RUSH: Okay, folks, a little heads-up here: There’s gonna be a document dump. The State Department is scheduled to do another patented Friday evening document dump today, and what they’re gonna release is 850 or so Hillary Clinton e-mails that are related to Benghazi. Never mind — you’re not supposed to remember — that Hillary Clinton claimed she never did any official business using her private e-mail account. You’re not supposed to remember that.
Because today we’re gonna get 850 Hillary e-mails from her private server related to Benghazi. So typical of the Clintons, so typical of the Democrat Party, they’re dumping all these e-mails right before the Memorial Day weekend. So nobody’s gonna see ’em or hear about ’em, but somehow… Isn’t it amazing? I have the story right here in the Clinton Stack.
The New York Times managed to get hold of a third of these 850 e-mails in advance. Isn’t that interesting? The 850 e-mails document dump is later today. The New York Times has around 300 of them. Now, who would have given the New York Times 300 Clinton e-mails and the New York Times even says that they “received guidance on the key revelations in the e-mails.” Isn’t that interesting? So we got 300 of 850 e-mails have been released to the Times already, and they got guidance from somebody, telling them how to read them, what’s important in them.
Now, who would have leaked these e-mails? Marie Harf at the State Department says it wasn’t them, and they’re supposed to have the only copies — apart from Hillary, of course (who deleted ’em, she said). So where’d these come from? Where’d the New York Times get ’em? Hillary said she doesn’t have them. The State Department says, “We didn’t give them away and we didn’t provide the guidance.” So where’d the Times get ’em?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here’s that New York Times story: “A Closer Look at Hillary Clinton’s Emails on Benghazi — In response to a request from Mrs. Clinton, the State Department plans to release roughly 850 pages of Hillary’s e-mails that relate to Libya and the Benghazi attack in the coming days.” See? See how this works? Yes, Hillary has asked her e-mails be released! It’s funny. We thought a federal judge just ordered this. I could have sworn a federal judge ordered the release of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. But, no!
It turns out that it was the magnificent one and the munificent one herself, Hillary, who’s been saying she’s got no control over what the State Department does. Except now for this instance, I guess, they’re giving her control. But maybe it really was Hillary after all since these e-mails will be released this evening. A classic Clinton document dump. I don’t think there’s any doubt about what’s going on here. Look, here’s what you have to understand. These people, New York Times, Washington, New York, Boston, the whole Northeastern media elite corridor.
Since the most important thing in their lives right now is Hillary Clinton and her securing the nomination and the presidency, they assume everybody else is thinking the same way. A lot of people do this. It happens on the golf course all the time. You’ll have a foursome out there and one guy on the foursome will think that his game is the only game all the other guys care about. So he’ll analyze every mistake he made, and he’ll tell you every shot he plans, as though nobody’s thinking about their own game because they’re so absorbed in his.
When in fact, nobody cares about his game because everybody’s absorbed in their own. The same thing here. These people are all assuming they can’t get enough about Hillary. “We all are dying to know the latest about Hillary and we all want the news to be okay and good. We don’t want Mrs. Clinton harmed or we don’t want her hurt. We don’t want her attacked. We want Mrs. Clinton to win!” So the New York Times thinks everybody believes this, and they may.
In their own readership and within the elite circles of the Drive-By Media, I think there’s a Clinton obsession going on now. I think they’re scared to death, if you want to know the truth. I think they’re worried silly over Mrs. Clinton’s chances. They can remember what happened in 2008, and despite what they’re writing… This is too much, folks. All of this overboard on Hillary’s greatness and Hillary’s competence, and the cover-ups of her obvious incompetence and her obvious detachment and her obvious personality flaws.
All that stuff never gets mentioned. We just hear about how wonderful and smart and brilliant and effective and all this. And I think it’s betraying the fact that they’re worried, because in their world where they love her and they think she’s the answer, everybody ought to believe that, or everybody does. And then when they see polling data that doesn’t reflect it, they get concerned and worried.
There’s a New York Times story today devoted to the subject of how concerned and worried about Marco Rubio the Democrats are. I just checked it. I don’t recall the headline, but it’s something to the effect that Democrats are worried about a Hillary-Rubio contest. Now, you could say that’s just a setup, that they’re not really worried about Rubio, that they want it to be Rubio.
