RUSH: Seattle and this is Pete. Great to have you, Pete. How are you?
CALLER: I am fine, Rush. It’s an honor to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you very much, sir.
CALLER: The sin that those four fellows committed was not being swamp dwellers. They were probably —
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hang on. He’s talking about the four people that were innocent that were kept in jail by Mueller so as to protect Whitey Bulger’s informant status. Okay. These four, they were not swamp dwellers, you’re saying.
CALLER: So in that case, Mueller’s crime was a crime of omission, not of commission, comparing it to sins — and crimes are comparable to sins. Now you go… If your memory is a little longer, you’ll remember these people that were referred to as the White House Travel Office.
RUSH: I remember that, yeah.
CALLER: I find it very comparable. They probably weren’t the same type of people, but they were not at the level where you would consider them swamp dwellers. They were just on the edge, and since Hillary needed those positions for her friends to occupy —
RUSH: Wait. What has this got to do…? What does the travel office have to do with these people that were kept in jail by Mueller?
CALLER: Same notion.
RUSH: What notion?
CALLER: “You’re inconvenient to the swamp dwellers. We will take care of you one way or another.” There’s one set of rules for people like — oh, like truck drivers and garbage men and whatever and farmers and —
RUSH: That’s not the point. That’s not the point of my telling the story. The point of the story… I don’t care who the four are, whether they’re swamp dwellers or not. Mueller didn’t keep ’em in jail because they’re swamp dwellers. He kept them in jail because he valued the informant status of a mass-murdering Boston mobster more than the innocence of four people he knew were innocent! It’s not whether they’re swamp dwellers or not.
The point is that here we have Mr. Honor, Mr. Integrity, Robert Mueller running this 2-1/2-year investigation of Donald Trump and whether or not he’s fit to be in office. “Did he collude with Russia? Did he obstruct justice? Is he evil personified? Does he deserve to be thrown out?” That’s the whole point of this. Actually, it wasn’t. The whole point was to find a mechanism to get rid of him because they don’t like the guy. It wasn’t even about his fitness.
It was just about the fact that they don’t like the guy and are mad that he won, that he outsmarted them. And the guy trying to find evidence sufficient to get rid of Trump is the same guy who let four innocent people languish in jail (two of them died in jail) in order to protect his investigation. He wasn’t even getting at the truth! He had four people in jail for doing something they had not done, and he didn’t put them there, but he kept them there.
The point is: If we’re trying to arrive at the truth of things, this is not the guy to do it. I know what you’re saying. You’re saying they were not swamp dwellers. They’re average Americans and that’s why they were allowed to rot in jail. If they had been special elitists, then Mueller would have found a way to let ’em out, that Whitey Bulger was important because he was identifying serious criminals, and they were much more valuable to get than these four guys’ innocence was.
But the point, no matter how you slice this, is that the investigator who discovered that these four people were innocent and were kept in jail despite that has now been appointed to investigate Mueller and the FBI and the DOJ to find out if this investigation of Trump was legit. It’s a means of expressing who this guy is, what he’s discovered in the past, what he’s capable of discovering — and then after he learns it, he reports it. I mean, this guy could have…
After learning what he learned about the case here, he could have hidden it. He could have said nothing. He could have protected Mueller. He could have protected the people that were instrumental in keeping four innocent people in jail for decades. Two of them died in jail. Why I didn’t. He reported the truth. The whole point of all of this today is to suggest that this guy, who Barr has appointed, is the guy to get to the bottom of it whether elites or non-swamp dwellers are involved.
Here’s Dean in Valparaiso, Indiana. Great to have you. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. Rush, mega dittos. Been listening since 1989.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Question. Can’t all these people that have been lying and saying treasonous things about Trump be asked by this new Durham guy about things that they got as far as…? It could be from leaks that are illegal. Like Nadler, Schiff, these guys have ever been trashing Trump for a couple years now. How’d they get their information?
RUSH: What are you…? Are you asking me if this investigation can investigate Nadler and Adam Schiff?
CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. All the guys in the swamp that have been putting fingers in. How’d they get their information? Was it legal?
