Rush Transcripts...Nov. 19th

[mystery-ak]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/



An Illustration of the Sad State of American Education

Nov 19, 2019



RUSH: I’m gonna mention something very briefly before I get into this so that I don’t forget it or move it to later. I saw something, I don’t know if it was Sunday or Monday, over the weekend. It was kind of a throwaway story. To me, it is a fundamental illustration of one of the problems we’ve got.

A U.K. Telegraph story. It was a survey of kids not in the U.K., here in the United States, between the ages of 16 and 24. Seventy percent had never heard of Mao Tse-tung. Seventy percent had never heard of Mao Tse-tung, age 16 to 24. Forty percent had never heard of Joseph Stalin. And there was a third communist, murderous thug that people had not heard of.

I wasn’t surprised. I was saddened by it. It makes perfect sense. The left has taken over public education. They’re weeding out all of the truth. In fact, if you recall during the Obama administration one of his first original aides had testified, Anita Dunn was her name, and she’s married to the guy that runs one of the big law firms, Perkins Coie. Anita Dunn testified to her admiration for Mao Tse-tung.

Remember when she got in deep doo-doo? She testified to her admiration for Mao Tse-tung in the ability he had to marshal his forces and move his country in the direction he wanted it. Never mind that he murdered 40 million people to do it. Stalin murdered 40 million people to advance his ideas.

So I was at an event yesterday where there were a bunch of kids. And I ran my own personal survey. I ran into 10 of them. They were all high school students, and one of them was in college. I said, “Have you ever heard of Mao Tse-tung?”

“Uhhh, the Tiananmen Square guy, right?”

The Tiananmen Square guy? None of them had heard of Joseph Stalin. Not a single one of them had. And this, by the way, is a fairly elite private school. And not a one of them knew who Joseph Stalin was and some of them said that Mao Tse-tung was the Tiananmen Square guy. At least they were able to associate Mao Tse-tung with China, but Mao Tse-tung was dead when Tiananmen Square happened.

So it’s just an illustration of — you know, we have two pillars or two foundational elements that are largely the most influential in creating public opinion. One is the media, and the other is education. And if public education — and we know this is true — downplaying the truth of communism, why do so many Millennials think socialism is wonderful? Why do so many of them think communists — 70% of American Millennials are fascinated by the idea of socialism, and 30% say communism’s a good idea. It has to be the result of education. It has to be the result of, talk about Russian meddling, Soviet meddling, just look at the education system.

[mystery-ak]

My Very, Very Careful Opinion of Lt. Colonel Vindman

Nov 19, 2019



RUSH: Now to the hearings today. The interesting thing about the hearings today we had two witnesses who actually heard the July 25th phone call. These are said to be star witnesses, Jennifer Williams from Mike Pence’s office, but she’s actually State Department, and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.

And what has happened with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman today is fascinating because it is clear to me, since these people only have their opinions to offer, since they only have their assumptions make, I’m gonna do the same thing. And I’m gonna tell you my opinion is Vindman is the source for the whistleblower, and it was almost exposed today. Adam Schiff jumped in.

People who know what’s going on watching this understand that Schiff was practically stripped bare today on all the lies he’s been telling about not knowing who the whistleblower is. If he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is, how can he possibly prevent somebody from saying the name of the whistleblower?

Vindman made the mistake of saying that he informed two people who were not on the call about the call. Because you know what’s also clear? What’s also clear is that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman in his role has been acting more like a supporter or a defender or of a diplomat for Ukraine and not the United States. Now, don’t misunderstand. I’m not talking treason or any of that. Don’t misunderstand. I’m gonna play the sound bites and show you what I mean as the program unfolds.

But Vindman seems like his intent has always been to protect Ukraine from Donald Trump. Really all we have here is a bunch of career people who think they make foreign policy. And Trump has run around them. He’s done end runs around them. He’s making foreign policy without them, and their noses are out of joint, and they’re coming forth and trying to offer other reasons to explain why their noses are out of joint. But that’s all this is.

