Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: More Georgia votes have been found. What do you know? Late yesterday another nearly 3,000 votes were discovered on a memory card in Fayette County, Georgia, that had not been counted. After all this time they had not been counted.

And President Trump netted another 500 votes, just like in the case of the nearly 3,000 votes found the day before in Floyd County, Georgia, this batch was only found because of the manual recount in Georgia where there are now actual observers.

It’s funny how that works, isn’t it? Get some actual observers in there, and, lo and behold, we find some new votes that previously went unseen. And just like in the earlier case, the votes had not been uploaded properly by a computer, which was using Dominion software.

Also yesterday, yet another county in Georgia, Walton County, also found 178 votes for Trump that they had missed on Election Day. Third county in Georgia. Discovered a memory card, uncounted votes, majority of which were cast for Trump, according to Georgia Republican chairman David Shafer, said, our monitors tell us that Walton County election officials found a memory card — yeah, I wonder where it was. In somebody’s trunk? Walton County election officials found a memory card that was apparently not uploaded.

The number of uncounted votes is not as large as in Floyd or Fayette, but the president will pick up votes, Shafer wrote on Twitter. According to the Walton Tribune, Trump netted 176 votes as a result of the discovery. Just amazing. Now, people shrug this off, saying that Trump’s still behind by a couple thousand votes. But they keep finding 500 votes here and 175 votes there, it could add up. There are 159 counties in Georgia. You think these three are the only ones that got some snafus going on?

Okay. To the phones. Let’s get started here with William in Minneapolis. Welcome, sir. Glad you called. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Mega dittos and mega prayers, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I am a recovering lawyer, and I’ve done a little looking into the issue of how I President Trump could prevail in this election despite the current situation of the vote counts. Currently the five swing states of Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona all are controlled by Republicans in both houses of the legislature.

This is a very important point because as the majority put it in Gore v. Bush, or Bush v. Gore in 2000, the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors of the president of the United States. This stems from a reading of the specific language in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, that states very clearly, “Each state shall appoint,” quote, “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors and equal to the number of senators -”

RUSH: Right. Right. And the electors follow the lead of the popular vote winner of the state with a couple of exceptions.

CALLER: Right. That’s typically how it’s done. But they are appointed by the legislature, and the legislature can at any time exercise its federal responsibilities. The governor has no say. The state court has no say. The federal courts have no say. The legislatures themselves can step in and say, “We’re going to appoint the electors, and they can ignore the votes of the people.” Because when it comes right down to it, the electors are chosen at the discretion of the state legislatures. And if they want to choose the electors on whatever criteria they want —

RUSH: Now, wait just a second here. I know this all sounds good, but if that were true, then the popular vote would never matter and state legislators would have been appointing electors to overturn popular vote elections as often as they wanted to, to send somebody to the White House they wanted. There are restrictions here. The Electoral College is a rubber stamp for the most part. That is why there was controversy four years ago. The Democrats wanted to change that aspect ’cause they felt they were getting screwed. They won the popular vote, and yet they lost the Electoral College.

Now, if what you say is true, they could have fixed that by simply appointing enough state legislators, appoint electors that are gonna vote for Hillary, and we’re done, we’re outta here. They couldn’t do that. If what you say were possible, then there would be no reason to ever have a presidential election. You just have the state legislators every December 14th appoint a bunch of cronies, promise ’em a bunch of goodies, say here’s who we want you to vote for, go in there and do it.

There are safeguards in the system to make sure that the will of the people is not disregarded and not ignored or subverted. Now, some people think the Electoral College is a subversion of the popular vote, but it isn’t. It is a safeguard against population centers having mass control over national issues, primarily the election of a president. And the safeguards are there for reasons exactly as you describe. It just can’t be that easy. Look. I appreciate the call.


RUSH: I got a note. “Rush, on the Electoral College, electors can vote however they want. Hillary tried to get some Republicans to vote for her. They didn’t, but they could have.” All right. So I said the electors have to follow the popular vote in their states, and now somebody’s saying, “No, no, the electors can vote however they want,” which was the caller’s point.

