Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Greetings, my friends, and welcome. Here we are staged and ready, revved and locked and loaded on the way for another three-hour excursion into broadcast excellence hosted by me. It’s always a great thrill and privilege to have you with us. Great knowing that you’re out there. Telephone number, if you want to appear on the program, 800-282-2882. If you want to send an email, it’s ElRushbo@eibnet.us.

And if you want to interact via Twitter, yep, we’ve unloaded, folks. The handle is @RealRLimbaugh. There is no other Twitter handle. We’ve had a bunch of them over the years, and we have eliminated all but the new official Twitter handle, @RealRLimbaugh.

We’re watching the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, you know, it almost as though we should start calling her Judge Amy Grin-and-Bear-It. She has had to sit and listen to a bunch of comparative relative morons berate her and berate President Trump and the country for 11 hours yesterday, probably for another 11 hours more today. She literally is stunning. She’s the definition of unflappable. The woman sits there and is unmoved. They have tried everything they know, just like the Democrats have.

They’ve shot everything they have at Donald Trump. They have fired every weapon that, in the past, has succeeded in getting rid of a targeted Republican. They have not made a dent in Donald Trump. They have not damaged him. They have not moved him closer to retirement or legal conviction, impeachment, what have you. Look, I know there’s some caveats. They’ve interrupted and slowed down the agenda implementation and all that, but that’s not been their objective. Their objective has been to ruin the man, and they have not succeeded. They have not gotten close.

And they’re not getting close with Judge Barrett. She just sits there — again, we pointed out, maybe among the first, no notes on a single, blank, small pad of paper. She has no briefing binders. She has no backup materials. She’s got nothing but what is in her head. And I watched this, I study people. I study facial expressions and the comportment and how well they deal with stress and pressure. And believe me, she has been under fire from any number of directions, and she well knows it. And I’m sure that inside that unflappable facial expression her gears are churning faster than you and I can possibly imagine, anticipating where this line of questioning is ultimately going.

“What the hell are they attempting to pull off now?” she’s asking herself. But it’s like a duck. A duck that you see on a pond or a body of water seems to just be gliding along smooth as possible. You don’t see that duck paddling furiously beneath the surface. It is a great illustration of what I think is going on in the mind of Amy Coney Barrett. She knows that she is smarter than these people. She knows that she knows more than these people. She knows that she is not arrogant nor condescending; they are.

She nevertheless has to act deferential. This is a really fine line. She has to act deferential, at the same time stand up for herself. She cannot relax her mind for a moment. One misplaced answer, one answer that is not the result of focused, intense, strategic thought could give them an opening that she has no idea they’re looking for, but they do. So far, she has thwarted every attempt that they have made. And some of them have been really rank. Some of them have been real stinkers. Some of them have been so low class. And even at that she did not react out of character.

So what is her secret, ladies and gentlemen? How does she do this? I have a theory. I have a theory for much. And I think the theory that I have evolved will explain Judge Barrett. She’s a teacher as well. Not just a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She is a law professor at where? Notre Dame. As such, she has had years of experience in dealing with a bunch of know-it-all kids. I don’t say that with any pejorative. If you have kids — I don’t have kids, but if you have kids, everybody who knows kids knows that kids know more than the parents do. Kids know more than the adults do. The adults are not hip; the adults are not cool. It’s just the way it is.

She has had years of experience in dealing with attitudes like she is facing from the Democrat senators on this committee. The kids, or, in this case, senators who think they know more than she does about the law and the Constitution. So she knows, because she’s a teacher, she knows how to correct them without making a face. She knows how to correct them without making them look stupid. Look. She’s a teacher. She wants them to learn.

So in dealing with the kids, she’s not about humiliating them. She has not learned how to do that. I’m sure she could if she wanted to. But humiliating Durbin would not be wise. Humiliating Sheldon Whitehouse, although it would be easy, would not be wise. Humiliating Cory Booker — I’m sure it takes effort not to — not to mention Kamala Harris. This woman is cruising for the most hated woman in the Senate award and I don’t even think she is aware of it.

But she knows how to do all this without making them look stupid. This is so crucial in these hearings. She’s doing everything without notes. So in the process she’s actually teaching them. So up against the Democrats on this committee, she is well practiced in dealing with the attitudes including the arrogance and the condescension that she is facing.

In the process, you know, we are watching the attempted abuse, the attempted legal abuse of an exemplary woman. This woman ought to have been looked at and everybody examining her qualifications should have rubber-stamped them. They vetted her three years ago. There’s nothing additional to learn about her philosophy. Take a look at whatever cases she’s had since the last time.

No, their effort was to stop her somehow, any way, and I don’t believe that that effort is over. I hear everybody at the end of every day, be it on Fox, be it wherever it is, all of the news people, all the commentators, all the analysts say, “Well, there’s no way they can stop this nomination. Democrats know there’s nothing they can do.” I know these people, and they’re not there yet. Numbers-wise, yeah. But I don’t think they have yet given up on stopping this nomination.