It’s just the fact that a bunch of career diplomats and aides to diplomats have been left out of American foreign policy in Ukraine as conducted by Donald Trump. And their way of getting back it him is this. Now, John Ratcliffe just, right before the program started — the congressman from Texas — made a great point. He said that when this whole impeachment thing began, it was about a quid pro quo, that Trump somehow had demanded a quid pro quo from the president of Ukraine for aid to Ukraine.

And the quid pro quo was that the president of Ukraine, the newly elected one, must conduct an investigation of Vice President Biden and his incompetent, unqualified son, Hunter Biden. The Democrats went out… Do not doubt me. This is true. The Democrats went out when this wasn’t playing out the way they hoped it would with the public, they went out, they convened a focus group, and they found out that “quid pro quo” didn’t rattle any cages.

There aren’t a whole lot of Americans who’ve been taught Latin anymore. So they don’t know what quid pro quo really is. As such, it didn’t carry any impact. So Pelosi, last week, changed the entire narrative and said that Trump is now being impeached for “bribery,” because in the focus group that the Democrats did, they found out the word “bribery” and the word “extortion” has much more impact in describing illegal or criminal behavior than “quid pro quo” does.

So Pelosi is out now all of a sudden the end of last week and through the weekend claiming Trump is gonna be impeached for bribery. So John Ratcliffe asked the two witnesses, “Have you ever described President Trump’s actions as ‘bribery’?” Both of them said no. “In any of your testimony behind closed doors or here today, have you ever described Trump’s behavior as ‘bribery’?” No. Then Ratcliffe put stacks of paper on the desk.

He said, “These are transcripts from all of the closed-door depositions that have taken place. There isn’t one witness — in thousands of interviews, thousands of questions, thousands of answers. There isn’t one witness who has used the word ‘bribery’ to denote what President Trump has done.” These two witnesses today, the star witnesses both said they’ve never used the word “bribery.” It has never been used.

Not one person who has testified either in public or in the closed-door sessions has ever used the word “bribery” in discussing whatever it is that Trump did that’s so bad. The word “bribery” was used, however, one time in the private depositions, and it was used in reference to Joe Biden. So Ratcliffe says (summarized), “What the hell is going on here? We’re gonna impeach the president over something not a single witness has accused him of? Not a single witness has used the term or referenced the term or even defined the term.”

He said, “We’re gonna have articles of impeachment prepared. We’re gonna send this over to Judiciary Committee; there’s more Democrats there, so this is gonna pass. How can the American people possibly follow this? This thing starts out with a quid pro quo and whatever else the Democrats wanted to say, and since that wasn’t playing well, they focus grouped. They change it now to ‘bribery’ and before that ‘extortion’.”

Also today, ladies and gentlemen, Alexander Vindman… (sigh) You know, as everybody saying, “You gotta be very, very careful in talking about Vindman because she’s wearing the uniform, he’s decorated.” (sigh) You just gotta be very careful. And the Wall Street Journal. Wall Street Journal has a story today that says that Vindman’s family and Vindman himself may be relocated to an Army base to protect him against threats to his safety.

Alexander Vindman, all of these witnesses are the safest people in the country today. If a single hair on a single head of one of these witnesses is touched? (Snort!) I shudder to think. Vindman’s under no danger, but here comes the story in the Wall Street Journal. (impression) “Because of his testimony today, Vindman and his family seriously being thought to be relocated to the safety and security of an Army base where Trump thugs could not possibly get to them.”

That’s the point of the story.

Yet there hasn’t been a single threat. There hasn’t been a single hack of any of Vindman’s computers. So it’s all part of the grand illusion. Anyway, Vindman said today that in his opinion Hunter Biden didn’t seem to be qualified to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, while his father, Joe Biden, was vice president. You’re not gonna see anybody highlight that in the Drive-By Media, but Vindman said Hunter Biden didn’t seem to be qualified.

