Rush Transcripts...Nov. 22th

[mystery-ak]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/


Dems Party After Impeachment Hearing

Nov 22, 2019



RUSH: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Such a hallowed, sacred, prayerful process, so serious, so sad, so terribly horrible that it came to this. Yeah, that was the Democrats and the way Pelosi portrayed impeachment. And the Democrats on the committee all went out and got drunk on adult beverages at a bar last night, folks.

JOHNNY DONOVAN: And now, from sunny South Florida, it’s Open Line Friday!

RUSH: Oh, yeah. They went out and had a party slapping each other on the back because this is what they wanted. They want the black mark of impeachment on Trump. That’s all they want. They would love to get a conviction. They know they’re not gonna get a conviction in the Senate. But they got him, they got him impeached. They can now say they evened the score on Clinton and that they did it.

They can satisfy their deranged lunatic base. They did it. Schiff is the man of the hour. Never mind the fact that they accomplished nothing toward the actual objective of getting rid of Donald Trump.

[mystery-ak]

Hurd Dashes Dem Hopes: No Evidence of Impeachable Offense

Nov 22, 2019



RUSH: Folks, this is the Kavanaugh hearings redone. It just doesn’t look like it yet. The Kavanaugh hearings ended with Blasey Ford blown to smithereens and every other witness, Avenatti, blown to smithereens, and Kavanaugh got confirmed.

Speaking of that, in the Democrat debate the other night, Kamala Harris is trying to make the case that she’s the best person on the Democrat side to be nominated. She said, “I’ve taken on Jeff Sessions. I’ve taken on Brett Kavanaugh. I’ve taken on…” And everybody she mentioned that she’s taken on got confirmed. She failed to stop any of them, and yet there she was on the debate stage, “I’ve taken on Jeff Sessions, and I’ve taken on Brett Kavanaugh, and I’ve –” I forget the third person that she mentioned. Doesn’t matter. But they’ve all been confirmed. And Trump is not gonna be convicted.

Trump’s saying he wants a trial. Many people are surprised. Why would Trump want a trial? Because a trial’s in the Senate. Guess who runs Senate? The Republicans. Guess who gets to call witnesses? The Republicans. Guess what that means? Hello whistleblower, hello Hunter Biden. That’s why Schiff and the boys went to the bar last night, started consuming adult beverages and patting themselves on the back because to them they have achieved the black mark. It can be reported that Trump has been impeached.

They’ve got four articles of impeachment. They’re gonna present them and so that’s it, Trump has been impeached, they did their job. They can run around, they can campaign for reelection, they can raise money. “We did it, lunatic base! We did it, extremist wackos, we impeached him.” Whether they get a conviction — Schiff has done his job as far as he’s concerned, as far as all these people are concerned.

Getting the black mark on Trump’s resume was the immediate objective. They know damn well that there’s not gonna be a conviction. In fact, I just told the broadcast engineer the sound bites I want to use, but I’m gonna change up. I’m gonna find it. I gotta go to the bottom or the back of the list here. Be patient while I catch my breath. It’s 16 and 17. Will Hurd from Texas.

Now, Will Hurd is reputed to be a moderate Republican, not a pro-Trumper necessarily, willing, he said, to be open-minded about all of this and willing to be honest, and if he heard enough that would justify a vote for impeachment to go to trial in the Senate, then he would be right in there casting his vote that way. It was Will Hurd who exposed Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, “O say can you see” as maybe exaggerating a bit when Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said that he had advised the new Ukrainian president to be very careful of the Russians and to not get involved in American domestic politics.

And Will Hurd said (paraphrasing), “So you had a one-on-one?”

“Well, no. I was in a bilateral group. There were a lot of people. It wasn’t one-on-one.”

“So did anybody overhear you giving this advice?”

O say can you see, “I don’t know.”

