Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Okay, folks, a point that I have been making for practically the entire 29 years I’ve been doing this program is now valid once again. I have become aware of some thinking on our side. You know, everybody’s trying to figure out why did the New York Times finally dump on poor Harvey — why? You won’t believe a theory gaining ground out there. You know what the theory is?

By the way, greetings. Welcome. Rush Limbaugh, EIB Network, Golden EIB Microphone. Telephone number, 800-282-2882.

The theory is, and it’s gaining ground, is that Harvey is taking one for the team. That all of this is being done on purpose in order for the media to then be justified in focusing on and ensnaring Trump. That Harvey Weinstein, the left went to Harvey Weinstein, “We need you to really bite a big one here for the team. We need you to really take a big, big bullet. But when it’s all over, we’ll explain to everybody that 90% of this isn’t true and that you did this to finally help everybody get rid of Trump.” And there are people on our side that believe that.

Now, let me illustrate what this actually would mean, if this theory is true. After ensnaring Trump, the New York Times and Ronan Farrow and Ben Affleck and all of the women, Ashley Judd, you name it, would throw a party for Harvey and thank them for having his reputation permanently destroyed just to enable the left to get Trump and to get even with what happened to poor Hillary. And then they’ll tell us that 90% of the stuff about Harvey was all BS, all in the service of getting rid of Trump.

Then Hillary and Obama will throw a gigantic fundraiser starring Harvey and his wife, who will have come back to him, Georgina Chapman, with Gwyneth, Ashley, and Angelina headlining. People on our side really think that’s what’s going on here. What does that tell you? It tells you that people on our side are permanently feeling defensive and incompetent and thinking the left is unbeatable and outsmarting us at every turn and that we are constantly falling for it.

This kind of defensiveness and assumption that the left is controlling everything, as I say, it’s not widespread, but I’m seeing this theory and versions of it advance kind of rapidly out there. So I was talking about this with somebody before the program, and I ran by them my vision here of this giant fundraiser starring Harvey where everybody admits that 90% of it was BS, and she said to me, “Be careful, ’cause every time you make jokes about these people they end up coming true.” I said, “Come on.”

I was looking at a blog called The Times of Israel blog, and the best explanation for why this has happened is right here. Ready? “Why the NY Times is Suddenly Taking Down Harvey Weinstein,” after all these years, and everybody knew it. Everybody knew it. The story’s now, “Well, Harvey had journalists on the payroll. Harvey had publicity agents on the payroll.” How did Harvey have any money left if he was paying everybody in Hollywood to keep his secret? And maybe he didn’t have any money, who knows. But here’s this from The Times of Israel blog.

“So the question — and it’s a big one — is why did the Gray Lady, that pinnacle of journalistic probity called the New York Times, suddenly find it necessary to violate the conspiracy of silence and share this information on page one only now?

“Can it be because barely a month ago, Weinstein announced his plan to direct a movie based on Leon Uris’s epic Warsaw Ghetto novel ‘Mila 18’? Can it be because Weinstein, despite his bleeding heart liberalism, despite his having shoveled truckloads of dollars into the Obama coffers, despite his blind obeisance to the Clinton corruption machine, crossed the Israel-hating Time’s red line and declared himself a Zionist and a lover of Israel?”

Now, that’s far more believable than this cockamamie theory that Harvey’s taking a bullet for the team here. Did any of that Harvey taking a bullet for the team resonate with you? Dawn, how about with you? I mean, it’s absurd. Now, this, the New York Times doesn’t like Israel, Netanyahu. They don’t like Israeli politics, which everybody’s confused by that because the New York Times ownership has been Jewish from day one. The editors have all been Jewish, so why are so many Hollywood leftists anti-Israel?

It’s been a question that people have been asking, and the answer’s deep and confusing and I don’t even want to go there, but this explanation, something has caused this. And I’ll tell you something else to be on the lookout for now. The media, everybody realizes the damage being done here, the damage being done to Hillary, the damage being done to the Obamas, the damage being done to the primary influential culture, motivational shaper entity in America, Hollywood. The damage here being done is incredible. And there’s gonna have to be push-back to this somehow.

Now, you factor Trump’s momentum, like the Supreme Court threw out the challenge to his travel ban. It’s gone. The NFL has the footprint of Donald Trump’s shoe on its corporate neck today. And we’re gonna get into this in great detail as the program unfolds today. Trump is going to announce by way of executive action, executive order, a major throw away of Obamacare that has the left in a tizzy today. The left is losing elections. Trump does not have his own party helping move the agenda, but Trump isn’t giving up, and Trump is moving forward. We talked about this in great detail yesterday. This is what pushing back looks like.