Now, we’re gonna go to the sound bites. Let me take a break here. We’re gonna get to the sound bites. Devin Nunes will lead off. He had a tremendous opening statement today. And as a point of preparation for the point Nunes was attempting to make today was to suggest that it is Vindman who ran out of the room after the July 25th phone call and called his buddy Eric Ciaramella and leaked the details of the phone call to him, and then it was Ciaramella who ran over to Schiff.

That is the story, that is what happened, and it is my opinion — and my great assumption — that that is exactly the role that Vindman has played here. “But, Rush! But, Rush! He’s denied it.” No, he hasn’t denied it. He mentioned that he told two people outside the National Security Council, two people who were not on the call. He told two other people about it. He identified one person as George Kent, the bow-tied ambassador who testified last week.

The other person — and Vindman started stumbling around, and then Schiff stepped in. (summarized exchange) “You can’t… You can’t say that! You can’t answer that. I’m stepping in here. This is a trick. This is a trick. You’re trying to get him to identify the whistleblower,” and Nunes said, “Mr. Chairman, you don’t know who the whistleblower is — you said — and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. How can anybody possibly identify the whistleblower here if you don’t know who it is?

“He could give the name of anybody he wants, give any name he wants and nobody would know it’s the whistleblower or not ’cause you don’t know who it is and Vindman doesn’t know who it is.” And then Vindman’s lawyer, said, “He’s not gonna answer. He’s not gonna gonna fuel the ruling of the chairperson. He’s not gonna answer. He’s not gonna answer that.” And then Nunes said, “Well, if he wants to take the Fifth Amendment…”

And the lawyer (sputtering) “There’s no Fifth Amendment issue here! He’s just following the ruling of the chair. We’re not gonna sit there and identify the whistleblower.” So Vindman has acknowledged that he told you somebody, quote, “from the intelligence community.” Well, that’s the whistleblower. Eric Ciaramella, is CIA. So in my humble opinion — and it’s just my opinion and it’s only my assumption — and, of course, I could be called as a witness based on this because that’s what these witnesses have. It is my opinion based on learned knowledge following these hearings that Vindman is the original leaker and that Vindman told Ciaramella (who is the whistleblower) who then went over and set all of this up with Adam Schiff.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, we must be careful with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. That’s the refrain that was shared with everybody today before these hearings began. It was a warning to the Republicans. It was a warning to people like me in the so-called conserve media. “You gotta be very careful with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. You gotta be respectful. You can’t call him names. You can’t claim that he’s dishonest. You can’t call him political. You gotta be real careful with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.”

The same people saying this are the very same people who set out to destroy General Petraeus in 2007 and 2008, including Hillary Clinton. Remember all the ads the Democrats ran, and Harry Reid was out calling General Petraeus “General Betrayus.” They accused him of lying before congressional committees even before his testimony began. This was all having to do with the Iraq war and what was to become known as the surge to finally see victory in Iraq. Petraeus was gonna be brought up and he was gonna testify.

MoveOn.org was running ads all over the internet and in newspapers, “General Betrayus.” So it was clear you didn’t have to be careful with General Petreaus. When the left wants to destroy somebody in the media, why, they can go ahead and do it and everybody has to stand aside and let them. When the left wants to protect somebody in the military, you can’t say anything. “You gotta be real careful with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman!”

Does anybody remember any concerns for the safety of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North back during the Iran-Contra hearings? Oh, yeah. Lieutenant Colonel — as the prosecutor pounced it, “Colonel Nawt.” He was a New Yorker. I forget his name. (impression) “Colonel Nawt, did you…? You were shredding documents. I one here,” and North said, “What, I didn’t get them all I missed one?” (chuckling) Anyway, nobody was concerned for the safety of Lieutenant Colonel North.

Nobody was concerned for the safety of General Betrayus. When the Democrat wants to target somebody in the military, they do. John Kerry! It was free and clear for him to accuse Marines in Haditha of terrorizing Iraqi women and children. Nobody had to go easy on the military, uniformed military personnel when the Democrats are seeking to destroy Republicans. But with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, “We have to be very, very, very careful.”