So they’re running a fake story to tell everybody that they really fear Rubio so that the Republicans will then put Rubio up there, and secretly that’s who they really want. I don’t think they’re going into that deep in the weeds yet. I mean, they’re entirely capable of it, and it could be that, but I don’t think it is. I think Rubio is something to be worried about. A lot of these Republican candidates are something to be really worried about for Mrs. Clinton. I mean, she’s gonna get smoked in the debates.
She’s going to get exposed.
It’s gonna depend on what kind of media cover the moderators in these debates give her and also what kind of character assassination and defamation occurs against the Republicans in the debates by the media who are moderating it. But I don’t think these people on the Democrat side believe that she’s a slam dunk. They would be wise not to think that because recent history is that it doesn’t take much to derail her plans.
But all this stuff they’re looking the other way on, all the bribery and… People come to me and say, “Rush, you gotta be very careful. What they’re doing may not be illegal. We just don’t know because nobody’s ever done it,” and what they’re talking about is sell access like this. Nobody has ever sold access like this. Well, the Clintons have. They used the White House as a Motel 6! There were donors spending the night every night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
They sold the Lincoln Bedroom. They sold the Queen’s Bedroom right across the hall. They sold all this to donors routinely. So they have a track record of this. The question about whether or not it’s legal or not? Try this if a Republican’s doing it and find out how fast it’s illegal. Let it be learned that Jeb Bush is collecting hundred-million-dollar donations from some guy with business interests in Ukraine all based on the fact that Jeb’s gonna be president someday and this guy expects his repayment.
You don’t think somebody on the Democrat side be looking into the illegality of it? “Yeah, but, Rush, it may not really be illegal. We just don’t know. Nobody’s ever done it before.” 
Well, whatever. The fact is, all of this stuff that casts the Clintons and Mrs. Clinton in a negative light is obviously being ignored. But I think it all indicates in a they’re worried. They’ll never admit it. Some will. Ron Fournier is admitting. Ron Fournier is writing regularly about how he can’t believe the depths to which the Clintons have sunk.
You and I know they’ve always been there, but he obviously has celebrity worship. In his column today, he wouldn’t be surprised. “Why Bill and Hillary Clinton May Want to Throttle Me.” Can you imagine the self-absorption in that? Anyway, he’s been ripping ’em to shreds on integrity and character issues. So my only point is, this document dump today and the New York Times trying to help Hillary through it… These are Benghazi e-mails, 850.
The New York Times has 300 of them or so, and here’s the spin. I think the New York Times is pre-spinning the document dump. They’ve got them, and nobody knows how. Hillary claims that she didn’t keep them. She deleted them from her server. The State Department says, “We didn’t give them to the New York Times.” Marie Harf said, “No, no, no! I’m too busy trying to get Iran a nuclear weapon. I didn’t have time to give any e-mails to the New York Times.”
But yet the New York Times has them, and the New York Times claims they got “guidance” along with the e-mails. Guidance. Meaning: “Okay, here’s what’s really important to them.” And the New York Times says that Sid Vicious, Sidney Blumenthal sent Hillary an e-mail blaming the Benghazi attacks on that video the day after the attacks. Then the day after that, the second day after the attacks, Blumenthal walked back that assertion and blamed it on a terrorist group who he said has been planning it for more than a month.
But the New York Times story makes it sound like by then Hillary was stuck with the line about the video because that’s what Obama was telling everybody. So this is an effort to distance Hillary from the excuse that it was a video, using Sid Blumenthal to keep her once removed from this. So Blumenthal is gonna assume the role of having misinformed her and then he realized his mistake and the very next day he fixed it, but Mrs. Clinton couldn’t do anything about it because Obama was already wedded to the video excuse.
So, once again, Mrs. Clinton has been trapped! Mrs. Clinton has been hoodwinked! Mrs. Clinton has been swept into something not of her making that she cannot extricate herself from, because loyal aides and the president of the United States are subordinating her. This is… You think…? Everybody that reads the New York Times is going to believe this. That focus group that we saw on TV that we played the audio for, “Can you name any achievement of Hillary Clinton?”
“No. No. And I don’t care. She’s a woman, and she can take it, she’s a mama jama. It’s enough for me.”
