RUSH: Well, looky there, folks. CNN’s reporting that the House of Representatives has formally introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump. An article. That would imply one. I don’t know what it is. Haven’t seen it. Just saw this right as the program commences.
Anyway, folks, great to have you here. It always is. It’s always great to be here with you. Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
So the Democrats and the Drive-By Media are now doing everything in their power to impeach President Trump with, what, nine days to go before he’s outta there and Plugs is inaugurated. Nine days. And all of this based on the allegation that he incited the attack on Congress with his speech at the Ellipse. The New York Times even had a headline: “Trump Incites Mob.”
But let me ask you people a question, all of you, including those of you in the Drive-By Media who are suppressing the news. Have you noticed how nobody in the media is playing Trump’s speech. Nobody is replaying Trump’s speech illustrating how he incited this, quote, unquote, attack on Congress. Why is this? I mean, you would think that they would be wall-to-wall with this. Wouldn’t you? If they had audiotape, videotape, whatever they have, of Trump inciting the mob like the New York Times headline said there, they’d have it on a repeating loop, right? You couldn’t miss it. Where is it?
Where is Trump’s speech, where’s the highlight? Where’s the B-roll? Where’s the A-roll? Where’s the C-roll? Where’s the cinnamon roll? Where’s any of it? Answer: They’re not playing it for you. Now, why is that, ladies and gentlemen? I can tell you. I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a really good story by Edward Ring at the website American Greatness. And the headline of the piece: “Big Tech’s War on Free Speech.”
It’s a very long piece. But it does give the history of the timeline of how Big Tech turned into something arguably for the good for this country and our citizens into the — can I say evil? — that it has become, or will I be sent packing to a meat packing processing plant. I guess I can say it for now. I have here Twitter’s explanation for why they canceled Trump. And it may as well be the same thing as the missing videotape of Trump’s supposed inciting-the-mob speech at the Ellipse.
If you read Twitter’s explanation for why Trump’s tweets were so dangerous they had to close his account, then — I keep harping on the fact that I consider myself to have failed in a central mission to inform people about just what and who the left in this country is for 30 years. And I really still mean it. I’m not beating myself up over it. It’s done. Gave it my best shot, but man, oh, man, this is just another cherry on top of the ice cream cone here that illustrates how off-the-wall wacko these people are.
Twitter’s explanations for why Trump’s tweets were so dangerous may as well be Trump’s speech to the Ellipse. There’s nothing in it that does what they claim Trump did. Here. Let me give you a couple of examples of Twitter. Twitter cites these tweets of Trump as reasons why they had to cancel him. Here’s their statement.
“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them–specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter–” meaning how you dumbbell idiots are seeing and interpreting Trump’s tweets, we at Twitter “have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”
So what does Twitter think that Trump tweeted that constitutes the risk of further incitement of violence? Now, “because this is rarely done by any of the social media platforms when they ban someone,” they never explain it. They just ban ’em. But in Trump’s case, they felt it necessary to explain why they had to ban his account because you might be inspired to blow things up. “Twitter identified two tweets made by the president on January 8 that resulted in their decision to ban him.”
Here’s tweet number one. Are you Ready? Are you listening? Dadelut, dadelut, dadelut, dadelut. “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
That tweet is considered by Twitter, by the American left, an incitement to violence. That tweet is one of two they cite as the reason given for canceling Trump’s account. Again. “The 75 million great American patriots who voted for me, who voted for America First, who voted for Make America Great Again will have a giant voice -” oh, man. That’s threatening. I can see where that long haired bearded Rastafarian guy Jack might be a little bit upset by this one. Giant voice. That might make his nose ring come out all on its own. “– long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape, or form,” Trump tweeted.
Shortly after that, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the inauguration on January 20th.” Those are the two tweets. That’s the second tweet where he says he’s not gonna go to Plugs’ inauguration; that constitutes an incitement to violence. That constitutes risky tweeting. That constitutes, “We can’t allow this guy to continue on our platform!”