[mystery-ak]

Ratcliffe Busts Democrats on Focus-Grouped “Bribery” Charge

Nov 19, 2019



RUSH: This John Ratcliffe today. I mentioned this earlier, but I want you to hear him do it. This is very effective. This is a great, great pair of sound bites. It illustrates the phoniness and the moving-target nature of this so-called impeachment inquiry. It’s well done. This was this morning during the House Intelligence Committee hearing with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Jennifer Williams, who’s an aide to Vice President Mike Pence.

She’s actually a national security agent. She’s tasked over from the State Department. The way I understand it, I don’t know that she was chosen by Pence or just simply assigned there. Who knows? But, at any rate, here is Ratcliffe beginning with his questioning of both of the witnesses…

RATCLIFFE: Ms. Williams, you’ve never used the word “bribery” or “bribe” to explain President Trump’s conduct, correct?

WILLIAMS: No, sir.

RATCLIFFE: Colonel Vindman, you haven’t either?

VINDMAN: That is correct.

RATCLIFFE: The problem is, in an impeachment inquiry that the speaker of the House says is all about bribery — where bribery is the impeachable offense — no one has used the word “bribery” to describe President Trump’s conduct. None of them. These aren’t all of the deposition transcripts. These are just the 10 that have been released. Six weeks of witness interviews in this impeachment inquiry, hundreds of hours of testimony, thousands of questions asked, thousands of answers given. The number of times that witnesses have been asked any question about whether or not President Trump’s conduct constituted bribery — before Ambassador Yovanovitch was asked by my colleague Congressman Stewart last Thursday — is zero.

RUSH: Stop and think about this. Now, imagine also as you hear this that sitting right nearby are all of the Democrats, and the media is packed into this room, and they have just been undressed and exposed. The media has been exposed as willing participants in the Democrats’ effort here to get rid of Trump by reversing the election results. They’ve got nothing. They start out with “quid pro quo” and all these other things and it doesn’t register because they focus grouped it.

They found the American people were not being impacted by it at all. So they tried other words — bribery and what have you — and bribery stuck because it’s something everybody understands, it’s pretty simple to understand what it is, and it’d be very bad if a president actually did it. And yet nobody has yet accused Trump of it until Pelosi came along after the focus grouping. Here’s Ratcliffe again to wrap it up…

RATCLIFFE: The answer is polling. The Washington Times asked Americans, “What would be the most damning accusation…?” It didn’t come back “quid pro quo.” It didn’t come back “extortion.” It came back “bribery.” So this case is all about bribery. When Speaker Pelosi says this is all about bribery, she’s promised us evidence of bribery that would be compelling and overwhelming — and instead, it’s invisible.

RUSH: Because it doesn’t exist. It literally doesn’t exist. So you’ve got Schiff sitting there. He’s been exposed as a fraud. The Democrats know it and the media know it, and they don’t even care. They’re not even daunted by this, I’ll guarantee you. Because as far as they’re concerned this is never gonna escape the hearing room. Nobody’s gonna ever know about this. They’re not gonna spend any time on it.

Fox News might. That’s not even a guarantee anymore. Fox News might. We definitely do here. I want you to hear next Jim Jordan. This is audio sound bite number 26. This is kind of in progress. This was established earlier that Schiff has lied about not knowing who the whistleblower is, yet is trying to maintain that Vindman does not say it.

JORDAN: I don’t see how this is outing the whistleblower. The witness has testified in the deposition that he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. You have said — even though no one believes you, you have said — you don’t know who whistleblower is. So how is it outing the whistleblower to find out who this individual is?

SCHIFF: Mr. Jordan, this is your time for questioning. You can use it any way you like, but your questions should be addressed to the witness.

JORDAN: I’d like to.

RUSH: So this is very, very simple. Vindman said that he told two people outside of those on the call, July 25th call — for which the transcript has been released! We don’t have any reason to even be here. The transcript has been released. Whatever the whistleblower said about it is irrelevant, and he’s not even gonna be called. The whistleblower will not be called to testify. Nobody will be able to cross-examine him. He doesn’t exist, as far as these hearings are concerned, and he was the sole mover. He was the prime mover.