Well, this will be enough for them. Let’s go to the audio sound bites, shall we? Let’s get the truth out here. This is this morning, CBS This Morning. This is a portion of their congressional reporter Nancy Cordes reporting about these recently released e-mails — Hillary — that show that it was Blumenthal that sent an e-mail to her who first blamed the Benghazi attacks on the Internet video.
See, they keep adding to the story. Have you ever heard, until today, that Sidney Blumenthal had a role in the whole notion of blaming the video for the attack? No, we’re just now learning it in this leak of Hillary e-mails. Here’s Nancy Cordes’ report.
CORDES: Blumenthal’s second take turned out to be correct, though that view never made it into the administration’s talking points which claimed that the attack of spontaneous. Clinton herself never made that controversial claim in public perhaps because she was getting some back channel intelligence.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Do you people at CBS not archive your tape? Because we have this from September 13th, 2012, two days after Benghazi. This is at the State Department, the opening plenary of the US-Morocco strategic dialogue, and we have Hillary Clinton speaking an Internet video that was blamed for the attacks in Benghazi.
HILLARY: This video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: To denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.
RUSH: You just heard the CBS infobabe say that Clinton herself never made that controversial claim in public. And she just made it two days after the event. Everybody knows she was making the claim. She told the parents of the fallen at Dover over the flag-draped coffins. She recorded a television commercial for airing in Pakistan with Obama in which they both blamed the video. How in the world do you at CBS say Clinton herself never made that controversial claim in public.
So here’s what’s new. What’s new is we’ve got 850 Clinton e-mails on Benghazi that she got rid of, she thought, because she deleted stuff on her server. The New York Times has a third of them, but we don’t know how they got them. The State Department says we didn’t do it. Hillary says I never had ’em. But the Times has them. And now they’re running cover. And the big news in the e-mails, it was Sidney Blumenthal the day after Benghazi who told her that it was a video.
We all know that story was invented in the White House. But now they’re telling us the only reason Hillary went out there and blamed the video is ’cause Sidney Blumenthal told her. But the next day, two days after 9/11, Blumenthal said: wait a minute, wait a minute, it wasn’t the video, it actually was a terror group.
And then we get the report Clinton herself never made that controversial claim in public perhaps because she was getting some back channel intel. This is a reference to Blumenthal. Folks, they just keep lying to our face and it becomes more blatant and more obvious each and every day now. The New York Times is clearly doing some advance spinning for what they hope nobody actually notices — too late for that now — in their document dump later today.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I just heard on Fox News, ladies and gentlemen, that Hillary has indeed stepped in it on these e-mails. I don’t know it’s gonna matter, but she has indeed stepped in it. Do you remember when Hillary said that nothing was classified on that private server of hers? How many times did she tell us that nothing was classified and we had nothing to worry about? The stuff that she deleted was just yoga and Chelsea’s wedding and wedding night stuff.
“There was nothing in there to see. Don’t doubt me.” Well, it turns out the FBI did indeed classify one of those e-mails from her private, not-secure system. It was classified because it was highly sensitive information. The point is that she was transmitting classified information, just as we all thought from the get-go. She was lying about it. She was transmitting classified data on an insecure, unsecure server, in her…
Well, they say in her basement. I don’t know where it actually was. But it was her private server, and it did not have State Department-level, government-level security on it, and it’s been discovered she was transmitting e-mails classified by the FBI. They just had it on Fox, because they’ve released the first of the whatever it’s gonna be, 850 e-mails that the New York Times had the first look at.
But, again, what’s it gonna matter? Who’s gonna do anything with her? “That’s yesterday’s news, Rush! Come on. It’s just one, right? Just a couple! I mean, you gotta expect her to not know a couple of ’em, but it’s pretty much what she said. Let’s leave it alone, Rush.” That’s gonna be the reaction from the Drive-Bys and the Democrats.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Gregory in Pueblo, Colorado. I remember I got a great controversy going about Pueblo, Colorado, when I was first on the air here, ’cause I didn’t think anybody lived there.
CALLER: (laughing)
RUSH: Well, I thought… Every piece of government mail comes from Pueblo Colorado. Back when I was growing up, every government PSA the return was Pueblo Colorado. I thought it was a giant post office, and I got my first call from Pueblo, Colorado, and I told the person they were lying because nobody lives there. Which, of course, got everybody there all ticked off at me.
