Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: Here is Jerry in Syracuse, New York, as we start on the phones.  Great to have you with us, sir.  Hello.

CALLER:  Thank you, sir.  I wanted to say that on the Lynch matter, I believe just the opposite scenario is taking place.  I believe that Lynch has been told by the FBI that serious charges will be forthcoming on Clinton and she, with the president’s approval, has removed herself from the line of fire, and, in so doing, she lets justice run its course, and she has clean hands for the future.

RUSH:  Okay.  Let me see if I understand.  In your scenario, she knows that the FBI has evidence beyond what they need to indict and convict Hillary Clinton in all of this, and she doesn’t want any part of it because it gives her problems with the Democrat Party. This is disloyalty par extraordinaire if she lets this happen. So she backs out, washes her hands of it, says, “I got nothing to do with it. I’m gonna take whatever recommendation comes forward.”

Comey comes forward with his recommendation, which is to indict ’cause he can convict, career lawyers DOJ say, “Oh, yeah, this is an open-and-shut case,” and they move forward with the indictment. But her hands are clean. She had nothing to do with it. Her fingerprints aren’t there and she, therefore, is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow for future Democrat Party positions of power.  Is that basically your theory?

CALLER:  Exactly.  And she does not want to go for a special prosecutor.  That would gum up the works royally, and even handing it to the second in command at the department would have a taint about it that —

RUSH:  Right, ’cause she hasn’t — (crosstalk)

CALLER:  — either.

RUSH:  I know, she has not done that.  She’s not given it to her —

CALLER:  That’s correct.

RUSH:  Right.

CALLER:  And she doesn’t want to do that.

RUSH:  Okay, so a quick question.  I got 20 seconds.  You think she doesn’t look bad as the attorney general and a Democrat presidential nominee gets indicted while she’s in office?  That doesn’t make her look bad, Lynch?

CALLER:  Well, let me ask you, it seems to be the common denominator of the public right now —

RUSH:  Well, okay, I got it.  We’re dealing with raisin brains.  Yeah.


RUSH: So alternative theories continue to pop up here as to what’s really going on with the Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton troika and the meeting between Lynch and Clinton in Phoenix on the tarmac, general aviation private jet, Loretta Lynch’s passenger cabin there.

We spoke an hour ago with J. Christian Adams, who thinks that the fix is in and that Loretta Lynch pulling herself out of this is really not a big deal at all, and it doesn’t mean what everybody wants to believe.  By that I mean so many of us want Hillary to be indicted. So many people just want the Clintons to finally get theirs.  They have been skating the edges of the law for the entire time they’ve been on the public scene, and in many instances they have been way beyond the edge.  They get away with it, whatever it is, they get away with it.

And we’re being set up, I believe, to think that there might be a real, real, real chance this time of nailing Hillary Clinton and this email stuff.  I mean, the goods are there, and we’re told that we’ve got an FBI director who is Mr. Law and order, and he doesn’t care about partisan politics, James Comey.  That is true, for the most part.  So theories are abounding.

My theory is that we’re being played. That there’s no way, given the construct of the modern-day Democrat Party that anybody there is going to sit idly by and let their party presidential nominee, particularly Hillary Clinton, be indicted and then possibly convicted and then possibly go to jail. It just isn’t gonna happen.  And my theory is we’re being played because it’s happened before.  They get us all excited, “This may be the one. This may be the time we finally get ’em,” and they skate again, and everybody just gives up.  We can’t win, they want you thinking. We can’t win, it’s hopeless, they’ve just got us outnumbered, they’ve got us outsmarted, and we can’t win.  That’s how I think we’re being played.

Chris Stirewalt at Fox News thinks the purpose of the meeting was to eventually get an independent counsel appointed.  His theory is that they are so close to an indictment that Comey’s got the goods and everybody knows it.  There’s been enough.  You got credible people on our side like Joe diGenova, the goods are there, she’s guilty as sin.  And a lot of people think that.  A lot of people are asking, why hasn’t it happened before?  What are they waiting so long for?  We’ve got the goods.  I mean, that’s been leaked. That’s been put in the public domain sufficiently well enough that a whole lot of people think — I mean, even at one point in the Democrat debate Jorge Ramos of Univision asked her if she would resign from the campaign if she were indicted.  She laughed and cackled.

