![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/APP-100119-White-House-RUSH.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRUSH: Look, folks, I\u2019ve had some emails questioning my own take on this impeachment business. To me, this all is made up. There\u2019s nothing real here. It\u2019s a grand illusion, as I\u2019ve told you. And yet you turn on the news like right now, “Impeachment fight: White House preparing…” Rush, you gotta understand you\u2019ve got to deal with it, right, because the Democrats are actually trying to do it. Of course, I understand. Here\u2019s my problem. Let me try to explain it one more time.<\/p>\n
I guess the best way to do it is — and I\u2019m not calling anybody out. I can\u2019t even remember who I saw write this, that the White House had better have a substantive answer to the charge. Okay, well, what\u2019s the charge? The charge is that Trump in the phone call — which we know didn\u2019t happen because the transcript has been released. But the charge is that Trump was asking the president of Ukraine to dig up dirt on a possible 2020 presidential opponent, Joe Biden and his kid, and was withholding aid to Ukraine until he got cooperation from the Ukraine president.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Now, that didn\u2019t happen. But I understand. Here\u2019s the thing about impeachment, folks — and it\u2019s a tough thing to understand if you\u2019re judging it by the U.S. criminal justice system. The U.S. criminal justice system does not apply. The House of Representatives has what is called plenary power over the entire process and pursuit of impeachment. Meaning, absolute. The Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, the Sixth Amendment don\u2019t matter.<\/p>\n
Not legally. If they want to deny Trump and his lawyers the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, they can. The price they will pay for that is in public opinion not supporting what they\u2019re doing, but they can do it. Schiff can do all this stuff in private that he wants. Remember this is an impeachment inquiry, and he himself has said that it\u2019s akin to a grand jury — and, in a grand jury, the accused gets no representation and no presence whatsoever. So that\u2019s why Schiff is drawing that analogy.<\/p>\n
Now, when there are — if there are — articles of impeachment drafted and then voted on, signaling that there will be a trial in the Senate, that\u2019s where the president gets to cross-examine. That\u2019s where the president\u2019s lawyers get to participate. That\u2019s where they get to present a case. But if Adam Schiff and Pelosi want to run this as a tinhorn dictatorship would, they can. They have plenary power. So when the president\u2019s out there saying he has a right to face his accused, he doesn\u2019t, unless the House gives it to him.<\/p>\n
The House of Representatives is absolute. The U.S. criminal justice system here doesn\u2019t apply because the proceedings are not criminal and they\u2019re not legal. Not really. They\u2019re purely, purely political. Now, my point is that they don\u2019t have anything. This is like being told to mount a defense of a negative. It\u2019s impossible. Yet they do have a charge. But the charge keeps floating. The original charge was that Trump demanded the president of Ukraine “make up and dig up dirt on his opponent.”<\/p>\n
Well, Trump blew that sky-high releasing the transcript. So now they\u2019ve moved it. The target\u2019s moving. Now they\u2019re moving after the area that Trump engaged in bribery, the withholding of aid until Ukraine did what he wants. And then they\u2019re gonna go to obstruction, that Trump is preventing the House from finding out what he did. In truth, the whole thing is imploding on Schiff, but it is not being reported that way. Everything being reported in the news is as though this is entirely legitimate.<\/p>\n
And it is legitimate in the narrow sense that the House can do whatever it wants, and they can charge Trump with anything they want. The House of Representatives determines high crimes and misdemeanors, what they are. But the facts of the matter is, I don\u2019t know how you defend this because there isn\u2019t anything. So the Trump team is going to have to demonstrate that all of this is bogus, that all of this is what Mark Zaid admitted it is: A coup.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the best defense Trump has, not an answer to the “substantive charge” that he attempted to get the president of Ukraine to dig up dirt. How do you say, “No I didn\u2019t. The transcript\u2019s been released.” So, yeah. I\u2019m frustrated as hell when I see this list of “witnesses,” White House witnesses, State Department witnesses “testifying.” Nobody\u2019s testifying to anything! You\u2019ve just got a bunch of eggheads being called in to ask their opinion by Adam Schiff and the Democrats of what they think Trump is alleged to have done.<\/p>\n
Let me illustrate — and to do this, I gotta shovel two stacks of paper out of the way and move over here to one. Let\u2019s talk about Ambassador Taylor. William Taylor, stand-in ambassador to the Ukraine — Mr. Mueller II — impeccable, unassailable. You can\u2019t even breathe the same air he breathes! That\u2019s how insignificant mere mortals are to this august human existence. Lee Zeldin was questioning Bill Taylor. “Ambassador Taylor: September 7th. Are we looking at the same paragraph? Mr. Zeldin: Third paragraph down on page L2.<\/p>\n
“Ambassador Taylor: Right, in which he described a phone conversation with Sondland and President Trump, yes, sir. Mr. Zeldin: This is the only reference in your opening statement to Biden other than your one reference to the July 25th call. And this isn\u2019t firsthand. It\u2019s not secondhand. It\u2019s not thirdhand. But if I understand this correctly, you\u2019re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden? Ambassador Taylor: That\u2019s correct.” Yes, sir.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/APP-093019-Trump-Zalensky-UKRAINE.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Folks, this isn\u2019t even thirdhand. Can I read that again? This is Zeldin summarizing for Bill Taylor. So “if I understand this correctly, you\u2019re telling us that” the extent of your knowledge about this “Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?” “That\u2019s correct.” Yes, sir. Folks, this isn\u2019t even thirdhand. Bill Taylor doesn\u2019t know anything, yet he\u2019s been presented as a star witness who\u2019s got the goods that\u2019s finally gonna nail Trump.<\/p>\n