CALLER: (chuckling)
RUSH: How many people do live in Pueblo Colorado?
CALLER: (chuckling) Rush, I don’t know. I don’t know what the number is, but it’s a nice city.
RUSH: Yeah. Well, is it 20,000, 15, 105? I mean, how many people live there?
CALLER: I’d guess 300,000.
RUSH: Three hundred thousand. It’s a decent size community, then.
CALLER: Yeah. Well, years ago — when my dad was a kid in the thirties and forties — it was the second-largest city in Colorado.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: It hasn’t grown since then.
RUSH: I have since learned that that’s the case.
CALLER: Okay. (chuckling)
RUSH: Anyway, to what do we owe the pleasure of your call?
CALLER: I’d like to switch from the Deflategate to Benghazi and collateral damage from the deliberate cover-up by our government. I was in Afghanistan for all of 2012, and I wanted to share my direct observations of the carnage caused in Muslim countries after that video was released by our American government.
RUSH: No, no. Wait, wait, wait. After the video was blamed you mean.
CALLER: No, they exported it. Our government exported it, the video, first to Egypt, and then to other Arab Spring states, and that caught on there, and then they took their road show to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it —
RUSH: Wait, now. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait just a second now. I’m almost afraid to admit this, but this is something I don’t think I’ve heard before.
CALLER: No, you haven’t. (laughing) The rioting and killing in Afghanistan —
RUSH: Now, wait, I just want to make sure we understand. You’re talking about the video of the guy they put in jail that Mrs. Clinton and Obama are blaming for what happened in Benghazi?
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: You’re telling me that our administration actually distributed that video to other countries —
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: — in order for them to know what it was that caused Benghazi to happen?
CALLER: First to Egypt, and then those other unstable Arab Spring states, Clinton and Obama took it to Pakistan. Most people don’t even watch the video. They just get stirred up by the clerics —
RUSH: Well, now, I know that Obama and Hillary talked about it all the time, and I know they did a commercial in Pakistan, but you’re telling me that they actually enabled it to be seen?
CALLER: They were the promoters, and the killing and rioting in Afghanistan didn’t begin until day four.
RUSH: Okay, what you’re saying is they created curiosity about it, people went found it and saw it and that caused riots?
CALLER: That’s right.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: They were forcing themselves to fan the flames in order to go —
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: And the blood of over 800 people is on their hands, and so when Hillary Clinton says, “What does it matter?” she’s saying what does the lives of four Americans matter, she’s saying, you should see the full tally of people that died as a result of our cover-up. So what does it matter means that’s the tip of the iceberg. Over 800 people rioted, mostly Indonesia and Arab Spring states, but they just did in a frenzy and they kill one another, and they also kill non-Muslims also. They don’t ever talk about the blood that’s on their hands by creating deliberately —
RUSH: Now, I understand what your theory is, and it’s understandable. Okay, so here we have what happened in Benghazi, and the next thing we know, the president and secretary of state are blaming a video that nobody has ever seen, and we now know that they made it all up, that nobody had seen the video, it was a convenient excuse. We know that they knew before the attack it was gonna happen. They knew who the attack group was. This is a total lie.
The theory is that by blaming it on this video and announcing the video, that nobody had really seen or heard of, that they caused other militants around the world, “What is he talking about?” And they looked at it and they found it and they got righteously indignant because the president’s already offered it up as an excuse. And whatever rioting that occurred after Benghazi, in other countries, you’re saying is directly related to Obama and Hillary because they’re the ones that alerted people to the video who prior to that had no idea it even existed.
Now, I can see that. I mean, it’s a logical connection to make. But you gotta be careful with it because those riots were occurring for reasons that have much more to do with than just that video. The video ended up being relevant because Obama and Hillary made it so. But the anti-US sentiment preceded anybody seeing the video and the violence that was part of the Arab Spring and all that.
I’m not discounting entirely your theory that the video is to blame. But you gotta be careful how you say it otherwise you’re gonna be giving Obama and Hillary credit for blaming it. And that would not be accurate simply because not enough people had ever seen it until they referenced it. Anyway, I appreciate the call.