So, given the Trump momentum, and it is there, and given the implosion in Hollywood and of primary fundraisers and donors to the Clintons and Obamas, we have to be on the lookout for a media-led narrative change. Now, I’m not doubling back to this cockamamie theory that Harvey Weinstein’s taking a bullet for the team, but we have seen early attempts at this media narrative shift already by trying to equate Trump with Weinstein and vice-versa. That isn’t sticking. But they’re not gonna give that up.

There’s another attempt at this by Tina Brown today, who says the real problem in the Weinstein story is that somebody just like him is still in the White House. And Bill Clinton’s name never appears in her story. So they’re in this narrative shift, and they’re in the process of trying to take the heat — I mean, it’s a salacious story, it’s good for clicks, it’s good for hits, it’s good for grabbing and holding an audience, but the damage being done by this thing goes way beyond old Harvey. I mean, it’s encompassing pretty much all of the godlike figures that make up the left.

So the attempt here to equate Trump with Weinstein will probably continue. I don’t think they can shift the narrative, because the one thing they’re never gonna be able to do is separate Trump’s voters from Trump. Only Trump can do that. And there’s only one way Trump could do that, and that is if Trump is seen as joining the swamp, then his base is gone. And Trump’s not gonna join the swamp. But if it looks like he is, that’s gonna be the first fissure or crack between Trump supporters.

So let the media do their narrative shifting all they want, and I don’t think they’re gonna have any success in equating Harvey Weinstein with Trump. Besides, they tried that. The NBC Access Hollywood tape. They thought they already had Trump, and he escaped with no fingerprints whatsoever out of that. If they try to go back to that, I mean, that’s just the definition of insanity: doing something over and over again, expecting a different result. But I’m telling you they’re discombobulated. It might appear they’re having fun with this for a while, but believe me, they realize the damage that they are helping along here by the continual coverage of the Harvey story.

Harvey supposedly chartered or had some donor put him on a private plane last night for Europe to go to sex addiction rehab somewhere in Europe. And so that’s… Harvey… They got Harvey out of the country now. But… (interruption) Well, there’s all kinds of sex rehab places in America, but the media can hunt you down. What the media would do would do, the media — somebody from (take your pick) the Enquirer, People, doesn’t matter.

Where did Harvey’s wife announce her leaving her husband? People magazine! Yeah. She called People magazine. She didn’t call the New York Times. She didn’t call Women’s Wear Daily or The Bridal Registry. She called People magazine to announce this. The way it works, he checks in… There’s all kinds of these places in Malibu. So Harvey checks in and all it would take is some member of the media trying to check in as a sex addict and actually get in there as supposed patient.

So that’s why they’re getting Harvey out of the country. He may not even be going to a sex rehab clinic. I mean, he may just be saying so. (interruption) I know. The story is brother turned him in, family rivalry. I’m just throwing out The Times of Israel blog because, you know, what would make the New York Times turn? They had this story all the way back in 2004, don’t forget, and they’ve been sitting on it since 2004. Everybody has. Ronan Farrow had this story; took it to NBC. NBC said, “You know what? What you have here isn’t reportable.”

Ronan said, “Well, yeah, it is,” and he walked down the street to The New Yorker who took it in less than 30 minutes. Now they’re going back to NBC. “Why did you spike it? Why did you…?” “Well, when he bought it to us, it wasn’t very reportable,” and everybody’s remembering what Lorne Michaels said: “Well, we didn’t do any Harvey jokes on Saturday Night Live ’cause he’s a New York guy. Well, yeah, so’s Trump, and it hasn’t stopped you.


RUSH: Marilyn in Belleville, Michigan. Glad you called. How are you?

CALLER: I’m fine, Rush. Nice to talk to you. Hey, I had a question. You know, during the women’s march Ashley Judd got up on the podium and she was just this diatribe of all these horrible things, outlandish things against Trump.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: She didn’t know Trump. So how can she suddenly, after all these years about Weinstein, come in and start complaining? I’m thinking, it doesn’t make sense to me.

RUSH: Well, it does if you are able to do what I wish everybody would do, and that is understand that politics is in everything that happens in Hollywood or happens on the news, and it corrupts. Left-wing politics, it corrupts. You’re absolutely right. Ashley Judd wasn’t wearing one of those pussai hats but she was out there at that rally.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: “I’m a nasty woman.” She went off on Trump on what a reprobate he is, and now we know that she knew what a reprobate Weinstein was but she didn’t have any personal knowledge of Trump, and yet she launched on Trump without knowing a thing about him other than what the news had told her, and yet she stood mute on Weinstein for years.