Now, as Mr. Ring writes here in his piece at American Greatness, “Reading Twitter’s explanations for why these tweets were so dangerous that they closed [Trump’s] account offers a fresh view into the leftist mind.” I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. This is my problem. There’s nothing fresh. It’s all been known. It’s all out there for people to consume and absorb and learn from. We just didn’t do it.
He says, ” This is a mentality where thoughts with which they disagree are not merely disagreeable, they are ‘violent.'” In other words, disagreeing with Jack, disagreeing with any of these clowns at Google, disagreeing with any of the tech overlords — disagreeing with anybody on the left — constitutes violence, constitutes a propensity to violence. “In their overview, key points they make about these two tweets include the following arguments:
“That Trump is not attending the inauguration, they suggest, implies he believes the election result is illegitimate, and that” is dangerous and that promotes violence, and we can’t have that. “Trump is ‘disavowing’ his commitment to an orderly transition” by saying he’s not gonna go. This is all Twitter interpreting what that tweet means and that their bottom line conclusion is it means that Trump is inciting violence.
“But Trump, along with millions of voters and thousands of witnesses, has a right to believe the election result was illegitimate. And not attending the inauguration can be as much an indication he wants to preserve an ‘orderly transition’ as it might indicate the opposite.” It could well be that Trump knows he’d be a distraction and doesn’t want to be.
It may well be that he does not want to be a distraction. I know you might think that’s unusual, that Trump loves the light of attention shining brightly upon his countenance, but it could well be that he wants no part of this. Anyway… It gets worse. “Twitter goes on to claim that by saying he will not attend” the inauguration of Plugs, “Trump is encouraging people to violently disrupt the inauguration.”
Now, this is just… (Snort!) Folks, they’ve got the power to enforce whatever they want and believe whatever they want and believe. This is sick. It is in defiance of all that makes common sense and logic. By saying he will not attend, Trump is encouraging people to violently disrupt the inauguration? He’s not done any such thing!
They’re not through. “Twitter then claims Trump’s use of the words ‘American Patriots’ is meant to support violent acts, that Trump’s saying his supporters have a ‘giant voice’ and ‘will not be disrespected’ is ‘further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an orderly transition.'”
Do you believe this? Well, yeah, you do because I’m telling you. I’m reading to you exactly what Twitter has explained, as to why they banned Trump’s account. “Finally, Twitter claims ‘plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off Twitter’…” They have? Wow. Somehow, according to Twitter, this is linked to Trump and his “offending” remarks.
Then Facebook comes along and “also released a statement on January 7 explaining their deplatforming of the president.” They go on to explain Instagram and all the others. So that is the sum of it, and in the midst of all this you still — ladies and gentlemen, you still — can’t fine any B-roll, you can’t find any direct roll. You cannot find the Drive-By Media replaying for you elements of Trump’s speech that incited the violence in the Capitol.
You can’t find it. Nobody is making Trump’s speech to illustrate how he incited the attack. They’re just telling you that he did. In fact, if you look at the text of Trump’s speech, there’s only the one mention of people going to the Capitol Building to protest. It came near the end. Trump said as part of his wrap-up, “I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building. To peacefully, patriotically make your voices heard.”
Now, see, Twitter says “patriotically” is code word for violence. Why do you think they think this? I’ll tell you why. ‘Cause they’re a bunch of ignoramuses, and they have a scant, surface history of the American founding and so to them the Tea Party people were patriots, and what’d they do? Well, they threw tea in the harbor. “Well, that’s violence!” Against who? The precious British government!
If you protest against government, it doesn’t matter what it is. All government is legit. Communist government, socialist government, it’s all legitimate. Twitter government, it’s all legitimate. You protest against it and you’re engaging in violence. So they believe that the word “patriot,” “patriotic,” is a code word for “violence.”
Because that’s what the Tea Party gang back in the early days of this country or any others that were associated with the founding were. “Patriots equals violence.” That’s what they believe. That’s what they were probably taught, and now that’s what they facilitate being taught. “I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully, patriotically make your voices heard.”
