Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH:  Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist has a great breakdown of the New York Times story today, 10 key things to know about it.  Let me read you just some of the headlines, some of the different headers here that will give you an idea.  “FBI Officials Admit They Spied on Trump Campaign … Terrified About Looming Inspector General Report.”  That’s largely thought to be the reason this story is even been written. You know, it’s… Well, I say “amazing,” and I actually think it is.

These are things that are being admitted to here that, believe me, in normal course of events, nobody would have copped to any of this.  This is serious stuff, spying on — and as though it’s common and okay and called for and understandable.  But it’s all because the inspector general has been conducting an over-yearlong investigation of all of this.  Some of it’s already… It’s the inspector general, by the way.

That’s why we even know of the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and the scuttlebutt on this is that it is going to be devastating by name to a number of people.  And so the FBI and the DOJ called their friends at the New York Times and said, “We want to put a version of this out,” and the New York Times said, “Happy to help.”  Literally!  This is how this happened.  So the New York Times is publishing this story as a hoped-for… They want this to cushion the blow of the IG report.

The way they’re hoping it happens is they cop to all of this stuff so that when the IG report comes out, the New York Times can ignore it, saying, “Old news! We had that last Monday. Nothing to see here.”  It is a preemptive effort to take away some of the impact and potential damage of the inspector general report, and it has the full complicity of the Drive-By Media.  It’s got the complicity of the New York Times. The Washington Post is gonna be in on it. CNN, MSNBC, LA Times. I mean, you name it; they will be in on it.

Point No. 3.  “Still No Evidence of Collusion With Russia.”  No. 4. “Four Trump Affiliates Spied On.” No. 5.  “Wiretaps, National Security Letters, and At Least One Spy.”  No. 6. “More Leaks About a Top-Secret Government Informant.”  That is the person I was talking about on Monday who set up Papadopoulos.  And it turns out that there probably is more than one.  And, in fact, there might actually be a couple of for-real spies — I mean, actual informants — in the Trump campaign working for the FBI.

This is admitted to!  Look at it this way.  If the Trump people had done this to the Hillary campaign… Let’s put it a better way.  If the George W. Bush CIA, DOJ, FBI had had a spy in the Obama campaign and had done all of this on Barack Obama, do you think if Bush called the New York Times and said, “Hey, look, we’re about be exposed on this. We want to give you our version of this to kind of cushion the blow,” do you think the New York Times would go along with it?  This is the kind of stuff that journalists used to destroy careers over.

This is the kind of stuff. This kind of behavior is the kind of thing that journalists used to live for!  Finding out about unethical, illegal behavior among the nation’s most powerful and exposing it.  But now the media is helping to cover it up.  Now, Ms. Hemingway has an interesting take.  You know, the “insurance” comment that Peter Strzok made. Lisa Page is talking in McCabe’s office — they’re all in McCabe’s office — and Lisa Page is saying that there’s just no way this guy Trump could win.

It’s unacceptable, it can’t happen, there’s just no way. And Strzok texts her later, says, “I hope you’re right, but I don’t know. We may need an insurance policy.”  So here’s what Mollie Hemingway writes about that.  “The story reminds readers that Strzok once texted Page ‘I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.’

“The article says Trump thought this ‘insurance policy’ referred to a plan to respond to the unlikely event of a Trump victory. It goes on:  ‘But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the FBI did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged. Mr. Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low — like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.'”

Now, look at one thing.  Look at what the Times just reports without any apparent awareness.  “They said that anything the FBI did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.”  The Times has admitted that it was rigged!  The Times has admitted that Trump was spied on, and the Times reports that it might look bad if that were known.  Which they have now made known!  And again, folks, there have been people who have said, “Boy, this article is blase.”

Why shouldn’t they be?  Nothing happens to these people! I think it was about a month ago that I raised a question right behind this very microphone:  Who fixes this?  This is terribly broken, this entire system, the leadership. Look, I know that there are great people the FBI and probably great people at DOJ.  But they’re not the ones doing this.  This is the leadership.  Who fixes this?  What happens to these people?  Because I’m telling you right now, I answered this previous caller who asked, “How far will they go?”