Confirming a Republican judicial nominee is an abusive process. And we are watching it happen again. What these Democrats are doing, what they’re trying to do to judge, professor, working mother Amy Coney Barrett, is yet another grotesque abuse of power. You know what? If this interview process were discovered to be happening within a company, it would be a national scandal. That company’s stock would tank. Whoever was in charge of this kind of interview process inside a company would be held up for ridicule and might even be fired. The executive team, the board of directors would be finished. Reputations would be ruined.

Do you think Democrat voters would tolerate this from Republican senators? Do ya? They’d be appalled. But many today are proud of their elected abusers. They’re proud of the abuse of General Flynn. They’re proud of the abuse of the first lady. They are proud of the abuse of candidate Trump and President-Elect Trump and then President Trump. They are proud of the abuse because abusing these people is all they’ve got. They have shown, daily they demonstrate their inability to defeat President Trump, General Flynn, take your pick, now Amy Coney Barrett.

Now, we’ve seen Republican judicial nominees in the past. It’s been worse than what we’re seeing now. No question about it. One of the reasons is the time frame is really condensed. Another reason is the count is what it is. Just strict numbers without some Kavanaugh trick waiting to pop out of a hat, there isn’t anything they can do. But believe me, this has nothing to do with advise and consent. The question she’s being asked have nothing to do with her qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court.

Is it’s legalized abuse. And that’s what’s gonna happen to the rest of us if these people win. If the Democrats win in November, they will then begin to abuse all of us, because we as citizens will be presumed guilty of racism, of homophobia, of practicing inequality, practicing white supremacy, practicing white privilege. We will become the objects, the subjects of the abuse, as these Democrats embark on their process of cleansing America’s soul, cleansing America’s decrepit past, which is what they think needs to happen.

They have shown us who they are, and they continue to show us who they are. I’m really impressed by Amy Coney Barrett, the way she puts up with this. Unflappable doesn’t get halfway there describing her professionalism in dealing with this.

Let me give you one example. This is so beneath the realm of dignity that you have to wonder what’s behind it. Yesterday afternoon during the hearings for Amy Coney Barrett we got a question from Senator Mazie Hirono. She’s from Hawaii. She’s the one during the Kavanaugh hearings who said, “You men just need to shut up. You men just need to be quiet,” back when everybody thought that Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth, that Kavanaugh was running rape trains by the punchbowl at some college frat party.

Senator Leahy was sitting there near the punchbowl. (doing Larry Flynt impression) It all came falling down ’cause there was nothing, anything to it. But now they’re back. Now they’re back to this. I want you to listen to this question from Mazie Hirono. It’s audio sound bite number 10. Here we go. Three, two, one.

HIRONO: Since you became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?

BARRETT: No, Senator Hirono.

HIRONO: Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?

BARRETT: No, Senator.

RUSH: All right. All right. Now, what is behind this? They’re all smiling on the other side of the glass over there. They can’t do a Blasey Ford on her. Well, let’s examine that. Let’s examine that. When I saw this — and I saw the text of the question before I heard and watched the clip there. When you read this — and you don’t hear it, how rapidly it goes by, you don’t hear Amy Coney Barrett’s rapid fire response. You read, “Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”

That question came out of the blue. Is very weird. And then it’s followed up, “Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?” “No, Senator.” What happens, ladies and gentlemen — I hate even going down this path. But I know who we’re dealing with here. What if you have some really disgruntled former student, you know that the Democrat Party has been going through every student record, every student that’s ever attended one of her courses, every student that’s ever been in one of her classrooms, they’re going through these people, they’re finding out who they are.

They’re going in there, they’re sending operatives in to interview them. And they may be asking them leading questions. They’re out there begging for dirt, desperate to find some. What if some student’s willing to make something up? All you need is one student to make something up, and you can bring all this to a screeching halt while you investigate it. Why else ask this? Why else ask this? This is exactly how Kavanaugh happened. When on the verge of his vote, this is when Feinstein stopped everything and read that letter from the constituent that turned out to be Blasey Ford.


RUSH: So we have McConnell saying we’re gonna move on the 500 whatever it is COVID package before we vote on Amy Coney Barrett. What could go wrong? Then lurking in the weeds is whatever Mazie Hirono set up out there with this out of the blue question yesterday. Let me run this by you again.

She said to Amy Coney Barrett, “Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” And the answer that she got from Amy Coney Barrett was “no.”

And then Mazie Hirono said, “Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?” Again, the answer was “no.” Where does this come from? The way these people operate — remember, with Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, every bit of that was BS. Just like every bit of Trump colluding with Russia and the golden showers story that Trump had hired a bunch of prostitutes to urinate on a bed in a Moscow hotel room after he found out Obama had slept on it, there’s nothing to it.

All of that was flat-out lies. Everything about Kavanaugh running rape trains or harassing Christine Blasey Ford when they were younger together, none of it turned out to be true. But look at what it did. It delayed the Kavanaugh hearings. They demanded, Democrats did, a new FBI investigation into this, even though the previous FBI investigation turned up none of this. Well, that doesn’t matter. We need a new one. The seriousness of the charge is such that the nature of the evidence doesn’t matter.

