{"id":276541,"date":"2018-06-14T16:15:00","date_gmt":"2018-06-14T20:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=276541"},"modified":"2018-06-15T16:38:04","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T20:38:04","slug":"ig-report-looms-over-washington","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2018\/06\/14\/ig-report-looms-over-washington\/","title":{"rendered":"America\u2019s Anchorman Analyzes IG Report Leaks as They Come In"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Well, this just after noon in Washington, D.C., which means the inspector general\u2019s report is now being viewed. Members of Congress are looking at it along with the White House. It\u2019s at the White House. It is not supposed to be released to the public until 3 p.m. Why do you think that might be? What happens at 3 o\u2019clock every day? This program ends. That\u2019s what happens at 3 o\u2019clock. So the president looks at it and then it\u2019s up to him how much of it gets released. I don\u2019t think we\u2019re gonna have to wait until 3 o\u2019clock to find out what\u2019s in this thing because it\u2019s gonna start leaking like a sieve.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In fact, it already has. There\u2019s already a big leak about James Comey, and it\u2019s a disappointing one. Now, I\u2019ve heard… It\u2019s disappointing to me. I\u2019ve heard people this morning who have had experience with inspectors general reports, and they say, “Hey, you know what? These things are often hard-hitting, because they dig deep. The inspector general\u2019s report, you can count on this having a lot of meat in it.” So a lot of people — and I\u2019m talking about some conservative media types — expect there to be bombshells in this.<\/p>\n

\"\"I don\u2019t know, folks. It\u2019s still the establishment. I know Horowitz, the inspector general, his reputation is impeccable. But it\u2019s still the swamp. I\u2019ve made sure that my expectations do not get out of proportion here. I\u2019ve made sure that my hopes… ‘Cause I\u2019ve just been… We\u2019ve been set up too many times. I can count on two hands the number of times we\u2019ve been set up by media and others — after things have been seen and leaks have occurred — expecting to see bombshell-type things. And when it actually was released…<\/p>\n

Such as Bill Clinton\u2019s grand jury testimony, videotaped grand jury testimony. For example, we were told that Clinton just lost it and blew up when he was asked the question about what he did with the cigar with Monica Lewinsky. So everybody was tuned in watching for this, because it aired. And when it finally happened, you know, it went by so fast, you could hardly notice it. You barely saw anything. Clinton\u2019s eyes got wide open for a split second, and that was it. I said, “You know, I\u2019m not gonna get sucked in by this stuff anymore.”<\/p>\n

‘Cause we were waiting for two days for that. Everybody had hyped it, and the people hyping it were the White House, the Clinton White House with their buddies in the media. They did this on purpose. They built up these expectations. They got everybody to believe that Clinton was going to just lose it in this testimony. And then this it actually happens, and you see that the question barely caused a raised eyebrow.\u00a0What had happened in the previous two days is all people in the media had been telling everybody in America, “Bill Clinton lost it!\u00a0Bill Clinton was really exposed! Bill Clinton blew up!”<\/p>\n

And then when it didn\u2019t happen, guess whose credibility went south? All the people who had been hyping it. So you gotta learn how to take these things and expect them with the proper proportion. Now, the leak about Comey — and I think it comes from Doomberg News, although it\u2019s out there in a number of places now. “While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey\u2019s part,” ostensibly, supposedly the inspector general\u2019s report will chide the FBI director for being insubordinate and for assuming control of the Justice Department when he did not have it.<\/p>\n

And this is a reference to Comey\u2019s July 5th press conference where he went out there and laid out all of the crimes that they had discovered Hillary Clinton had committed regarding transferring, transmitting classified data on her home-brew email server. Comey goes through all of the crimes and then at the end of it says, “But we\u2019re not gonna prosecute because no reasonable prosecutor would ever prosecute these cases, or this case, or these charges, because we can\u2019t find any intent on the part.”<\/p>\n

Well, he made up law!<\/p>\n

Intent was not part of the law!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

But beyond that, charging decisions are not the FBI director\u2019s. Press conferences like he did are not the purview of the FBI director. Any press conference like that announcing whatever the DOJ was gonna do or not gonna do would have been left to Loretta Lynch, the attorney general at the time. In addition, Comey providing details of the investigation is another gigantic no-no. This just isn\u2019t done. This is FBI, DOJ guidelines. You never divulge details of an investigation while it is ongoing. You leak it to friendly people in the media, but you don\u2019t go out and do it the way Comey did.<\/p>\n