Trump releasing the transcript messed up Schiff’s plans. But Vindman admitted that he told two people outside of those on the call. One was George Kent, the bow-tied guy from last week, and somebody from the intelligence community — and as Vindman was on the verge of giving some hint as to the identity, Schiff moved in there and shut it down and said, “We’re not gonna identify the whistleblower. We’re not gonna do it!”

That’s when everyone wondred, “How can he possibly identify the whistleblower when nobody knows who it is? You don’t know who it is.” This what Jordan said. “You’ve said you don’t know who the whistleblower is — even though no one believes you.” He was directing that to Schiff. Schiff has stepped in this big time. If there were just one fair arbiter in that room, they would shut this down.

Adam Schiff is being exposed as an absolute lying fraud, as is this whole proceeding.

[mystery-ak]

A Bad Day for the Bidens

Nov 19, 2019



RUSH: This is Steve Castor. I mentioned this also in the previous hour, but I want you to actually hear it: Vindman admitting that in his opinion Hunter Biden had no qualifications for being on this board of Burisma.

CASTOR: We talked a little bit at your deposition about whether Mr. Biden was qualified to serve on this board. And I believe you acknowledged, that apparently, he was not in fact qualified?

VINDMAN: As far as I can tell, he — he didn’t seem to be.

RUSH: Now, Steve Castor is the Republican counsel who starts off in a plodding, slow way, appears to look, eh, not sharp — and then he ends up zeroing in on these people and nailing them. So Vindman — who, as far as the Democrats have portrayed, is an expert and is unassailable, and you can’t criticize him. Vindman has said, “As far as I can tell,” Hunter Biden was not qualified to serve on the board. But keep in mind that Vindman also said that he didn’t know anything about Biden and the prosecutor being fired to protect Biden’s kid.

These people are so all over the ballpark. Elise Stefanik is a star of these hearings. She’s a New York congresswoman. She is fabulous. She’s just been doing a bang-up job. She is fearless. She been going on after Schiff and has forced Schiff into a position of being mean to the girl — which, of course, Democrats supposedly never are. She gets both witnesses to say that Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma had the potential for conflict of interest. Number 30.

STEFANIK: Every witness who has testified and has been asked this has answered yes. Do you agree that Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma has the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest?

VINDMAN: Certainly the potential, yes.

STEFANIK: And Ms. Williams?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

RUSH: Okay. So this has not been a good day for Biden. I don’t care what anybody says, it has not been a good day for Biden, because the Democrat opponents running against him for the nomination now have info (if they want to use it) that does not come from Republicans. It comes from these independent, unassailable witnesses, that there had to be a conflict. Biden’s vice president.

His son is on the board of Burisma. He’s being paid $83,000 a month. His dad got a prosecutor looking into it fired. None of these people cared, though. None of these people cared. These people who are so outraged over what Trump did in delaying assistance.

[mystery-ak]

Will Impeachment Ever Get to the Senate?

Nov 19, 2019



RUSH: Here is Terry in Lake City, Florida. Great to have you. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Rush, it’s a great honor to speak to you. I want to get your opinion on this. When this goes to the Senate, can this hurt the big names running for president since they cannot campaign, and can the Republicans take advantage of this and draw this out giving the advantage to possibly Biden or the other nonsenators —

RUSH: You see, this is one of the few reasons — I was gonna say many — it’s one of the few reasons why so many people think it’s never gonna get to the Senate. The primary reason that it probably won’t get to the Senate is that Trump would be acquitted. Now, the last thing Pelosi and the Democrats want is for the Senate to say Trump is “not guilty” after all of this, in an election year.

But Terry’s question here is relevant because during an impeachment trial, senators are not allowed to go campaign. They have to stay for the trial. And Mitch McConnell has said the trial could go two months. Hee-hee. The Turtle has said, I’m gonna be the Turtle when it comes to Senate trial. It could go six to eight weeks.