CALLER: Precisely. Doesn’t make sense to me. Rush, I think you’ve got it. It’s a conspiracy. Whatever allows the media to come back and bring up Trump and —

RUSH: Well, they’re gonna try, but the reason she launched on Weinstein is because it became safe to and it became safe to because she talked to the New York Times and was assured they were gonna run the story and it wasn’t gonna be just her. So she wasn’t gonna be alone taking on this powerful pig. But it’s still a great question. I’m glad you called. You earned the honor of being first call today. Very, very, very well done.


RUSH: We mentioned earlier that Harvey Weinstein has fled the country on the way to some spot in Europe for sex rehab. We are sitting here wondering if Harvey maybe has ended up in a place with no extradition treaty with the United States. I’m just asking. My fertile mind unbound, you know, much like Roman Polanski.


RUSH: No. In fact, I’m on the verge of evolving a whole new theory about the Hollywood left now and why they are the Hollywood left. And your question, interestingly enough, propels me even further down this line of thinking. Snerdley just asked me — and don’t misunderstand his question. ‘Cause there’s no tone in his question and there’s no accusatory or anger thing.

He said, “Do you think that the women of Hollywood are actually going to take over and push men out like they’re trying to do in a number of different areas and venues of our culture?” And I said I don’t doubt that that’s part of what’s going on here. I think what we are seeing, you look at this Weinstein business, and, for me, it crystallizes so much.

We know certain things about Hollywood. We know that culturally and socially that, compared to most of us, it’s debauchery. Debauchery is promoted as a lifestyle, as something you and I can’t do, don’t do, but the real cool and hip people do. Their parties are promoted and legion. That very lifestyle has become almost synonymous with Hollywood. Now, there has to be something to permit — for that debauchery, who’s on the receiving end of the debauchery? Women are.

So something has to happen for the debauchery to be permitted. And there’s no two glaring examples of it than Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein. What was the get-out-of-jail card for Bill Clinton? Why did the feminists not make a move to advance their own interests? They had a golden opportunity to advance their agenda by simply holding Bill Clinton accountable to it. But he got a pass. Why? Well, the answer is crystal clear. He was a pro-abort, but in addition to pro-abortion, which is the biggie, he was also, quote, unquote, right or correct on a number of other issues. And it bought him an exemption from whatever it was that was animating and motivating liberal women.

Harvey Weinstein, same thing. Harvey Weinstein has been behaving the way he has since Miramax was founded in the nineties. I mean, he’s been at this for 20 years. Cut to the chase. I’m not saying that Hollywood liberalism isn’t genuine, but I think an element of it exists as cover, as insurance to get away with the kind of behavior they get away with every day. And Clinton and Weinstein illustrate it.

Clinton still is not included in any of these stories about Weinstein. Clinton is still the star of the Democrat Party. Before him, Ted Kennedy. Now, I’m not saying that Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are not genuine, heartfelt leftists, but I am beginning to think that some of it might in fact be a construct in order to secure the kind of freedom they got which permitted them to follow their instincts in the way they treated women. Being liberal allowed them to abuse and mistreat and have their way with women. Ted Kennedy ditto. Harvey Weinstein up until now.

And I think part of it, I heard somebody describe it, some Hollywood person, I don’t remember who and I wish I could because it was not some B player. He said, “You realize what Hollywood is, right?”

“No, what is it?”

“What does every guy want? Every guy wants the girl. Every guy wants women chasing him. Every guy wants to be the guy that women want. Well, every guy with power in Hollywood is that guy. Hollywood is about getting girls.” And this guy cited Quentin Tarantino as evidence. (laughing) If Quentin Tarantino weren’t making Kill Bill movies and Pulp Fiction movies, would anybody care about him, was the example I got from this guy. I wish I could remember who it is.

So, you know, I’ve heard this stuff and it’s gone in one ear and out the other because I’ve always bought that Hollywood is genuinely communist, genuinely social justice warrior leftist, and I don’t doubt that there’s a foundation, but I do think that some of this posturing and some of the exclusionary treatment of conservatives was done as an insurance policy for the way these people in Hollywood are allowed to treat women. It’s not just Weinstein that’s doing it. He may be the current glaring example.