So all of that, according to the IG report — well, according to Doomberg — none of that that Comey did originated or consulted from political bias. (sigh) I don\u2019t understand that. James Comey and the FBI were committed to Hillary Clinton winning the election. They had exonerated her even before Comey\u2019s July 5th press conference. She was interviewed (because they had to do that) on the Saturday of the Fourth of July weekend. She was allowed to have all kinds of people in there with her who are not lawyers; they were all granted immunity.<\/p>\n

Comey had written the letter exonerating her of all crimes before he even interviewed her. And we\u2019re told that none of this was the result of political bias. You know, it reminds me. When Comey cleared Hillary by saying she didn\u2019t intentionally break the law… Let\u2019s see if we have the bite. I\u2019m looking back, looking back. I\u2019m looking see if we have the actual sound bite of this. Well, we might, but I don\u2019t have a chance. It\u2019s not totally contained. So let me read to you what Comey said:<\/p>\n

“In looking back into our investigations into the mishandling of removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional and willfully mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference to of intentional…” I watched this when it was going and could not believe it. What do you mean she didn\u2019t intend to do it? The whole server setup was an intention! (laughs)<\/p>\n

She set the server up intending to mask and cover up what she was doing. She set that whole thing up intentionally to avoid scrutiny. And here was Comey saying, “We couldn\u2019t find any intent.” If this IG report… (sigh) We\u2019re gonna find out soon enough, but it is clear to me and it was clear during Comey\u2019s press conference and even before that Hillary Clinton has committed massive vibrations of the law. Hillary Clinton was breaking laws left and right, and she was exonerated. So my question:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

As the IG investigates this, anybody investigating it would have to see the laws that she broke, the statutes with the server, with her emails, with classified data. What does he have to say about that? I mean, if we have a secretary of state who it is obvious is breaking the law, but we are investigating the FBI who exonerated her, at what point does the IG say, “They let her skip; they should have charged her”? Is this what the IG report\u2019s gonna say? We don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

Well, I\u2019ll give you a hint: Nothing in this report today is going to do anything to reverse her exoneration. My guess. I don\u2019t mean to depress you, and I don\u2019t mean to disappoint you, but the Clintons and this little crime family operation they\u2019ve had going for all these decades seem to slither out of everything. Even though it is so obvious, from the way she admitted trying to delete everything on this server. Do you remember, folks, she was being asked about “wiping” the server, and the woman actually said, “What, do you mean like with a cloth?”<\/p>\n

And I said, “Give me a break! She\u2019s trying to act like she doesn\u2019t know what wiping a server means or wiping a hard drive. What do you mean, “with a cloth”? She\u2019s trying to portray her… He\u2019s the Smartest Woman in the World trying to portray herself as an abject doofus when it comes to the technology involved in deleting data from a computer, from phone. She knows how to do that as much as she knows how to get up in the morning because that\u2019s what these people do: Hide data.<\/p>\n

So if there was no political bias, and if what Comey was was insubordinate and assumed roles that were not his… I\u2019m not saying that this report is not gonna be damaging. I think as this has gone on… Contrary to the continued portrayal of Comey publicly, I think he\u2019s becoming more and more isolated. I think there are fewer and fewer people that want to rally around the guy, and this report today may enhance his isolation. Jennifer Jacobs was tweeting…<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

She\u2019s also from Doomberg News<\/a>, and she tweets she\u2019s seen some of the IG report, and what she has tweeted here or reported is a text conversation between “the lovers,” Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. “‘Several FBI employees Who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages,\u2019 IG report says.” Now, Comey supposedly exonerated from political bias. We\u2019ll have to wait and see. But Jennifer Jacobs says, “‘Several FBI employees Who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages,\u2019 IG report says. It cites Lisa Page text to Peter Strzok: ‘(Trump\u2019s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!'” (sobbing) Trump\u2019s not going to become president, right? (sniffles)<\/p>\n

