Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: What is this? “Emails Show White House Effort to Justify Trump’s Aid Hold.” Who has to justify it? If Trump wants to withhold aid to Ukraine, there’s nothing impeachable about that. Okay. So there might be an email trail showing Trump’s justification for it. So what? The place was a corrupt hellhole. Before he sends more money, he wants to find out if they’ve made their promised reforms.

This is a CNN headline. “Emails Show White House Effort to Justify Trump’s Aid Hold.” Like somehow somebody at the White House thinks what Trump did is an impeachable offense, so they gotta construct an email chain to make it look like there was justification. Trump doesn’t need justification. He’s the president of the United States. He runs the executive branch. He runs foreign policy. If he wants to withhold Ukraine money, he can do it.

Why was none of this concerning anybody when Obama didn’t give Ukraine a dime for crying out loud? I’m sorry to get worked up about this, folks. But this is such an outrage what is continuing to happen here. I see little stories like this pop up, and I’m sorry, I cannot restrain myself. I have to comment on it the moment I see it because this is just ridiculous. “Emails show White House effort,” as somehow as the way they’re gonna nail Mulvaney. How?

“Emails show Trump officials debated legality.” There’s nothing legal or illegal about withholding aid. This is all this phony bribery allegation. “Yeah, Trump was promising unless they investigated Biden they weren’t gonna get any.” Well, the problem is they got the money and there still hasn’t been an investigation of Biden. So now you want to impeach Trump for a thought crime.


RUSH: Well, some of these learned civil servants were finding a way to defy Trump’s wishes in Ukraine. You know, it takes me — no, I have not forgotten the Pelosi stuff, and I’m gonna get to it in a mere minute, but since I’m on this path here, I was reading a number of things over the weekend: Sports Drive-Bys, news Drive-Bys, tech blogs, you name it.

And it’s amazing. In the variety of Drive-By news outlets, there was a theme, and the theme was, how could anybody accuse decorated, honored civil servants of lying? How could anyone accuse every one of those witnesses at the Schiff committee, how could anybody accuse all of them of lying? Lieutenant Vindman, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman — O say can you see — a decorated army military man shows up in uniform, they all loved Fiona Hill, the Democrat money pays for her work at Brookings, even though she tried to say that she appeared as a nonpartisan. That’s the way she pronounced it. What am I gonna do?

And you had Taylor, and you had George Kent, this endless parade of these people. And throughout the media, “Could all of them be lying? I can’t believe these defenders.” Nobody is saying they lied about anything, not all the time and not everything. I have a different question. Why is it that you people in the Drive-By Media and everywhere, why is it that you automatically believe everything they say? Why do you not question anything any of them say?

Why do you question everything Trump says and even thinks? Why do you never question the intelligence community? Is the U.S. intelligence community impervious to political influence? In other words, is the intelligence community the United States so pure and so precious that there’s no amount of political influence that can affect their work? Are you kidding me? Is the U.S. intelligence community so perfect that they are impervious to corruption?

I mean, the U.S. intelligence community and these civil servants are hoisted up as the perfection of humanity. They are unassailable, they are unquestionable, they are the epitome of class, dignity, sophistication and perfection. And you can’t question them. These people believe everything they say, when it’s convenient.

Did not the U.S. intelligence community working with the intelligence communities in Western Europe, did they not all say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? They did. The U.S. intelligence community was so certain of that, we went to war in Iraq to get rid of those, to find those and get rid of those weapons of mass destruction. Lo and behold, we got there, there weren’t any. And who was it that had all kinds of egg on his face?

Why, that would be George W. Bush followed closely by Lieutenant Colonel Powell or Secretary Powell or General Powell or whatever. Because even he had been hoodwinked into presenting the case before the United Nations Security Council. Did not the U.S. intelligence community try to make everybody believe that Donald Trump was a traitorous colluder with the Russians as the Russians were meddling in the 2016 election?

Where is it written that they are unassailable? Where is it written or established that the civil service never lies? Where is it written that the civil service, the intelligence community, are immune from political influence and corruption? And, by the way, no one is saying all of these wonderful civil servants are lying per se.

What they are doing is acting as though Donald Trump has no right to ignore them and that Donald Trump is committing some kind of horrible impeachable act by not listening to them, by not using them. Their complaints to a man and woman revolve around Trump going outside the usual channels of the interagency group, sending his own people to Ukraine instead of using the professionals.

So my question, why do you people in the media, why do you people on the Democrat side, why do all of you who do, why do you automatically and without question just believe totally everything anybody in the civil service or national security apparatus says whenever they say it? Why is there not a shred of doubt?

Well, we all know the answer to this. Because everybody we’re talking about here is on the same political side, and they all have one political objective, and that is to get rid of Donald Trump.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This