RUSH: I have just been told that the vast, vast, vast majority of them are carrying the program today rather than carrying the hearings. I know it’s a tough call for certain programmers to make in determining the degree of importance and so forth, and their decision to stick with this program, I just want all of you to know in all of our markets out there, how deeply appreciative of that I am.
And it’s because of that that I’m trying to make the most of this that I can as it’s happening and commenting on it as it’s happening. So thank you again. I need to make that acknowledgment.
And I just heard a couple things here that, for me, just say everything. Now, they would probably be things that most viewers would not even take notice of. This not an insult, by the way, of anybody.
But I’m watching Jim Jordan question Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Cronkite, rather, Ambassador Edward R. Murrow. And he’s questioning his knowledge of things. And Ambassador Taylor said, “My understanding is only coming from people I talk to.” Folks, do you realize what he just admitted to here? He’s not a fact witness. He’s not an eyewitness and he’s not an earwitness. He hasn’t had one ounce of direct contact with Donald Trump.
He’s admitted just five minutes ago that everything he says comes from his understanding from talking to other people. “My understanding of these events is only from people I’ve spoken to.” Well, fine and dandy, but what does that get us? He’s not even there.
Then the second thing, some Democrat member of Congress from Connecticut takes over the questioning. (paraphrasing) “You know, the Republicans, my colleagues on the Republican side, they’re not even refuting the evidence against the president. They’re just simply talking about dossiers and some guy named Steele and some mystical thing about Russians and so forth.”
Some thing called the dossier? So he makes this observation trying to characterize the entire Mueller investigation as somebody’s imagination, that the Republicans are a bunch of kooks to keep talking about that. And then he turned to George Kent. Kent started (doing impression), “My family has been in service to the country, my blue-blooded family service to the country since before George Washington was born,” blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s how deep, deep state we are.
And the Democrat from Connecticut said, “Now, you are an expert in anti-corruption and the rule of law, right?” And this guy, George Kent, said, “Yes, Congressman, I am, specializing as an expert anti-corruption, the rule of law for 16 years.” Really? You’re an expert in anti-corruption and the rule of law in the State Department. Now, I would love to then be able to ask, what the hell do you do? What is an expert in anti-corruption and the rule of law?
He was proud of this. “Yes, yes, Congressman, I am an expert in anti-corruption and the rule of law, and I have been for 16 years.” Well, what have you done? What have you done in anti-corruption? “I have been involved in anti-corruption and the rule of law in the State Department for 16 years.” What have you done? What does an expert in anti-corruption and the rule of law do? He wasn’t asked that. Nobody knows what he does. That was simply meant as a qualification for assessing Donald Trump.
See how this works? “I am an expert in anti-corruption and the rule of law, and I have been for 16 years.” Yeah, well, okay, you get up, you have breakfast with the family, and your wife says what? “Have a good day at anti-corruption”? “Thank you, Honey,” and you go off to the office, and the sign on your door says, “Anti-corruption and rule of law”?
What do you do? “Well, I’m an expert in recognizing it, expert at stamping it out, an expert in dealing with it.” We don’t know what he does with it. He’s just an expert in it. And was allowed to proclaim himself an expert in anti-corruption, the rule of law, all for the purposes of being able to pass judgment on Donald Trump.
Can you get a degree from Harvard in anti-corruption and the rule of law? Does the Kennedy School of Government offer — can you get a doctorate in it? What about Yale? What about Brown? What about Dartmouth? Can you get a doctorate or a degree in anti-corruption or rule of law? And when you’re an expert in it, do you learn how to prevent it? Do you learn how to weed it out? Do you learn how to stop it? Do you learn how to tell corrupt people not to be corrupt? And if so, what’s your success rate, Mr. Kent?