If the electors can vote however they want, then what the Republican-run legislatures ought to do is just appoint nothing but Trump electors and have them go ahead and vote for him and to hell with the votes that were cast.


RUSH: Mark in Omaha. Your turn. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush. I’ve been listening since 1988, and my wife and I are praying for remission.

RUSH: I appreciate you, sir. You’re a lifer. You’ve been here since the very beginning. So thank you for that.

CALLER: Yes. Yes. I’m all things Rush and all things Trump. So, anyway, my comment is that the only viable path that I see for President Trump to overturn the coronation by the media of Biden is to get to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court is not going to care about 5,000 dead people voting or Republicans not being able to watch the count of the vote. What the Supreme Court’s going to be looking for is something large enough scale wise to show fraud on a large scale. And the only evidence we seem to have is Sidney Powell and the computers and the software. And I think that’s where everything’s gonna lie.

RUSH: And just curious, what do you think the odds of this happening are?

CALLER: I think the odds are actually fairly good, if he can get to the Supreme Court.

RUSH: Yeah, but… I’m sorry to interrupt because of time. The Supreme Court, a couple justices have let it be known in the last two to three weeks they don’t want to touch this case. So you’re right. The evidence is gonna have to be overwhelming. They don’t want to pick the president. They don’t want to be seen as doing that. I guarantee you that.


RUSH: The Supremes do not want to be seen picking the president. Therefore, whatever evidence is presented to them is gonna have to come from the machines, the software, and it’s gonna have to be overwhelming so that it doesn’t look like they are picking the president.

That’s a big deal, folks.


RUSH: Wow. Some of you people are on the warpath today. I just checked my email during the break. “What are you talkin’ about, the Supreme Court doesn’t want to pick the president? Do you not know who these people are? There’s not a person in that town that doesn’t want the power to pick the president. I hope you’re feeling okay, Limbaugh,” whatever.

(interruption) Well, they doubt me because I’ve taught them well. I’ve explained to them the aphrodisiac that power is in Washington, and they’re substituting themselves. “Man, I’d love to pick the president. Screw this election business!” Let me explain. Look, I can understand how a lot of people would be puzzled at the statement that the Supreme Court doesn’t want this gig; they don’t want to pick the president.

I mean those exact words, by the way. If what they do is seen as picking the president, they want no part of it, and they won’t take the case — I’m just telling you — and the caller that got all this started knows full well. That’s why he said, “The evidence that is presented to them is going to have to be overwhelming.” So Sidney Powell and Lin Wood and Trump’s team are gonna have to focus on the software: Smartmatic, part of Dominion software.

They’re gonna have… Now, Sidney says they got more evidence. It’s coming so fast, it’s coming through a fire hose. They better have that and that’s what they better present, ’cause the court… (sigh) One emailer said, “Are you telling me that these lib justices wouldn’t want to pick Biden as soon as they could?” Yeah, they might. I know what you’re talking about there in that circumstance.

But the issue here is the court being sensitive to separation of powers, and the Constitution delegating the responsibility in case of disputes to the House of Representatives in picking the president. But that’s a vote of a whole bunch of people. Let me just cut to the chase here, and this is independent of what happened in Bush v. Gore, when all they did there was stop the count.

All they did there is they ordered the recount stopped because there was fraud happening in the recount. They stopped the count, and at that point, Bush was the winner. They caught hell. Now, nothing can happen to them for catching hell. Nobody can throw them out. Nobody’s gonna throw out a Supreme Court justice. It just doesn’t happen.

But they’re like anybody else; they still care about reputations and image and all that. In this case, a couple of justices have let it be known that they don’t want anywhere near this unless the evidence is so overwhelming that they have no choice in the ruling. Alito has telegraphed that he thinks some shenanigans have gone on. He’s telegraphed how, if you’re gonna take it to the Supreme Court.

By expressing his interest in it, he’s given a roadmap that might suffice him voting to hear the case. But they don’t… I’m just telling you that the Supreme Court does not want a case that is so weak on evidence that the evidence doesn’t speak for it. It’s like the caller said: They need overwhelming evidence to even take the case.