“Strzok: ‘No. No he\u2019s not. We\u2019ll stop it.'”<\/p>\n

We will stop Trump from becoming president.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s Peter Strzok replying to Lisa Page. This is ostensibly from the IG report as well. And an acknowledgment that they were engaging here in politics, political bias and so forth. Let\u2019s go to Professor Dershowitz and see what he thinks we\u2019re in store for. He was on America\u2019s Newsroom today. Sandra Smith was speaking to the professor, and the question was this: “Those that are caught up in the process of this report, we obviously know James Comey, but Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe. What do you expect to hear about them, Professor?<\/p>\n

DERSHOWITZ: I think we\u2019ll hear criticism of Loretta Lynch on the ground that even the perception of bias is not something an attorney general should commit to happen and that her meeting with Clinton at the tarmac was ill-advised. Look, I wonder whether we\u2019ll see anything about the close relationship between Comey and Mueller. We know that these people were joined at the hip, and if Comey is criticized, I think the president will get some ammunition criticizing Comey\u2019s protege or close friend, Mueller, and whether he should have been the one to investigate matters that may involve his friend Comey.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, there\u2019s one thing about this, folks. This report — the inspector general\u2019s report — has been final for a while, and it has been circulating among those who are named. That is standard procedure. They are given a chance to read it, and then they are given a chance to lobby the IG to change his interpretation of their actions. That normally falls on deaf ears, but they\u2019re at least given the chance. The point is that this stuff has been circulating for weeks now, and there hasn\u2019t been… Up until last night, there hasn\u2019t been a leak from this.<\/p>\n

There hasn\u2019t been a single bombshell leak from this. It\u2019s 500 pages. So the interpretation of that is, “Well, it\u2019s got to have some bad news dynamite in it for a lot of people if it isn\u2019t leaking, because if it exonerated a lot of people and if it was really a ‘nothing to see here\u2019 kind of report, then that lived leaked already.” So we\u2019ll find out. We\u2019re doing our best here. We\u2019re not gonna sit here and sit still and just be shut out of this by the fact that it\u2019s not gonna be released \u2019til after 3 o\u2019clock. We\u2019re gonna try to find out what this thing has, \u2019cause it\u2019s gonna be leaking all over the place.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: The Washington Post has a story. By the way, Maggie Haberman, who is the New York Times reporterette, infobabe who gets probably most of the anti-Trump leaks in and around Washington, has tweeted a link to a story I\u2019m holding here right in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers in the Washington Post. Her reaction after she types the link in her tweet she says, “Oh, man.” Now, I don\u2019t know what that means, but I have the Washington Post story.<\/p>\n

The headline: “IG Report Criticizes Comey\u2019s Handling of Clinton Probe, Includes Anti-Trump Exchanges Among FBI Personnel.<\/a>” Okay. Been there, done that. We knew all of that. We knew Comey comes under criticism, but apparently not because of any political bias, when we know that there was! We know that Comey was totally invested in Hillary Clinton winning, and we know that after Trump won, Comey was invested in reversing the outcome of the election, embarrassing Trump and what have you.<\/p>\n

We know that Comey was political biased. But apparently the IG report exonerates him from that aspect of why he did what he did. And we know about the anti-Trump exchanges among FBI personnel, such as Strzok and Lisa Page.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: All right. Here\u2019s a bit of an update for you. Three Republican members of Congress — [Andy] Biggs, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Matt Gaetz — have written to the inspector general, Mr. Horowitz, asking for all of the drafts of his report on the handling of the Clinton email case. They say, “We are concerned that … people may have changed the report in a way that obfuscates your findings.” That\u2019s from the letter they have sent to the IG.<\/p>\n

Now, this is a reference to the fact that for the past three weeks this report has been circulating and the people written about — subjects of the investigation — are given a copy of it. And they are then… It\u2019s obviously for the purpose of lobbying the IG to change his interpretation to make their case how what he has written, what he\u2019s found is wrong. So these three members of Congress think that a whole lot of stuff that was originally in this report may have been changed to exonerate people who were originally found to have committed some bad stuff.<\/p>\n

So these three members want to see every draft of Horowitz\u2019s report. They, again, claim that they\u2019re very concerned that “people may have changed the report in a way that obfuscates your findings.” That is a quote. None of this surprises me. There\u2019s another story out today that\u2019s all part of this too. Look, I think that some of this may actually be bombshell, based on… We have little trinkets of this stuff leaking out now.<\/p>\n