey, I’m not doing the redacting. All I do is run the department. I don’t know what’s going on here! I appoint Clouseau, Clouseau is over there doing the redacting, and I think it’s going pretty damn well, Congressman! Screw you! It’s going pretty damn well?” Jordan says, “You won’t give us what we want!” “Well, this is personal attacks on me. We’re doing a damn good job up here trying to stonewall you — I mean give you what you want,” and Jordan isn’t having any of it. He continued to bore in like this…

JORDAN: Why did you tell Peter Strzok not to answer our questions yesterday? When I asked Peter Strzok if he’d ever communicated with Glenn Simpson, he gave us the answer he gave us dozens of times: “On advice of FBI counsel, I can’t answer that question.” Why couldn’t he answer that question?

ROSENSTEIN: Mr. Jordan, I appreciate your sincere concerns. But I didn’t have give Peter Strzok any instructions. If there was some problem with the instructions he had, I’ll be happy to let you —

JORDAN: No, but —

ROSENSTEIN: When you find some problem with a production or with questions, it doesn’t mean that I’m personally trying to conceal something from you. It means we’re running an organization that’s trying to follow the rules.

JORDAN: Why couldn’t he answer that question?

ROSENSTEIN: I appreciate you saying it isn’t personal. (chuckles) Sometimes it feels that way. How do I know, sir? You interviewed Mr. Strzok; I didn’t. Uhhh, so I can’t answer that.

JORDAN: He works for you! He doesn’t work for us.

ROSENSTEIN: There are 115,000 people who work for me.

RUSH: (impression) “Right, and I don’t know a thing any of them are doing. I’m just the guy sitting here. I don’t know what they’re doing! I’m not doing the redacting. I’m not talking to lawyers. I haven’t told anybody to stonewall you. I don’t know what Strzok is telling you. And I don’t what Strzok isn’t telling you. I don’t know anything. I just run the department! Don’t you understand how this bureaucracy works? The people in charge of things don’t know diddly-squat, Congressman.”

“You mean to tell me you have no power over ’em?”

“I’m not in charge of it, Congressman. I’m just the guy trying to give you what we want — and by God, I think we’re doing a pretty good job of it and I don’t like the way I’m being personally attacked.”

“I’m not personally attacking you. I want to know why you are telling Strzok to stonewall!”

“I’m not telling Strzok anything. I don’t control anything. I’m the deputy AG,” and we’re supposed to accept this. “I run the department. I can’t be… I got 115,000 people that work for me. You think I know what every one of them are doing? I couldn’t begin to tell you.” So it is clear that Rosenstein is absolving himself of any involvement or responsibility, and then at the same time claiming that everything’s peachy.

Now, some might theorize that this is strategic. “Why is Rosenstein doing this?” Have you heard the left and the Drive-Bys saying if Trump fires Rosenstein, that’s impeachable. He can’t fire Rosenstein!” Of course, Trump can fire anybody any time he wants, and he doesn’t need a reason. Now, some may think that Rosenstein is trying to goad Trump into firing him so that he can trigger some kind of new investigation into Trump. If that’s cat case, Trump isn’t gonna fall for it, I don’t think.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to go back, folks, because this is confirmation of something that I instinctively intuited. When we first learned of the informant that the FBI had implanted in the Trump investigation, this collusion case, remember the name Stefan Halper? Stefan Halper was the guy that somehow found his way into the life of George Papadopoulos and had implanted with Papadopoulos — along with his buddy Joseph Mifsud, a professor from Malta — that the Russians had a whole bunch of Hillary Clinton emails.

Well, this guy, Stefan Halper, has been a lecturer and professor at Cambridge, at Oxford. He’s got some ties to Harvard. But he’s big in MI6 and the CIA. MI6 is the U.K. version of CIA. And then Mifsud, the Maltese professor… That’s actually how he’s identified in all these news stories. I made the point that going all the way back to Kim Philby… Kim Philby was a Soviet spy working in British intelligence. He was eventually uncovered and fled and lived the rest of his life in Moscow in a very palatial estate.

I made the observation that all of these spies and all of these implants and all of these people working with the FBI come from academe. They come from the equivalent of the Ivy League in the U.K., which would be Oxford and Cambridge, and they come from Harvard and Yale here. And sure enough, Stefan Halper was a lecturer at Harvard and has had connections there. Well, there is a story today in a small paper called the Taunton Daily Gazette in Massachusetts by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, and he is running for office.

He’s an accredited academic himself. He’s got four degrees from MIT, including a Ph.D., and he’s running for the United States Senate as an independent. His piece is, “It’s Time to Take Back Harvard,” exposing the truth about Harvard” and so forth. It’s a really, really good piece that details how Harvard and Yale and all of these Ivy League institutions prepare people for positions of power and authority in what we’re calling the establishment, the deep state, ruling class, or whatever. Let me give you a pull quote from his piece.

“However, today, the same people who control education at Harvard also dominate Wall Street, write the nation’s laws, and operate global behemoths like Monsanto. They are a singular cohesive community who funnel vast sums of money to themselves, draft self-serving policies, control judicial appointments, own the media, grant taxpayer monies to non-profits, while creating monopolies from tax cuts, bailouts and venture funding. They do all this and work with intelligence agencies that illegally surveillance innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, Harvard faculty generate propaganda — academic, ‘peer-reviewed’ papers — that claim their method of running the world is the best, while trampling our political and free speech rights.”