So the possibility is out there.  Stirewalt’s theory is that the meeting took place specifically for the purpose of creating the appearance of impropriety, which would then soil the investigation, requiring the appointment of an independent counsel, which would take the investigation back to day one, would start all over, another two years, no way could there be an indictment or anything damaging to Mrs. Clinton before the election.  That’s another popular theory that’s out there.

There are other theories, such as Loretta Lynch knows full well Hillary’s guilty, Comey’s told her, there’s no doubt about it, she’s pulled herself out of this so as to avoid being tainted by it.  In other words, she’s a Democrat attorney general, she doesn’t want her career in the Democrat Party hampered by appearing to taint any kind of an outcome. So she pulls out of it so that whatever happens has no fingerprints of hers on it.  That theory is out there.

I got a note from Andy McCarthy.  He heard the conversation I had with J. Christian Adams, and he agrees with most of it, but he has one slight difference of opinion, and that is over her recusal.  Andy was in the DOJ, as you all know by now.  He was an actual prosecutor in the US attorney’s office Southern District of New York, which is Manhattan. He prosecuted the blind sheik, as you all know by now.

He said that he thinks that Loretta Lynch should recuse herself simply because the rules require it.  Ethics, rules, which to general law-and-order people mean something.  She has violated enough now that she should recuse herself.  The investigation is tainted by virtue of her meeting with Bill Clinton. The fact that it’s been discovered, that the only course of action for her as an ethical member of the court, ethical member of law and order, Department of Justice, whatever, is to recuse herself.

Where he disagreed with Christian Adams was in this sense:  He doesn’t think that conservatives should want her not to recuse herself.  J. Christian Adams said that we don’t want her to recuse herself because that will confound things politically for us.  Andy thinks that she should recuse herself, there’s no two ways about it because ethics and the law demand it, the rules just demand it. No matter how you feel about it, she has to recuse herself like a judge would.

That’s a good comparison.  Imagine that this case is already proceeded and she’s the judge and Clinton meets with her.  There wouldn’t be any question about that.  She would have to recuse herself.  If she met with the husband of the accused who’s also involved with the email aspect ’cause the server was also in his basement.  So Andy’s point is that we as conservatives should want her to recuse herself because that’s the rules, the rules require it.

I mentioned here at the conclusion of the previous hour, her spokesman, Loretta Lynch’s spokesman has told Bloomberg that she is maintaining the right to overrule the career prosecutors and the FBI.  So this kind of negates her statement earlier that got everybody all hopped up and excited.  Mark Halperin is the source for this via a tweet.  “Key clarification from DOJ official re: what Loretta Lynch plans to say today,” and it differs greatly from the New York Times lead.

“From a senior DOJ official, Attorney General Lynch reserves the right to overrule the recommendation of career prosecutors and/or the FBI in the Hillary Clinton email probe.”  This DOJ official says the probability she would overrule is very, very low, but it is not zero.

So the news is that she will not recuse, despite the firestorm, saying that she will treat this case like other cases, showing deference but reserving the right to overrule is not new.  It’s what Lynch, like her predecessors, does on almost all cases.  So with this tweet from the spokesman of the DOJ, you can forget the fact that Loretta Lynch has said that she is standing aside and will accept the recommendations of the career prosecutors and the FBI.  That’s meaningless.

So almost a half day of the news cycle has been wasted on something that isn’t news, because she is saying, according to her spokesman, that she’s reserving the right to overrule whatever decision is handed down, comes from the FBI.  So we’re back to square one in terms of trying to figure all this out and translate it and analyze it.

The point about career prosecutors being in the tank for Hillary and Loretta Lynch and being a thorn in the FBI’s side, by the way, this is a very, very important point.  And when I first saw this today, red flags went up everywhere because her original statement was she was going to stand aside, not recuse. She was going to accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors and the FBI.

Well, what if they’re not the same?  What if the FBI, what if Comey presents his investigation and it is to indict.  What if Comey says. “I’ve got evidence here that’s so solid we’re gonna get a conviction without hardly any doubt whatsoever.”  What if the career prosecutors don’t see it that way?  It said career prosecutors and the FBI, not or.  That means the career prosecutors have to agree with what the FBI submits, just as she would.  She’s simply said that she was deferring to the decision on whatever the FBI presents to the career prosecutors.