So that’s why Sidney Powell and Lin Wood and the Trump team are gonna take all the time they can to amass this stuff, and Sidney Powell and Lin Wood have both alluded to how much fraud there was. But they’re gonna have to demonstrate that there was enough of it to change the outcome, and that will be seen as the reason for the decision.

If they believe at the court that there is overwhelming evidence that there was so much cheating and fraud or whatever going on that it’s worth taking the case, and that’s… I don’t want to call it “a fallback position,” but believe me, I know some of these justices. This is not… They don’t want any part of picking the president, folks. Part of it is separation of powers. A large part of it is.

On the Democrat side, the liberal side of the court, I’m probably all wet. They would probably salivate at the chance of being able to once and for all get rid of Trump. In fact, I know they would. But they’re the minority (which is a fun thing to say). I’m just saying they’re gonna need overwhelming evidence to do this — and the caller was right.

It’s gonna focus on the machines, on the computers. You know: Garbage in, garbage out. It’s gonna focus on not only the software, but the hardware as well.


RUSH: Okay. Kim in Ocala, Florida. Great to have you. Hi.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. I have a comment. I think part of what needs to be discussed and reviewed by the Supreme Court is that the states, in my view, have created fraud-friendly systems. You know, we have models like here in Florida. They had models to go by, and we had our results in two or four hours after the election. But they deliberately adopted a system that enabled the mail-in ballots to be counted last, and I think that represents a fraud-friendly system.

RUSH: Well, let’s see. Did you say Florida or these other states deliberately adopted the system to count mail-in ballots last?

CALLER: The Democratic swing states —

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: — deliberately adopted fraud-friendly vote systems.

RUSH: Right, such as, “As long as it’s postmarked Election Day, you got 10 days to get it in to us” or whatever? Stuff like that?

CALLER: Well, you know, Florida has been used as an example of how to handle mail-in ballots.

RUSH: Exactly.

CALLER: So the mail-in ballots were all counted by Election Day, and they reversed the process. So to me, that represents a deliberate effort to create a fraud-friendly voting system.

RUSH: Right. Forever.

CALLER: They should be taken to task by the Supreme Court because, you know, a fundamental underlying premise is that the state is going to enact a legitimate voting system —

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: — and they didn’t in this case.

RUSH: Well, I think the fraud is focused on mail-in ballots. No question. You’re right. They did set up a system where they counted last. No ID is required on a mail-in ballot. I mean, it’s rife, and I think the purpose here… I’ve told you countless times, folks: The Democrats resent elections. They think they’re beneath them.

They shouldn’t have to go through elections in order to enact what they believe. They’re so right. They’re so proper. They’re so what the country needs, that they shouldn’t even have to submit to elections. It’s an insult to them! So they know they’re never gonna get rid of elections per se. So let’s come up with a system where we don’t lose them.

And if you have all of the flexibility they gave themselves — you’re right — in the swing states on the mail-in ballots and when to count them and how and so forth? You’re right, and it’s gotta stop. This is why when I first came back after the actual election, the focal point for me was the Constitution, that whatever happens here — the keep-the-faith argument — the Constitution and the integrity of elections is what matters here more than who wins. This is crucial.

If this election was fraudulent and is not fixed — if this election was as bastardized as we believe it was and is not fixed — then it’s over. They’ve gotten away with it, and that will just tell them they can continue getting away with it. It is imperative that the rule of law and the Constitution be upheld and count for something here. It’s what’s at stake. It’s what we all leave our descendants, the kind of country we leave our descendants.

This is serious, serious stuff, and it’s got to be fixed. If there was any fraud — however, whoever — it’s got to be uncovered. It’s got to be exposed. The American people need to be told. They need to be told by credible source, whoever it is, like the Supreme Court or what have you. But it’s got to be investigated, and however long it takes to get this right. This election…

If there is fraud rampant in it, it’s got to be uncovered for the sake of the Constitution, the government, and everything else that is tied into this. Kim, I’m glad you called. It’s a great point.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This