This is a popular technique the Democrats use. The seriousness of the charge outweighs the nature of the evidence. Time here is crucial. We want this vote before the election. They don’t. They want to stop it. There’s no reason for her to have this question, folks. That question doesn’t just come out of the blue unless they are thinking of releasing some strategic plan.

Because, remember, whatever happens — let’s say they’ve got a disgruntled former student of hers. She was asked how many students she thinks that she has taught the law to at Notre Dame. She said 2,000. You think. Well, we know the Democrats are going through all those student records. They’re trying to find out every student that ever appeared in a class taught by Amy Coney Barrett.

Do you think that they could dangle enough money in front of one, or do you think they could otherwise appeal to the patriotism of another student? By that I mean appeal to a student who thinks that this woman would be an outright disaster as a justice on the court. Remember, doesn’t have to be true. Doesn’t have to be substantive. Just has to be enough to convince the Republicans to stop the hearings and to conduct a new investigation. It would be outrageous. You’d be asking, why didn’t any of this come up three years ago?

And there’s an answer for that. The Democrats saved it for when it really matters. They knew they couldn’t stop her back in the seventh court confirmation, either, the court of appeals. They knew she was gonna be Supreme Court material, so save it. And by save it I mean save the technique. Save the strategy. Not save the story. ‘Cause there isn’t any story here. There just can’t be.


RUSH: Okay. Audio sound bite time. We gotta get some of these because there were some strange things happening at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings today. Amy Klobuchar apparently just fulfilled her reputation as mean Amy. She almost loses it here on Barrett (imitating Klobuchar) “Did you know, did you know, did you know, did you have a general understanding that one of the president’s campaign promises was to repeal the Affordable Care Act when you were nominated?”

Here, just listen to it. This is getting near the end here. They’re getting frustrated. We’re getting near the Kavanaugh period when Blasey Ford magically appeared. Just keep that in mind. Sound bite number 29, the question from Klobuchar: “Did you have a general understanding that one of the president’s campaign promises was to repeal the Affordable Care Act when you were nominated?”

BARRETT: As I said before, I’m aware that the president opposes the Affordable Care Act.

KLOBUCHAR: Well, I know you’re aware now, but were you aware back then?

BARRETT: Well, Senator Klobuchar, I think that the Republicans have kind of made that clear as part of the public discourse.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay. But just is the answer “yes” then that you were aware —

BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, all these questions, you’re suggesting that I have animus or that I cut a deal with the president. And I was very clear yesterday that that isn’t what happened.

RUSH: Ooooh, Senator Klobuchar, these questions, you’re suggesting I have animus or that I cut a deal with the president. Very clear yesterday that isn’t what happened. You know what she’s getting at? Have you made a deal with the president? Go ahead and make it unconstitutional, that’s what she’s driving at. And that’s why Barrett answered the way she did. She’s getting a little — I wouldn’t blame her — frustrated. They’re challenging her integrity and her honesty here.

Now, hang on just a second. Up next is Chris Coons. Yeah, number 30. Here is Chris Coons. This is a bald-headed little guy from Delaware. I saw him at the funeral for George H. W. Bush at the national cathedral in Washington. The guy walked in, I said, “Who is this?” I was behind him.

Oh, that’s Chris Coons. This is the guy that was working on Jeff Flake! This is the guy trying to get Jeff Flake to go against the Republicans on Blasey Ford, the new FBI investigation. I was so tempted to go up and introduce myself, but it was a funeral memorial. So I didn’t say anything. So here is Chris Coons, Democrat, Delaware, Judge Barrett talking about contraception.

COONS: When we spoke on the phone last week, you said you couldn’t think of any specific issue of law where you disagreed with Justice Scalia. Do you agree with him that Griswold was wrongly decided and thus states should be able to make it illegal to use contraceptives if they so choose?

BARRETT: Well, Senator, as I said a number of times, I can’t express a view. I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere. In order for Griswold to be overruled, you or a state legislature would have to pass a law prohibiting the use of birth control, which seems, you know, shockingly unlikely.

RUSH: Out of nowhere, out of nowhere contraception comes up. Remember the last time this happened? Let’s go back. January 7th, my friends, 2012, Manchester, New Hampshire, St. Anselm College, live on ABC, the Republican candidates for president were debating. During a segment — no. There was no segment on contraception. During a surprise shock out of nowhere question on contraception George Stephanopoulos and Mitt Romney had this little tit-for-tat.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception?

ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception.

RUSH: He wouldn’t give up on it. He kept asking the question over and over. He wanted Romney to give an answer. All Romney had to do is give an answer. Didn’t matter what the answer was, just give an answer, then they could run off. “Romney “no” on contraception. Romney: “States have rights to ban contraception.”

So they’re pulling tricks out of the hat that they’ve utilized before. (interruption) What? Stephanopoulos is not on the Senate — well, may as well be. He’s in the Clinton war room. What do you mean? Just ’cause he’s at ABC means he’s not a Democrat operative? Spare me.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This