That’s six to eight weeks that Kamala Harris can’t campaign, six to eight weeks that Cory Booker can’t campaign, six to eight weeks that Elizabeth Warren can’t campaign, six to eight weeks that Crazy Bernie can’t campaign, leaving the field clear for Plugs.

Plugs could campaign and there couldn’t be any official opposition. Senators have to have surrogates out there doing it. Yeah, that’s another item in the column that suggests this isn’t gonna get to the Senate. But, folks, there’s not a single fact, there’s not an impeachable offense, there’s not a crime that has been announced or exposed or even alleged in these two weeks of hearings now.

[mystery-ak]

Lower Your Expectations for Fox News, Folks

Nov 19, 2019



RUSH: I can’t tell you the number of people who are complaining to me about Fox and their analysis here. And, folks, all I can tell you is there’s nothing new about that.


I’d lower my expectations if I were you. If you’re expecting what Fox used to be, you need to shift your perspective.

[mystery-ak]

Trump Lays Into Democrats, Media at Cabinet Meeting

Nov 19, 2019



RUSH: Trump just let the media into a cabinet meeting. Grab audio sound bite number 33. This is the president characterizing what he has seen so far today…

THE PRESIDENT: You have a kangaroo court headed by Little Shifty Schiff, where we don’t have lawyers, we don’t have witnesses, we don’t have anything. And yet I just got to watch, and the Republicans are absolutely killing it. They are doing so well, because it’s a scam. It’s a big scam. They’re doing something that the founders never thought possible and the founders didn’t want.

RUSH: What he means by that is turning impeachment into an ongoing political process that literally never ends — I mean, just challenging every election that you lose on the basis that the winner deserves to be impeached. And this is what’s been going on now for three years and counting. And, folks, it’s gonna go on go on. If Trump wins reelection, a variation of this is going to continue. Jonathan Turley, sound bite number 32. He was on CBS Special Coverage.

By the way, I’m told that the networks bumped out of this this morning at some point. Is that right? Do we know that for sure? (interruption) Well, I need more than that. (interruption) All right. Well, I am told that the networks bumped out of this early. They went wall-to-wall with it last week. Here’s the news. Thirteen million viewers the first day last week, whatever it was, Wednesday. Thirteen million. That’s spread out across all the networks, and it’s a paltry number.

The Comey testimony was 20 million. The way to look at it is that 95% of the American people did not watch. Then on Friday when it was Marie Yovanovitch, who was supposed to elicit the great emotional reaction, the audience fell to 12 million. Today, the networks began wall-to-wall coverage, and I’m told that a number of the networks, CBS, bumped out of it before too long because they died with it last week, and there was nothing compelling.

There was no hard, cold fact. There was no allegation. There was no offense, impeachable offense alleged — and it’s dull, it’s boring. I’ve heard people say (sniveling), “That’s it so unfortunate, Mr. Limbaugh, because this is a serious, serious issue for our country and our citizens to watch this whether it’s boring or not because this is Civics 101 and people…” It’s not the way the world works anymore.

Try telling the producer of a TV show that people ought to watch it when it’s boring, and that’s what the Democrats are doing. They’re producing a TV show here. You know what’s flat-out amazing? Adam Schiff’s constituency is Hollywood. That’s his district. You would think he’d get some pizzazz showbiz help here. But this guy is so colorless that he’s unable to breathe any life into this, and he’s hampered by the fact that he doesn’t have any witnesses to anything.

Neither of these people have ever met Trump. Vindman’s never met Trump. At least never talked to him. Here’s Jonathan Turley on CBS today. And this is the reaction to Ratcliffe claiming that all of a sudden now the Democrats have shifted gears and now Trump’s being impeached for bribery.

TURLEY: It is a very sketchy basis. I have to tell you, I do not believe they’ve made out a case for bribery either under the modern definition or how the framers understood it.