RUSH: Well, I don’t think the investigation is going to go to Nadler and Schiff. The investigation is gonna go to who was leaking to them. It’s gonna go ahead who… This investigation is not to get Democrats per se. That’s what — (sigh)
CALLER: Well, for the longest time they’ve been lining up all kinds of people around Trump to get them to either lie or not tell them what they want to hear and then putting them — making them lose their house and, you know, having to pay lawyer’s fees that they can’t afford —
RUSH: How is this happening? I don’t understand how this is happening. No. The investigation is not aimed at Nadler or Schiff. The voters take care of elected officials if they do things wrong. This is not an investigation of Congress. The executive branch cannot do that. The executive branch cannot investigate Congress. Congress has oversight of the executive branch. But if they tried that, that would be hell to pay. That would be a constitutional crisis.
This investigation is the executive branch looking into itself to find out what it did to try to find out if there was involvement from the Hillary Clinton campaign, the sourcing for the Steele dossier, how it ended up as a counterintelligence investigation rather than — and what dishonesty and role the media played in it perhaps. But they can’t even go after the media on this.
They can identify them and name them, but they cannot charge them. This is strictly an investigation of the Comeys and the McCabes and whoever else that we haven’t heard about to try to find out if this investigation was in fact a trumped-up political operation. Was the Trump administration actually being spied on?
Did the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama administration take over and corrupt the FBI, the Department of Justice, and turn it into a political weapon against the Republican candidate for president and then his presidency and administration? That’s what is being looked into, not Schiff and Nadler — and if Schiff and Nadler were leaked information that’s a pack of lies, they’re not gonna investigate them. They can’t. The executive branch can’t go after these guys.
RUSH: All right. Let me give you even more detail on the FBI/Mueller investigation, the Whitey Bulger thing, so that you know the full scope of this, ’cause it has nothing to do with class, swamp dwellers versus protecting the elites. The four guys… I’m gonna start at the end of this. The four guys were kept in prison. Two of them died in prison. Four innocent people were kept in prison on purpose to keep it from coming out that six FBI guys were on the Mafia payroll, on the Whitey Bulger payroll.
This was another example of the investigators protecting themselves just like Mueller was protecting Strzok Smirk and Lisa Page until the leak of their texts got out; then he had to fire them. There were other stories, books that were written about the other investigators on his team that were also compromised, had also suborned perjury, but he didn’t get rid of them because those leaks didn’t make the mainstream media. Now, Mueller did not railroad these four innocent people.
It’s important to emphasize this. He did not railroad these four innocent men into prison, two of them on death row, for a Chelsea murder that they did not commit back in 1965. The frame job was handled by the Boston office of the FBI where, at one point, at least six FBI agents were taking payoffs from organized crime — and that’s what had to be covered up. It wasn’t just that Whitey Bulger was an informant but that he had corrupted FBI agent. That’s what Mueller wanted to protect.
So four innocent people were kept in jail knowing they were innocent — two of them died while in jail — so that the FBI, Mueller could keep the secret that a bunch of FBI agents the Boston offices were accepting payoffs from the Boston Mafia. That was another reason why this whole thing was covered up, and was the investigator that Barr has hired to investigate this investigation who uncovered all of this, or part of it. The point here is that he could have swept it under the rug, too, to protect the FBI, to protect the DOJ, to protect all these people.
But he didn’t. We now know what we know largely because of John Durham’s investigation into this. So it has nothing to do with protecting swamp dwellers or sacrificing swamp dwellers, non-elites. This was about the FBI, in this case, protecting itself. Look, they had the power to do it, they had the will to do it, and it took a special prosecutor to unravel it all. I submit to you the same thing happened here in this investigation.
The lead investigator for Mueller is a guy named Andrew Weissmann, who participated in the Enron task force, and every conviction he got was overturned by the Supreme Court in some measure because of prosecutorial misconduct. The same people ran the Ted Stevens case, which was also thrown out. After he had been found guilty, these same lawyers suborned perjury of their star witness, a contractor in Alaska. Ted Stevens was thrown out of office for supposedly accepting $150,000 in free remodeling work at his home, and the FBI agents looking into the…
Well, the prosecutors got the contractor to lie, and Ted Stevens was convicted. And it was found out that the contractor had been told to lie. He had been told to “recite”… That’s the word, the prosecutors said, “Recite what we want you to say” rather than “testify.” They had the power to do it. The government wins 95% of its cases in federal court, maybe more. The judges know the prosecutors. They see ’em all the time. The defense lawyers, may be all the time but not nearly as often as the prosecutors.