Trump even said “peacefully.”
Somehow, that’s gonna be interpreted as code for violence. So now people are calling Trump a murderer, saying that he needs to be impeached and removed from the presidency so that he can never run for office again. All because of a speech in which he incited nothing, ’cause they’re not replaying it. So telling people to be peaceful is now a dog whistle?
Let me ask this question, folks. The fair test, the fair test to determine if Trump incited violence: What if a Democrat said what Trump said? Would that Democrat be blamed for what followed? No. Well, then how…? If a Democrat would not be accused of inciting violence using the same lingo that Trump used, then how can Trump be accused of? (Snort!) Look, these are rhetorical questions, folks. Don’t think I don’t know the answer.
I’m just illustrating something here. See, the Democrats have said and done far worse than what Trump said in this speech of his. They have planned and incited violence. They’ve bailed out rioters. They oversaw and promoted violence all of last summer in their own states and cities. But Trump has to be painted as a clear and present danger to get election fraud out of the news.
That ought to be the number one story today, but it’s nowhere near. Impeachment? That’s a gift on a silver platter to the media. They get to run with impeachment to fill time. It’s better than talking about what has outraged millions of his Americans, and that is election fraud. Now, they got the help of social media — a false native that Trump is dangerous, is promoting violence. They get to muzzle conservatives everywhere as a result.
RUSH: Look, violence of any kind is horrific, but I don’t think he incited any.
The Twitter evidence of Trump inciting violence is no evidence at all if that’s the best they’ve got, that he used the word “patriotic” and that he talked about how 75 million Americans believe in American greatness and in America first. That’s violence? That’s…? They don’t have any evidence Trump incited violence. But I’m telling you, inciting violence is horrific; nobody needs to be doing that.
It’s never accepted, remotely or otherwise.
RUSH: Let me get started on the phones here. Izzy in Raleigh, North Carolina, was at the speech that Trump gave in the Capitol. Welcome, great to have you, Izzy, hi.
CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush, and a pleasure to speak with you. After 30 years of listening to you, I finally get to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: As a fellow believer I’m praying for you. Yes, you’re right, my wife and I were there for the day’s events and I just wanted to suggest to you one reason perhaps why they’re shying away from playing the audio of his speech and it was because, in my opinion, in my wife’s opinion, many of those around us, it was flat, it was sort of dull, we were expecting — I’ve been to a lot of Trump rallies and —
RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. It was flat? You mean uninspiring?
CALLER: It was uninspiring. In fact, to the point where we and several others actually — don’t throw stones at us — we actually left a little early.
RUSH: Okay. Hang on, Izzy, ’cause I got limited time here. So I want to focus you. What were you expecting?
CALLER: We were expecting, first of all, new information, which none was given. And secondly, you know, we’ve been to other Trump rallies. We were expecting him to be more energetic. His tone was almost concessionary in a sense. And the crowd wasn’t buying in at all. There was none of the “we love you” and the “four more years” stuff —
RUSH: Well, you know, it did look weird. I saw a little of it. Trump looked like he was behind a bunch of security glass. I know he was on the mall somewhere. But I never saw a picture of Trump with the audience. Now, maybe there was one. I didn’t watch it long enough to see. But it looked like there wasn’t an opportunity for there to be a — you correct me if I’m wrong here — it didn’t look like there was an opportunity for a physical connection between Trump and whatever audience there was there. Is that right or not?
CALLER: You’re spot on with that. There was a small group of people close, but then there was a great divide where the rest of us were able to be with the Megatron or the, you know, the Jumbotrons and —
CALLER: So that also added to the sort of dullness, uninspirational. If anyone got inspired by that to do anything, I wonder. And, you know, let me just make this last point. We left earlier, so we were some of the first people to arrive at the Capitol from the Ellipse speech, and all of the players who were involved in the pushing into the Capitol, they were all already there, Rush —
RUSH: Okay. I’m sorry, but I have to stop you because I’m way over time now but we got the point. Thank you much.