Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: To the audio sound bites. This is me. I want you to hear what I said. This is last Wednesday, another airtight prediction made before anybody else.

RUSH ARCHIVE: I’m gonna make a prediction to you right now. CNN is gonna continue to cover this story 24 hours because they’re getting ratings for the first time in 20 years. They are not gonna let this go. I’m not gonna predict what the coverage will be, maybe it’ll be rooted in “we don’t believe the explanation.” Or maybe, “we’re gonna find guests who don’t believe it,” but they’re gonna keep this alive.

RUSH: I said, “[I]f they have to, for the rest of the year,” and every day that goes by where they don’t find plane, CNN’s on the air continuing to cover the story. And as I predicted, here’s Piers Morgan last night on CNN…

MORGAN: When I watched the Malaysian prime minister, I just thought, as I was listening to the statement that he made, “How can they be so sure?” Without any wreckage at all that’s been independently verified as coming from this plane, how can they be unequivocal?

RUSH: Well, they answered that. Do you know what they said? (chuckles) “There’s no evidence that we’re wrong.” That’s exactly what they said. People said, “Wait a minute! All you’ve got is this Inmarsat satellite data that’s based on pings and Doppler curves and so forth, and so that’s where you think it is?” “Yep.” “But…” “Well, we don’t have it, but nobody else does, either.

“We are just convinced the flight ended. It’s over. It crashed. We want to be done with this, and you can’t prove that it didn’t crash, ’cause you can’t find it still flying. Nobody can find it on the ground anywhere, either. So we are proclaiming it crashed.” That was the answer. Well, that’s not gonna be good enough for CNN.

Last night on Piers Morgan Live, he spoke with the correspondent Richard Quest on the explanation given for the disappearance. Piers Morgan said, “Richard, is it enough for them to be not 100% certain? If they’re not 100% certain, why has the Malaysian prime minister gone out and told all these relatives, ‘Your relatives are dead’?”

QUEST: Piers, we know the route it took! We know it hasn’t been seen! We know all these facts. We may not have any wreckage for weeks. We may NEVER have wreckage. So he has basically said, “This is the best evidence that we have, and that is why we conclude the flight ended.”

RUSH: Yeah, the best evidence they’ve got is that you don’t have any evidence it didn’t crash. That’s what they’re saying. (interruption) Well, he is leaving. He is leaving, Piers Morgan. They have a lot of British accents on CNN. It’s not working out for ’em, but they’ve still got ’em. Now, next up: On The Situation Room last night, Wolf Blitzer talked with Jeffrey Toobin (who’s the lawyer, CNN’s legal analyst) about the announcement that the flight crashed. Blitzer said, “Which country’s court will have jurisdiction over lawsuits that inevitably will emerge here, Jeffrey?”

TOOBIN: Think about complexity here. You have a Malaysian airline —

RUSH: Right.

TOOBIN: — mostly Chinese passengers —

RUSH: Right.

TOOBIN: — a — a American manufacturer —

RUSH: Mmm-hmm.

TOOBIN: — in a plane that apparently, apparently went down near Australia in international waters. Most likely, as I understand it, the litigation would start in China and Malaysia. But there will certainly be an effort to bring some of the cases to the United States because that’s where the deepest pockets are and that has the most plaintiff-friendly litigation.

RUSH: (laughing) Does that not sum it up? (laughing) That’s gonna tick Putin off, too, ’cause all the lawsuits are gonna be where the money is: The United States. Toobin is very proud of that. We’ve got deep pockets and we have a “plaintiff-friendly litigation” system here in America, and that’s where all the money is. We didn’t have anything to do with it except we manufactured the airplane.

There were two or three Americans on board.

Can you imagine if…? (interruption) Well, if they never find the plane, if they never find the passengers? (interruption) Well, the Malaysian prime minister has said the flight “ended.” So he is sue-able. There’s no evidence. The Malaysian prime minister has said the flight “ended” and where it ended out there, four hours from Perth, Australia. It was “far from any landing sites,” as he said. (sigh) I don’t have time, gotta take a break, but weighing in next on this is the inimitable Sheila Jackson Lee.

Wait for it!


RUSH: Snerdley’s going crazy here, folks. He can’t figure out how anybody could be sued when they don’t have an aircraft. “How can you sue Boeing? You don’t have an aircraft; you don’t know why it crashed. How can you sue Malaysian Airlines? You don’t have an aircraft. You don’t have any bodies! How can you sue anybody?” What you need to do is go look at CNN earlier today.

They went out and they got Bill Nye “the Science Guy” to talk about the legal issues. That’s how hard up they’re getting for guests. Bill Nye, “the Science Guy,” who’s not even a science guy, if you know the truth. I’m not trying to destroy you kids’ opinion, but he’s not. See, it works this way. Jeffrey Toobin gave it up.

You go after Boeing. A lawsuit is that you make some claims, and then you get a jury. That’s all. Sue Boeing for whatever. Blame them for the crash. All you gotta do is get a jury that hates American corporations and loves to take care of “the little guy,” and then go make the case. If you have no evidence, that’s speculation, the best probable cause. It’s a civil lawsuit.

And then if the judge thinks it’s excessive or not enough, he can make adjustments or what have you. But just because there’s no airplane doesn’t mean they can’t sue everybody. It’s like a town sweep. You just throw everybody in and sue everybody and hope you get a jury that goes along with one of your targets.

You do it here. It’s what Toobin said: We got a litigious friendly and a plaintiff friendly judicial system here. (sigh) Okay. Sheila Jackson Lee. This was on the floor of the House. I wish this had been on CNN. This was on the floor of the House, Sheila Jackson Lee (Democrat-Texas) speaking about the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370…

LEE: I call upon the aviation industry to stop hiding behind costs and how much it costs and start ensuring that our pilots and our customers, our flying public, are safe. Why do we have the capacity, uh, to dismantle the transponders? Why wasn’t the emergency call already in place that it automatically signals when a[n] aircraft goes off its, uh, discerned or destinated — uh, destiny and destination —

RUSH: Jeez. (laughing)

LEE: — uh, as relates to, uh, its flight pattern.

RUSH: Jeez.

LEE: Why does it have to be done manually?

RUSH: Oh, my God, folks, are we in so much trouble. This is a congressional leader. This whole thing is a satire, is a parody. (laughing) “I call upon the ‘avenation’ industry, to stop hiding behind cost and how much things cost and start ensuring that our beloved pilots and our precious customers, our precious flying public are safe! Why can somebody turn off the transponder?

“Why wasn’t the emergency call already in place when the plane goes off its discerned or ‘destinated’ destiny, as relates to its flight pattern?” (laughing) It’s “destinated destiny,” which in this case happened … (laughing) … happened to be… (laughing) She’s a leader of the Democrat Party, folks, in the House! (sigh)

The “discerned destinated destiny” was Beijing.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This