There’s a much tighter relationship. The judges believes the prosecutors; prosecutors take advantage of that, and so they were able to get away with it. (chuckles) When it got to the Supreme Court the Enron convictions were overturned and the Ted Stevens case was overturned by the judge who presided over it, and he required an investigation. A lot of these people ended up on Mueller’s investigation of Trump, led by Andrew Weissmann and whole bunch of ’em — and most of them were Hillary donors and most of them were Hillary supporters.
Strzok Smirk and Page were also on Mueller’s investigation team, and he knew that they had an anti-Trump bias because everybody on his investigation team did have an anti-Trump bias. Which is one of the first red flags why this thing should have been shut down. Why does every lawyer on Mueller’s team, why does every investigator either hate Trump or is a Hillary Clinton donor? It was the first red flag. So in the Boston case four innocent people were knowingly kept in jail just so nobody would learn that the mob had successfully co-opted six FBI agents in the Boston office.
Okay? Well, let’s come to the Trump investigation. Flynn: Wiped out, reputation destroyed. Manafort: In jail for the rest of his life, over things that the FBI had previously thought about charging him with but dropped. He didn’t do one-tenth in Ukraine what Biden and his kid have done, and we’ll see if that comes out. Then we’ve got Roger Stone! I mean, I don’t want to be interpreted as insulting Roger Stone. Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi?
Mueller had nothing on anybody.
He was desperate to get people who had lost everything so he could get them to plead guilty. So when he submits his report, people can say, “The 448-page Mueller report on Trump-Russia investigation is complete with nine guilty pleas.” Guilty pleas to what? Well, they don’t tell you guilty pleas that had nothing to do with the investigation, just nine guilty pleas. It’s how the prosecutor makes it look like, in a PR sense, his investigation got the dirt. But here you have how many people were ruined?
How many reputations destroyed, how many people financially wiped out over something that didn’t happen? How does somebody even do that? Put yourself… Do you have…? In your own existence, in your soul, do you have what you think it takes to target somebody who hasn’t done anything related to what you’re investigating and then you set them up and you ruin them?
You engage them, and you arrange for them to spend the rest of their lives in jail after wiping out almost all of that that they have earned their whole lives, knowing they didn’t do diddly-squat. Could you do that? I couldn’t. Now, maybe you and I don’t have the killer instinct, but I couldn’t. My conscience would not permit me to live with myself if I had put people in jail who had no business being there, if I had wiped them out. You know, George Papadopoulos told me… I interviewed him for The Limbaugh Letter.
He said the FBI agents were telling his fiancee to abandon him, that he was in big trouble and he was going nowhere. All this is supposed to be applying pressure on Papadopoulos to say what they want to hear, not the truth. Papadopoulos was set up! They hoped to be able to claim that him blabbing about Russia having dirt on Hillary was the reason this investigation started. Well, they had to plant that knowledge in his head.
He didn’t know any of this, and it never was true in the first place. But telling his fiancee to abandon him? “Papadopoulos is in big trouble. He’s not going anywhere. You want to go,” stuff like that. Could you do that? If you’re doing that and actually trying to get legitimately guilty and bad people off street, yeah. But there’s nobody guilty here. The target didn’t do anything (i.e., Donald Trump) and they all knew that!
RUSH: Here’s Sam in Sarasota. His uncle was one of the four people in jail. It says here your uncle served 33 years, and he didn’t do it. He was not guilty, right?
CALLER: Right. That’s correct.
RUSH: And how did you…? You knew this all along, right?
CALLER: Oh, yeah. We knew all along, Rush. There was no doubt whatsoever. This whole mess started in 1965, and the sinful part of it is, not only did these men… Two of them died in prison; then my uncle and another gent got out. They settled for $102 million. My uncle got $26 million after a year and a half of trying to collect the money, because Mueller kept continuing it and continuing it. They wouldn’t release the money. Finally, a federal judge ended up paying the two survivors with interest. Now, here’s the caveat and here’s the best-asked question: These four were convicted. Three of the four were given life sentences. Massachusetts had Old Sparky, the electric chair, at the time. So they were on death row. They were only allowed in the general population for an hour a day. They didn’t really communicate with anyone. They were only allowed one visitor every couple of weeks.
RUSH: Hang on just a second. What was your uncle and the other three…? What were they accused of, and what were they convicted of?