Well, the point about that is that career prosecutors are not gonna be on the side of the FBI.  Career prosecutors, these are people that are there no matter what party is in power.  They’re not political appointees.  These are prosecutors that are there for however long they want to say.  And by “career,” it’s meant that they’re not appointed by incoming administrations.  They survive as long as they want to, ’til they get fired, ’til they resign, what have you.

But the career prosecutors would no doubt do what they thought the attorney general would do or wants to do because, like anybody else in any other office, how do you advance?  How do you get a raise?  How do you brownnose?  How do you get gold stars?  You do it by agreeing with the boss.  You show the boss that you’re on her side.  You show the boss that she can count on you.  You may be a career prosecutor, but it doesn’t mean that Lynch and Obama can’t fire you if they don’t like the work you’re doing.

So the presumption is that the career prosecutors are not gonna look at this any differently than Loretta Lynch would, which is another reason why it’s no big deal for her, in my opinion, to take herself out of the equation. She’s not gonna turn this over to people without knowing what they’re gonna do.  No sane lawyer ever does anything like that, either with a witness, being granted immunity, or testifying.  You know what they’re gonna say before you put ’em up there.  You don’t ask them the question ’til you know what they’re gonna say, usually having already said it under oath in a deposition, in many cases.

So back in May, you remember they stopped the FBI from questioning Cheryl Mills about the procedure used to produce Hillary’s emails to the State Department. The actual collection of these 60,000 emails on Hillary’s server, to present those to the State Department, because, by definition, they didn’t have them.  She had her own server.  This is when Hillary went through them herself, she said, and 30,000 of them were irrelevant. They were personal. They had to do with yoga class and Chelsea’s wedding and whatever else.  And the other 30,000, that was serious stuff and she sent it over to the DOJ.

And you’ll recall that even after that we keep learning they discover 14 more here that were not presented, another two over here, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, if you recall.  Well, they called in the Cheryl Mills and other people from Hillary’s office to testify about this process.  Well, maybe not testify.  But it was an interview. They talked to Mrs. Carlos Danger, Huma Weiner.  Well, if you recall back in May, the career prosecutors shut down the FBI questioning of Cheryl Mills about the procedure used to produce Hillary’s emails.

And if you recall the DOJ lawyers made up a preposterous attorney-client privilege argument to stop the FBI from asking some of the most important questions that Mills was in a position to answer, such as, what did Hillary provide and save and what did she destroy?  Okay, she said the 30,000 were not relevant; well, what was in those 30,000?  They shut down the questioning, these career prosecutors.  The career prosecutors have already shown their hand, which is why I think all of this is a giant game. It is so classically part of the Clinton handbook on dealing with your enemies.


RUSH:  There’s one more point here about the Chris Stirewalt theory.  I don’t want anybody sending Stirewalt emails saying that I was bashing Stirewalt.  That probably guarantees it’s gonna happen.  I’m just gonna tell you that I have a slight divergence of opinion on the Stirewalt theory, that the meeting out there took place in order to get the process started of appointing an independent counsel.

She wouldn’t have to do this to appoint an independent counsel.  She could do that any time she wanted.  And she wouldn’t have to taint her reputation to do it.  This meeting with Clinton on the jet in Phoenix has, within certain circles, questioned her ethics. You got the appearance of impropriety here. It’s being talked about all over the place.  We have her now explaining what she’s doing.  There’s a level-of-doubt that has now arisen.  None of that was necessary.  If she wants to appoint an independent counsel, she can do it any time she wants for whatever reason, any number of believable reasons, too.

And then, folks, there’s another aspect of this.  Did they want this meeting to be discovered or not?  Remember, if it weren’t for that ABC affiliate out in Phoenix and the morning drive anchor getting a phone call from a source, nobody would know this had happened. Unless one of the FBI agents or Secret Service leaks it, nobody would know it happened.  If they wanted this meeting to happen, there were a bunch of easier ways to get the news out that it had.


RUSH:  You know, folks, despite all of this Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Hillary stuff, I still made the case many times that Obama’s in charge of all of this, the drip, drip, drip, drip.  And stop and think.  Obama could have made this go away any time he wanted and hasn’t.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This