But there are powerful liberal men who are allowed to violate the tenets of feminism every day of their lives, if they happen to be right on abortion. You don’t know what a big get-out-of-jail card that is, being pro-choice, proudly, loudly pro-choice can buy you all kinds of excuses and exemptions from Hollywood women, from liberal women and other people who are dyed-in-the-wool, full-fledged, no doubt about it, no joking about it liberals.

And therein lies all of the hypocrisy that is never held to account. Their hypocrisy never sticks to them, and they are very seldom even attempted to be held accountable, which gives rise to the question, “Okay, why now with Harvey Weinstein?” Well, there has to be a reason. There are a number of theories that are being bandied about. And I’ll guarantee you the reason why is gonna be found in liberalism somewhere. It may not be the fundamental reason, but there will be an element of liberalism in the reason that all of a sudden everything Harvey got a pass on is now fallen on his head.

Now, you may say, “Rush, he didn’t get a pass. He had to pay settlements.” He got a pass. He was allowed to continue. “Rush, he was hated!” Doesn’t matter to me. He still did his job and still had that power and still intimidated and still scared people. He was able to continue doing what he did the way he wanted to do it. And look what he’s doing? He’s raising money for the Obamas, raising money for the Clintons, going to the fundraisers, bundling everything. Those are the get out of jail cards.

He may not really care one way or the other about it. He just sizing up with whom am I the most powerful, with whom am I gonna have the greater freedom? And it’s always gonna be the left, if you’re in Hollywood, when you ask and answer that question. I’m only getting into this because I’ve wondered for the longest time, like everybody else has, how in the world do these guys get away with it? Why are they never held to account? And there are reasons for it.

Look what they’re allowed to get away with doing! Their behavior, look at what is ignored, look the other way, and defended, if it ever comes under assault from the political right. With Bill Clinton it didn’t affect his job! It’s only sex! It’s none of your business! And then look what a similar person who happens to be conservative found out to be behaving in similar ways is destroyed, not just career, but life is destroyed by women and men who want to curry favor with women, which is what Hollywood is.

So Snerdley’s question, “Do you think women are gonna take over Hollywood?” I don’t doubt that there is such a drive or an effort or a movement to do so. I think that what the Weinstein episode is showing is there is a lot of pent-up anger and rage at all of this stuff these guys in Hollywood have been doing for a long time, and now it’s time to lower the boom and exact the price. And I think there are a lot of guys out there probably quaking in their boots right now over watching what’s happening to Harvey knowing that it’s also known or suspected of them and that Harvey’s scalp is not gonna be nearly enough to satisfy whoever is collecting ’em. The scalps, I mean.

So we shall see, ladies and gentlemen. But in a way I’m saying that some of Hollywood liberalism is manufactured and phony for the purposes that it serves. But I don’t want that to be understood as my saying it’s not real out there and it’s all fake and phony. It’s not that. But there are a lot of, what have I always said, men will do and go wherever they have to go and be whatever they have to be to get women, which I’ve always said it’s why women, in civilized societies, ultimately have all the power. And I think they’re starting to demand it now. I think there’s all kinds of cultural upheaval that we’re on the verge of witnessing.


RUSH: The dumping on Harvey Weinstein continues, which means a lot of people are trying to curry favor with women. “Weinstein Alma Mater Moves to Revoke Honorary Degree — The University at Buffalo is moving to have alumnus Harvey Weinstein’s honorary degree revoked in response to multiple accusations of harassment and sexual assault against the Hollywood mogul. … Meanwhile, Simon Wiesenthal Center founder and dean Rabbi Marvin Hier released a statement, saying everyone at the human rights organization is ‘horrified by the charges leveled against Harvey Weinstein by so many people.

“‘Given the gravity of the accusations, we are removing his name from our distinguished roster of honorees in all our future publications,’ Hier adds. ‘Obviously, we can’t go back in time, but had we known then what we know now, we would have never honored [Weinstein], because such egregious behavior is against everything the Museum of Tolerance and the Wiesenthal Center stands for…'”

Okay, that’s story number one. I do not know how to pronounce this name and I’ve never bothered to check the pronunciation. It’s an actress’s name, D-E-L-E-V-I-N-G-N-E. Now, left to what my understanding of it is, it’d be Delevingne. But that just doesn’t sound like the way somebody would pronounce. The name is Cara, and I’m sure it’s not Delevingne. So I’m sure it’s some exotic pronunciation.