Another pull quote: “Almost every problem in the world — be it corruption, an economic crash, mass poverty, or a civil strife — can be traced back to ‘experts’ at Harvard,” and the reason the piece appealed to me is because I think it’s true. I think Harvard and Yale… Take a look just for the sake of it. I will admit something. I’m watching Rosenstein today. We played the sound bites of Rosenstein, and I wanted to find out if Rosenstein’s worked anywhere in the private sector. I wanted to find out, if I could, what Rosenstein’s net worth is.

I’ll tell you why. It’s not because I use that to judge, by any stretch of the imagination. But this guy has degrees from Wharton. He’s got degrees from Harvard. He’s right there from Harvard. He’s got degrees from all over the place — and as best I could tell, he has only worked in government which means he’s never made more than a couple hundred thousand dollars a year, which to people like this, folks, is peanuts. That $200,000 a year in this crowd doesn’t get you noticed except in this crowd it does.

He’s got an education and degrees — and he’s not alone. I just picked him because he’s in the news. I’m not zeroing in Rosenstein for any particular reason here. It’s just that he was on my mind. You know, wealth is a great equalizer, and wealth allows people to spend a lot time to things that are not related to earning a living. Most people have to spend all of their serious time earning a living, and your avocational time, your vacation time, hobby time is very, very limited. Well, wealth affords you the opportunity to dibble and dabble and a whole bunch of stuff and not have to, quote-unquote, “go to work” every day.

It’s one of the things that is also very common with people that come from this lineage. They know each other, they network with each other, and they end up — even though they’ve never earned a lot of money — when you find their net worth statement, you find it’s overflowing even though they’ve never had jobs outside government. Members of the House and Senate show up in Washington with nothing and they retire after a few years and they’re millionaires. How does this happen?

This is what this guy writing the story is talking about. But it is a club, and there is an official training for in the United States government, and it does come from the Ivy League. But it doesn’t stop at the government. How to be and how to work and how to work at Wall Street. Now, of course this is what education supposed to do. It’s supposed to enable you to excel the things. But this is more than that. This is while you’re learning how to excel, you’re also being groomed and taught how to fit in and how to be part of a very, very (in terms of population) small group of people in whom the vast majority of power in this country is vested.

And it’s this group of people that’s out of their minds over Donald Trump. This group… What has happened with Trump, this is not possible. In their world, this is not possible, even though Trump went to Wharton. Trump’s got an Ivy League pedigree. But he’s not one of them. And this is not supposed to happen. He’s not supposed to be able — nobody is — to come in and, A, get elected, and then after only, you know, less than two years show how ineffective these people are at supposedly leading the country, representing America, doing the best for America.

Trump is exposing a lot of things that nobody was supposed to ever see, and this is why they have to get rid of him. It’s why they have to do whatever they can to discredit him and to invalidate him with everything that he does, and it’s why they go after him on the basis that he’s rude and crude and unsophisticated, because those are key ingredients and requirements for admission into this club — and it extends to the same kind of people in the U.K. These are the people running the European Union. These are the people at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They’re all in this, and I was glad to see this piece, because it confirmed my instincts about it. (interruption) No, no, no. None of that. I’m not coming at this from a standpoint of jealousy or any of that. No, no, no, no. I’m just documenting it. I think this is a demonstrative thing. This guy that wrote the piece. He actually makes mention of the fact that Harvard could be sued for racketeering, given what they’ve produced and how people are trained and educated, and I don’t doubt any of that for a minute.

He says, “They do all this and work with intelligence agencies that illegally surveillance innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, Harvard faculty generate propaganda — academic, ‘peer-reviewed’ papers — that claim their method of running the world is the best, while trampling our political and free speech rights. In short, Harvard is the alpha and omega of the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex — the ‘Deep State,’ a term we often hear these days. Almost every problem in the world — be it corruption, an economic crash, mass poverty, or a civil strife — can be traced back to ‘experts’ at Harvard,” and then he writes here, “I believe Harvard needs to be investigated for racketeering.”

Now, that’s never gonna happen, and this may not be news to you. I was just excited to see it, because it confirmed yet again my unassailable instincts about things. But this is the root even of the so-called conservative Never Trumpers. There’s also a piece in the Stack today by a guy who’s done a little informal survey. In not one national newspaper — such as USA Today, New York Times, Washington Post (given the internet, it’s national) — there isn’t one, not a single pro-Trump columnist. Not a single one!

Plenty of conservatives, but every damned one of them hates Trump. George Will, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Bret Stephens, Washington Post, New York Times, to a man they despise Trump, even while watching everything they’ve devoted their lives to (supposedly) being implemented as policy. They can’t stand it that Trump is the one doing it. And there’s genuine hatred. So these people are all unified, they’re all together, and the Never Trumpers on the so-called Republican/conservative side are part of the cabal as well.

They do think of themselves as special and a cut above — intellectually, in terms sophistication and all this — and Trump is just continuing to drive them increasingly batty