WOMAN: But it —

TURLEY: The Supreme Court has handed down a number of rulings dealing with the abuse of public office. They go against that broad definition. The courts have been narrowing that definition. They don’t allow these to go forward on the concept that anything you do that might benefit you personally is going to be considered a bribe because all politicians to some extent are self-dealers. They all use their office to advance their interests. If the Democrats are honestly going to try to take the Ukrainian controversy and pound that square peg into a round hole of bribery, I don’t think it’s gonna work. If they try to make this a bribery case without something far stronger, I think it’s gonna collapse.

RUSH: Yeah. I think it is collapsing. The truth is, in the eyes of the public, it’s collapsing. Now, it’s not collapsing in the commentariat at Fox News, and you can stop complaining. Folks, you can stop complaining to me about it, ’cause I get it. I watch it too. I know what’s happening there, and it is what it is, and it’s not gonna change. Not in the daytime. It isn’t gonna change. It’s trending the other way.

 

Now, one other thing. Trump, in his little blurb here to the media, went out for and after the media again. He just creamed them for their role in this, the epitome of unfairness. He said we don’t even have a free press. We have a press that’s totally corrupted. I don’t have his exact criticism, but he went right after them and said he hopes that at some point in the future for the sake of the country, the press can get its mission back, because what they’re doing now is just damaging as it can be to the country.

Now, to back that up, I’m sure that many of you in this audience have heard the name John Solomon. We have quoted from Solomon’s work oftentimes. He appears regularly with Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel at 9 p.m. He and Sara Carter both are a couple of journalists which have dug up — they have dug up — the absolute truth of this. They are reporting things the media knows that they won’t report. Well, guess what has happened?

Jackie Speier, who is a member of Congress from California, told “a senior staff writer at The Hill, that she wouldn’t speak to the publication because of its … decision to run Solomon’s columns…” A member of Congress told TheHill.com (paraphrased), “I’m not gonna participate with you. I’m not gonna give you quotes. I’m not gonna give you access unless you get rid of Solomon.” So what did The Hill do?

The Hill has announced that it is going to “review” all of Solomon’s columns. Now, where is the outrage? We have a member of Congress pressuring the news media into eliminating one columnist. Out of everybody that works there, they’ve got one columnist that writes something different, and TheHill.com has said (paraphrased), “Yes, ma’am! You bet, ma’am! Whatever you want, ma’am.”

And they’re gonna now start investigating Solomon, and they’re gonna start analyzing Solomon’s work. It’s even being reported in Politico, “The Hill Vows to Review Solomon’s Ukraine Pieces — The columnist’s attacks on a U.S. ambassador, which were hailed by Trump, have come under congressional scrutiny.”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And here’s F. Chuck Todd. Gotta hear this, audio sound bite number 34, this afternoon on NBC’s special coverage of the impeachment inquiry. Lester Holt, the anchor of the NBC Nightly News said to F. Chuck Todd, “How do the Democrats break through with what’s becoming more and more complicated in terms of just the players?”

So now as far as Lester hold’s concerned, this is a miasma, he can’t figure this out. It’s not hard to figure out, Lester, just listen to me. I’ll tell you exactly what’s going on here. But to Lester it’s complicated. And if it’s complicated to Lester, it’s complicated to the American people. Here’s F. Chuck Todd’s answer to how the Democrats break through all of this confusion.

HOLT: How do the Democrats break through with what’s becoming more and more complicated in terms of just the players?

TODD: If the outcome they’re looking for is basically to disqualify the president from seeking another term, ’cause that — if that’s what an impeachment — if it is, they need to be more explicit, that he’s been trying to cheat on 2020, that that’s what this is about, he can’t be trusted to do this, we don’t know how many other countries he’s done it.

RUSH: Listen. He’s making it up. If this is an attempt to disqualify Trump, they need to be mother explicit about what he’s trying to cheat. Sorry, F. Chuck, there’s not a single witness that’s had a fact. Not a single witness has alleged an impeachable offense. They’re just a bunch of policy wonks ticked off that Trump didn’t use them.