They will wait until Trump is out of office to indict him, as long as whatever he did hasn’t passed the statute of limitations.  They’re gonna bury this guy one way or another at some point.  They simply cannot permit this to have happened with it appearing to have happened legitimately!  They simply can’t permit the perception that Trump’s election was on the up and up, and they’re not gonna rest until they have been able to do something to make it look like Trump is guilty of something, that he is a reprobate who never should have been elected.

Even if it’s after he serves two terms.

That’s their intention right now.  These people are loaded for bear.  But it’s interesting to ask if these reporters at the New York Times “understand how insurance works. As reader Matt noted, ‘The fundament intent of Insurance is “Indemnification.” Restoring back to original condition prior to loss.'” That’s also why you insure things. You insure your house for fire because you don’t have the money to rebuild it yourself if it burns down.

Well, “‘Trump was the peril, [the mainstream media] the adjuster & his impeachment, the policy limits.’ The article’s repeated claims that the FBI didn’t think Trump would win do not counter the notion that an ‘insurance policy’ investigation was in the extremely rare case he might win. People don’t insure their property against fire damage because they expect it to happen so much as they can’t afford to fix things if it does happen.”

That’s why they do it. This wasn’t even an insurance policy. The point is, the purpose of the insurance policy is to reverse the election, to restore things back to the way they were before an event happened. That’s what they’re talking about here. That’s what Strzok meant when he said we need an insurance policy.

Translated: We need to find a way to get rid of Trump if he wins! We need to figure out a way to restore things back to the way they were before the disaster. That’s what he meant. That could only be what he means if he knows what insurance is. And so they have exposed exactly what the intent all along has been. To reverse this election!

And there it is. The New York Times today with 4100 words on how it’s totally understandable, it’s desirable, it makes perfect sense, and maybe we should applaud these people for doing it because Trump really is the scumbag of the highest order. And it is an honorable thing to do to get rid of him.

That’s the tone of this whole story, and these people are almost portrayed as heroes. They’re risking their careers. They’re risking their good names. They’re risking their lives and fortunes and sacred honor to protect America from scumbag number 1. And the New York Times is here to praise them to the hilt for the honor and integrity they bring to saving America.

I’m out of descriptions. I’m out of accurate ways to characterize these people and what they have done. I’m out of ways characterizing the genuine damage they have tried to inflict on the sanctity of this country. I’ll just tell you this. These people — James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, Sally Yates, Lisa Page, McCabe, these people have done more damage to the integrity of American democracy, the American electoral system, than anything the Russians have ever contemplated.

These people have done more to damage the integrity and the reputation of American democratic processes than Vladimir Putin could have ever dreamed up. They have done this. They have soiled themselves all over the Constitution under the auspices that they know better, that they are infallible.

And it is so frustrating to me; I am so mad about this. I get mad at the lies and I get mad at the righteousness and so forth, but the damage these people are doing, every election from now on out — I mean, it’s gotten ridiculous now. Whoever wins Miss America, the Russians are gonna be said to be behind it. The Russians are already said to be behind everything. It’s become a common, ordinary joke.

Every election is going to be suspected now when the left loses it. And it’s all because of them. They have created a never-ending cloud of darkness over every election that happens forthwith. If Vladimir Putin ever dreamed up something like this, nobody could have done a better job of implementing it than American law enforcement officials, starting with Barack Obama on down to Michelle (My Belle) Obama and whoever else is with him, Valerie Jarrett, Ben Rhodes, David Rhodes, just the names are never-ending, David Axelrod.

Every one of these people that is presently at present engaged in defending and protecting Obama, his legacy, his reputation and his legal status. And all of these smug, arrogant know-nothings at the FBI and the CIA and the DOJ, look at what they have done. Look how they’ve destroyed the college education. You get one now, but what does it cost you? How much are you in debt, for how long, and to whom? Them! They run it.

