![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/00-EIB-Callers-1.jpg\")
RUSH: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that you\u2019re a lifer.<\/p>\nRUSH: Peter in Redding, Connecticut, glad you waited, sir. Hi.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Mega dittos. I\u2019m a first-time caller. Been listening to you, I guess, since like \u201989 or \u201990.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that you\u2019re a lifer.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Almost. Yeah, I guess so. And I\u2019ve started reading Rush Revere with my 8-year-old daughter, and she loves it. My wife really actually wonders how you — is a teacher, and she said it\u2019s a special talent to be able to get through to young kids and she was very impressed with the whole story. Anyway —<\/p>\n
RUSH: Well, thank you. God bless you, sir. I appreciate that.<\/p>\n
CALLER: Yeah. Anyway, first point I wanted to make is I actually think these accusations are kind of good news because it shows the Democrats are out of ideas. They\u2019ve gotta go back to the old Anita Hill accusations to… It seems to me if they can\u2019t come up with anything new, that\u2019s actually good for our side.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Well, theoretically. But in the process, you have two Republicans that have peeled off and the nomination may have gone with \u2019em! So the Democrats haven\u2019t lost anything here. If that actually happens… I know you have another point that\u2019s interesting too.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: Peter in Redding, Connecticut. You actually… You think this has to do with Mitt Romney? How does this have to do with Mitt Romney?<\/p>\n
CALLER: Okay. Well, I was reading a theory on the internet, and I wanted to get your opinion on it. But it\u2019s saying the timing of this 2012, you know, psychiatrist meeting is kind of interesting because going be back to 2012 was the reelection. Romney was widely expected to be the Republican nominee. According to a March 2012 article by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh was widely expected to be Romney\u2019s Supreme Court pick.<\/p>\n
At the time, they were very concerned about the Affordable Care Act. Kavanaugh had voted against it on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals, and you really don\u2019t get more establishment Republican than Kavanaugh. So, you know, this theory is that really they were concerned about Ginsburg, whether, you know, that she wouldn\u2019t retire and they were afraid she might die in office. So, you know, so basically the theory is that this is really a preemptive attack in case Obama didn\u2019t win in 2012.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/APP-071018-brett-kavanaugh-001.jpg\")
RUSH: Uhhh, but she didn\u2019t come forward in 2012.<\/p>\n
CALLER: She didn\u2019t come forward but she was getting it on the record in 2012.<\/p>\n
RUSH: Oh, you mean at the psychiatrist\u2019s office.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/310-Mitt-Romney.jpg\")
CALLER: Right.<\/p>\n
RUSH: At the therapist\u2019s office, getting it on the record. So you think they were gonna take Kavanaugh out back then if Romney had won and nominated him?<\/p>\n
CALLER: Right. Yeah. If Romney had won and then Ginsburg for some reason… She was struggling with cancer and if Ginsburg some reason dies in office and if Romney had won and nominated Kavanaugh to Supreme Court —<\/p>\n
RUSH: There are a lot of ifs here, and the problem is they almost didn\u2019t bring it up now. I mean, if they\u2019ve had it… I get the theory that they\u2019ve had it in the deck since 2012, and if Romney had beaten Obama and Ruth “Buzzi” Ginsburg had had something unfortunate happen, that they were gonna try to destroy Kavanaugh. The purpose here was to get her story on record with a shrink, a psychiatrist, a therapist, or what have you, for use if Romney had been elected. Okay, fine. But they didn\u2019t bring this forward until they had exhausted every other attempt to destroy Kavanaugh.<\/p>\n
And if they\u2019d been worried about Kavanaugh all those years — and I don\u2019t doubt that they have. I mean, he is who he is and he\u2019s the kind of judge that he is. I think they have doubts and qualms about the woman\u2019s story, and I think one of the reasons DiFi sat on it is I don\u2019t think they want to put this woman up in public. I really don\u2019t. I think they\u2019re gonna try to engineer her testifying in private, behind closed doors because of the trauma and her desire to remain private. I appreciate the call, Peter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CALLER: I was reading a theory on the internet, and I wanted to get your opinion on it. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":279205,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[12,1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n