Anyway, she’s an actress. “Cara Delevingne Breaks Silence on ‘Terrifying’ Experience With Harvey Weinstein.” This is in the Hollywood Reporter. “‘The more we talk about it, the less power we give them,’ said the actress. Cara Delevingne is coming forward about her own experience with Harvey Weinstein. On Wednesday, the actress recalled that when she first started in the film industry, she received a call from the film mogul and he asked her if she had slept with any of the women she had been seen with.

“‘When I first started to work as an actress … Harvey Weinstein [was] asking if I had slept with any of the women I was seen out with in the media. It was a very odd and uncomfortable call… I answered none of his questions and hurried off the phone but before I hung up, he said to me that if I was gay or decided to be with a woman especially in public that I’d never get the role of a straight woman or make it as an actress in Hollywood.’

“Delevingne continued: ‘A year or two later, I went to a meeting with him in the lobby of a hotel with a director about an upcoming film. The director left the meeting and Harvey asked me to stay and chat with him. As soon as we were alone he began to brag about all the actresses he had slept with and how he had made their careers and spoke about other inappropriate things of a sexual nature.'” You don’t think that women are on the warpath to get even with this guy?

I wouldn’t blame ’em. (interruption) Yeah, it was very homophobic for Weinstein, which is very not in keeping with a card-carrying liberal, right? This is my point. How much of this is an act? I mean, this is pure homophobia here, to tell this actress (paraphrased), “You can never make it if you’re seen kissing a woman. If you’re gay, I’m gonna make sure you never make it.”

That is gonna generate a new round of anti-Harvey hysteria.


RUSH: Sam in Manhattan. Sam, I’m glad you waited. You’re up next here on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hey. It’s a pleasure to finally speak to you, Rush. Thank you for all the years of education.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: With regard to the… Oh, you’re welcome. It’s my pleasure. In regard to this slimy Harvestein or whatever his name is, Harvey, what are the chances that there is actually a much bigger connection to this, the reason why he was not indicted? Especially after the tape that we heard yesterday, what are the chances that if they dig deeper, the DA has something to do with the Justice Department…? I mean, what are the chances it’s much deeper than that, Rush?

RUSH: You mean involving more powerful, interesting people? You mean if they go after Harvey, they might necessarily have to uncover something about other people that they would rather keep hidden?

CALLER: Flat-out corruption from the Justice Department up above. If this guy’s given money left and right to liberals — and we know how corrupt they are. We know anything from what’s her name, Lynch to the FBI, the ex-FBI director —

RUSH: Oh, yeah. Definitely something odd going on there. Clinton on the tarmac, “talking about grandkids” when she doesn’t have any? Yeah, you’re right on the money on that. Your nose is in the right place on this. That’s an interesting question. (interruption) Well, no, it is!


RUSH: No, his question was, “Why is the DA not moving to indict Harvey Weinstein? Is it because they’re afraid of who else and what else might be revealed?” I don’t know, but I can tell you I understand the thinking. I mean, here you have what appears to be… You’ve got audio. You’ve got the guy with numerous women now testifying what he did.

But you have the DA saying, “Ehhhhhh, not enough here to indict.” And you can imagine a number of women saying, “What the hell more do you need?” Well, look. It’s New York. It’s Manhattan. If such an investigation would expose (sigh) people that (pfft!) cannot be exposed, I wouldn’t put it past them. There’s so much… Liberalism’s corrupted so much. I mean, you can’t blame people thinking this way.


RUSH: Michael in Killeen, Texas. Welcome. Great to have you here.

CALLER: Good afternoon, sir. I’ve been a listener since ’88 when you were at ABC, and I’ve been on hold since 1992.

RUSH: (laughing).

CALLER: Anyway, NBC killed the story with Weinstein. Who owns NBC? Comcast. I think there’s a hidden hand here that a lot of people aren’t taking a look at. Look at all the properties Comcast owns. They’re in the media business and they’ve got their fingers everywhere, media, politics, distribution. I mean, Comcast is piping in what people see in the large market.

RUSH: So you think that the NBC decision to spike took place at the Comcast CEO level and not —

CALLER: Oh, definitely. The Roberts family I think has been the hidden hand that a lot of people haven’t taken a look at. I mean, Bo or me not to sound all conspiratorial, but this is a name. The Roberts family, they own a lot of stuff. They’re into politics —

RUSH: Brian Roberts is the CEO of Comcast. Roberts family. I don’t think you have to go up that high the chain to find out why this got spiked. Maybe it did, but I don’t think it needs to get any higher than anybody at NBC who went to Harvey Weinstein parties.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This