CALLER: They were accused of a gangland murder in 1965. They were accused by a fellow by the name of Barboza, and Barboza was an FBI informant. He was also the first FBI informant ever to get placed in the Witness Protection Program. He was a key guy in witness protection. Now, he fingered four guys who had nothing to do with this murder of Teddy Deegan in Chelsea, Mass., in 1965. These guys had nothing to do with him.
They were just not liked by Barboza, and Barboza had to prove himself and make his bones with the Feds. Well, after all was said and done, one of the federal agents, he just recently passed away in jail, and two of the other guys were tossed out. But Mueller… Mueller knew about it. Through the Freedom of Information Act, a yellow reporter from the Boston Globe started this whole ball rolling, and Mueller’s response was, “We can’t let these guys out because it would create such a black eye on the FBI.”
RUSH: Exactly. That’s exactly right. They were in jail, convicted for murder that they didn’t do. And, now, Mueller didn’t put ’em there; but he found out that they were innocent and decided to keep them in jail because there were six FBI agents who were discovered to be on the Mafia payroll in Boston, and that’s what they wanted to protect.
CALLER: Correct. You got it. You hit the nail right on the head.
RUSH: So your uncle was in jail for 33 years for something he didn’t do, and law enforcement knew it.
RUSH: Yeah, and one of the guys involved in that is now the guy investigating Donald Trump?
CALLER: Correct. Now, let’s not miss the point here.
RUSH: What is the point?
CALLER: Here’s the point. It gets a little deeper. Massachusetts got rid of the death penalty. These guys would have gotten the electric chair if it wasn’t for the state of Massachusetts commuting the death sentence. So Massachusetts, they said no.
RUSH: Well, but as it is, even with that, two of them did die in captivity, right? They died in jail.
CALLER: Mueller would have let these guys go to the electric chair, Rush!
RUSH: Right. I know. That’s incredible.
CALLER: It is incredible, isn’t it?
RUSH: And the reason… Folks, the reason why this has come up… Sam, I’m really glad you got through. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to call and endure all the busy signals to get through. The reason any of this matters today, if you’re just joining us, is William Barr, the attorney general, has appointed a man by the name of John Durham to investigate the investigation of Donald Trump. Barr said under oath during congressional testimony that he’s convinced the Trump campaign was spied on.
Look, everybody knows that this investigation was a political operation, that it was not… There were no crimes that took place. It was not a legitimate counterintel. They knew the Russians hadn’t colluded. Everybody knew it. It’s one of the biggest, biggest political hoaxes and scandals, and it was a silent coup. Well, the reason why this Boston story is important is because the lawyer, the Connecticut U.S. attorney that’s been appointed to investigate this, was involved in uncovering all of this and reporting all of this that went on in Boston.
It’s on his resume that he was an investigator. He also has uncovered some chicanery by the CIA in the course of his legal life. The important thing about it is that unlike the lawyers on the Mueller investigation team of Trump and unlike some of the law enforcement people in the Boston store, this guy, upon learning what happened, did not sweep it under the rug to protect the reputation of law enforcement or to avoid giving them a black eye.
He reported it and went public, and the Boston Globe did have a journalist with Freedom of Information Act pursuits that uncovered some of this. But an actual U.S. investigator found it and went public with it. That’s the importance here, and it’s not the only thing that’s important. The other thing that’s important is that (chuckles) it happened. Let me ask you a question. You’re watching TV or you’re reading the internet. You’re consuming news.
And all of a sudden you see a story on TV where somebody in law enforcement — it could be the low police, could be the FBI, could be anybody — announces that they’re accusing so-and-so with having done so-and-so. Isn’t your natural assumption to believe law enforcement? “The guy must have done it,” you say to yourself. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not being critical. I’m saying this is simply a way of life. I’m not being critical of anybody here. I’m just saying, this is an advantage that prosecutors and law enforcement have, that whenever they accuse somebody, everybody believes it.
Most people would think, “Why would they waste their time trying to get somebody that didn’t do it? He must have done it. The guy must be guilty.” It’s just the automatic assumption that citizens make, and it’s because law enforcement has earned the reputation it has. So when it is discovered that there is corruption — and there’s corruption in everything. Some of it’s permanent, some of it’s just temporary and a one-time or two-time one-off.
But whenever it’s learned, it’s shocking, like this was in the Boston case. At any rate, when you put the pieces of this all together, it just says that this guy, Durham, is the right guy to ferret out what happened here, because he has a track record of not sweeping behavior that should be called out under the rug if it involves law enforcement.