And all he knows is what somebody told him that somebody said they told somebody else that that somebody else then said the president told them that, yeah. “U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor, during his deposition last month, identified the New York Times as the sole [only] source of his claim that President Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to help him get dirt on Joe Biden…” Trump never asked for dirt on Biden! That is an Adam Schiff, completely manufactured slur.<\/p>\n
But regardless, the ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, admitted the New York Times was “the sole source” of what he knew. Not hearing the phone call, not talking to Trump about the phone call, not talking to Zelensky about the phone call but reading about it in the New York Times. So he\u2019s there being called to testify by Schiff and his Democrats. (paraphrased exchange) “Okay, what do you know?” “Well, I… (sputtering) I saw in the New York Times that,” blah, blah, blah. That\u2019s it. This is the same way that the FBI used the media to get so-called evidence before the FISA court.<\/p>\n
The FBI would plant a story in the New York Times. The New York Times ran the story. The FBI would then get the story from the New York Times, put it in the rest of the file, take it to the FISA judge, say, “Judge, it\u2019s not just us at the FBI. Even the New York Times has this.” Well, the New York Times had it only because FBI gave it to \u2019em. So Taylor\u2019s going up there as a firsthand witness, and all he knows is what he read in the New York Times — and we all know how New York Times is making things up.<\/p>\n
The transcript of the testimony described the Zeldin-Taylor exchange as follows. This is Lee Zeldin, New York Congress, talking to Taylor. \u201cWhat was the goal of requesting investigations into the 2016 election and Ukrainian company that employed Hunter in Burisma? What was the goal?\u201d<\/p>\n
Taylor: Well, as I understand it from one of the — maybe the article in the New York Times about Giuliani\u2019s interest in Burisma. In that article he describes — I think he quotes Giuliani at some length — the article indicates Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Biden that would be useful for Giuliani\u2019s client. I think that\u2019s what he says. He says he\u2019s got one client.<\/p>\n
So Zeldin says what was the goal of the president. Remember, this guy\u2019s presented as an expert fact witness. What was the goal of requesting investigations — Trump, what\u2019s the goal of the president requesting investigations into the 2016 election? Because that\u2019s what he was doing. He was asking essentially for Ukraine to help Bill Barr and to figure out how Trump ended up being investigated by the FBI, CIA.<\/p>\n
So this fact witness is being asked to explain what Trump was doing, requesting the investigation of 2016. Bill Taylor: \u201cWell, the article New York Times says,\u201d blah, blah, blah, \u201cGiuliani,\u201d blah, blah, blah, \u201chis client.\u201d Bill Taylor doesn\u2019t know jack. But he\u2019s been presented to us expert this, unassailable here, impeccable there, and the only thing he knows is what he read in the New York Times.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/APPBILLTAYLOR.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Now, Schiff knows this is what he\u2019s gonna say. This was not part of the released transcript. Well, it was, but none of this was among the first leaked releases that Schiff gave to the media. So Zeldin says, \u201cThen it\u2019s your inference that Mr. Giuliani\u2019s goal would be the president\u2019s goal?\u201d<\/p>\n
Taylor: \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd your source is the New York Times?\u201d<\/p>\n
Taylor: \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo do you have any other source that the president\u2019s goal making this request was anything other than the New York Times?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI have not talked to the president. I have no information about what the president was thinking.\u201d Well, then why the hell are you even testifying? “I have no information from what the president was thinking.” So what we have here is Mr. Taylor\u2019s opinion of what he read in the New York Times as a stand in for fact witness expertise testimony.<\/p>\n
This is what I mean by, there is nothing, folks. And how do you rebut this? How do you treat this substantive charge? \u201cWell, I read in the New York Times that the president was asking him to find dirt.\u201d Now, Breitbart News story says that Taylor claimed it was Rudy<\/a>, Rudy Giuliani who requested that Zelensky investigate Ukraine\u2019s meddling into the 2016 election and Burisma.<\/p>\n But Taylor said that his thinking on this was based the New York Times article. It\u2019s laughable, is what this is. I don\u2019t know, folks. And then Bill Taylor: \u201cUkraine unaware of U.S. hold on aid during July 25th call. Quid pro quo impossible.\u201d Let me translate. Bill Taylor testified — he\u2019s the ambassador to Ukraine — that Ukraine didn\u2019t know that U.S. aid was on hold on July 25th when the president was talking to the president of Ukraine.<\/p>\n Well, my friends, if Ukraine didn\u2019t know that money was being withheld, there cannot have been a quid pro quo. The money was already being withheld before Trump even made the phone call. He could not have threatened to withhold the aid. It was already being withheld. And Ukraine didn\u2019t even know it.<\/p>\n And it turns out that Bill Taylor admitted in his deposition he\u2019s never had any contact with Trump or even Rudy Giuliani. He admitted his only contacts were with John Bolton, who was fired by Trump and Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, and Tim Morrison. That\u2019s it. And this is the star witness. He never talked to the president. He doesn\u2019t know — all of this manufactured.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/APP-103019-Alexander-Vindman-1.jpg\")
But the coup de grace, the piece de resistance,