They have destroyed the immigration system. They are rotting and looting America’s culture. They are ruining everything they touch, and now they have corrupted the election system. Under the guise of trying to root out corruption, they themselves have engaged in it. And now Mueller is there to try to cover it all up and deflect any attention away from Hillary Clinton and Obama and where the real criminality occurred in all of this.


RUSH: Houston and Ken. Great to have you, sir. How are you doing?

CALLER: Doing very well, sir. Thank you. It’s an honor. It’s an honor to speak to you.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I’m sorry, sir?

RUSH: I said thank you. It’s an honor to have you out there honoring me.

CALLER: (laughing) My father was a D-Day veteran listening to you to his last day. I thank you for doing everything you do and thank you for having the president’s back. I was just wondering if Hillary hadn’t come up with this during the campaign, with all of Trump’s “Crooked Hillary” and “lock her up” stuff, that she didn’t demand an investigation so he could be locked up by the time she was sworn in.

RUSH: Well, you know, I would think that many people hearing your point would reject it. “No. This is far deeper than that.” But I think it’s all part of it. I think the idea of Trump is repulsive to these phony baloney, pseudo-elitist intellectual snobs. And then Trump goes out on campaign trail. When Trump made that joke, “Hey, Russia, Russia, maybe you can find the 30,000 emails,” they thought he was slapping them in the face. They thought he was being insolent.

And so they turned that into Donald Trump actually urging Russia to hack. Maybe they didn’t get the joke. Maybe these people are so stilted and stiff, maybe they didn’t. I mean, to me that was one of the funniest moments of the campaign. And these people, some of them honestly were offended. And then Trump is out there, the Access Hollywood tapes, everything, Trump’s rallies, everything he’s doing, Crazy Bernie, Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, and these people are so personally, professionally offended, this is like a stink bomb being thrown into their treehouse in the first grade. They just can’t abide this. This guy is just yuk!

He’s Ernie Haskell times 10 walking into Beaver Cleaver’s house, you know, and grabbing wedgies on June Cleaver’s underwear. They just can’t stand this guy! And then at one of the rallies he mentions Crazy Hillary and the audience: “Lock her up, lock her up!” And it sends ’em over the edge. I don’t think that triggered anything, but I think, “Lock her up, lock her up,” just righteously indignated these people to the point they couldn’t see straight anymore.

“This just isn’t done. She hasn’t done anything. We’ll lock you up, you pig,” is what it became. And of course Mrs. Clinton, she’s not helping things by not being able to stand up, not able to get into a bus that’s 25 feet high, not being able to go out on the campaign trail once every two weeks, not deigning to even visit blue states because she thinks they’re in the bag. She’s turning everything over to these people to do her dirty work, including writing the dossier.

They’re ticked at everything! She should have won in a landslide because of them. They’re the ones that run things. They’re the ones that determine who wins elections! She should have won in a landslide. This guy, yeah, “Lock her up,” the Access Hollywood tape, Lyin’ Ted, Crooked Hillary, Crazy Bernie, I guarantee you, drove ’em over the edge, and they’ve been over the edge for over a year now.


RUSH: Okay. So, in a nutshell, the New York Times admits that they had no evidence of any criminality on the part of Donald Trump at all. Not just criminality with Russia, they don’t have any evidence of Donald Trump committing crimes, period. Even after the New York Times acknowledges and admits that the FBI was spying on Donald Trump and his campaign, that they had informants embedded in the campaign.

They don’t have a thing on Donald Trump, despite admitting spying on him. How many of you could be spied on by the FBI and come up clean? And Trump’s 70. And you know they’ve been looking at everything. And despite having no crime, what do they do? They open a counterintelligence investigation of him as though the intelligence community needs to find evidence of Trump complicity in anti-American activities, and they don’t have any evidence of that?

So Mueller is trying to cover up all of this and at the same time trying to make people forget that the criminal activity that did happen was all on the Democrat, Obama, Hillary side. It’s really, really jaw dropping, when you get right down to it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This