Well, then maybe, maybe Lieutenant Colonel Vindman didn’t actually have this kind of power. So Will Hurd rendered an opinion during the House Intelligence Committee impeachment hearing, this is what he had to say.

HURD: So where does this leave us? An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous, and it’s not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I’ve not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion.

RUSH: Of course there wasn’t any bribery or extortion. For crying out loud, especially bribery as intended by the Founding Fathers. Do you know, folks, my buddy Andy McCarthy had a good column on this today. The existing bribery statutes in American statutory law are only 165 years old, and yet the Founding Fathers put bribery in the clause on impeachment in high crimes and misdemeanors.

So if the modern definition of bribery did not even become law for 50 plus years after the country was founded, then what the hell was it? Well, I’ll tell you what it was. You know what the founders were afraid of? I’ll tell you specifically what they were afraid of. We had just declared independence from Great Britain. We had fought the Revolutionary War. We made it official.

The founders were afraid that high government officials, including a president, might end up being pressured or blackmailed or some other form of intimidation used to engage in traitorous behavior and betray the new union, the new country. That’s what they were afraid of. You can get rid of a president who sells out the country in that era to Great Britain or to any other competing world power. That’s the specific. That’s what their reference to bribery meant. Not the current statutory definition of bribery that Schiff is using.

It didn’t even exist as American law at the time the Constitution and this particular clause were written. The founders were specifically concerned of a president turning traitor against the country and turning it back over to the U.K, well, Great Britain. There was no U.K. at the time. But that’s what they were concerned with, that’s what the high crime and misdemeanor was. That was something that would have warranted expelling a president from office. Not this piddly little stuff Schiff is trying to make up. And that’s what Will Hurd is saying here. He hasn’t seen any evidence the president committed bribery or extortion.

He’s a well-known moderate, and a lot of Democrats were thinking that if they were gonna turn a Republican, it would be Will Hurd. So Will Hurd announces yesterday, sorry, no mass, no mass, you guys haven’t shown me anything. We now go to David “Rodham” Gergen, CNN Anderson Cooper 14 last night on CNN.

GERGEN: I did think that Hurd on the Republican side, I thought when Hurd was talking, when he first started, “My God, he’s gonna break,” you know? And then he swerved right at the last minute.

RUSH: Oh, my goodness, hopes dashed, hopes dashed, I thought Hurd was gonna turn, oh, I thought we had him. But he didn’t. They don’t have anything, because there’s nothing to have.

[mystery-ak]

Perspective on the Horowitz FISA Leak

Nov 22, 2019



RUSH: So we had a bit of a bombshell last night that I need to put in perspective for you. Mr. Horowitz, the inspector general, reported that he has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI’s secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser — Carter Page.

Apparently what’s happened here is that it has been discovered — now you and I have known this. This is not a bombshell, in truth. What’s a bombshell about it is that the IG has actually let it out somewhere. That is that an associate of Peter Strzok lied on the FISA application to get the warrant to spy on Carter Page and the Trump campaign. And I kid you not. When we get to the audio sound bites, you’re gonna hear a bunch of Democrats and associates on CNN act shocked and surprised. They had no idea.

Everybody’s wondering, well, who is this? Who is it that lied and fabricated the FISA application? All we know is that it was an associate of Peter Strzok. Well, the most famous associate of Peter Strzok is — dadelut, dadelut, dadelut, dadelut — Lisa Page. So what do you bet?

Now, none of this is news. To those of us that know. Just like Fiona Hill yesterday testified, had no idea about “GPS Fusion.” She had no idea about the Steele dossier other than it was presented to her by (impression) of the Brookings Institute. Total ignorance. These people don’t know half the story. They actually do. They’re just claiming ignorance on it.

So we have a former FBI lawyer under criminal investigation for doctoring the FISA warrant application to spy on Carter Page. The reason for lying on it and doctoring it is to get it approved. They didn’t have anything. They’ve never had any evidence to warrant any FISA warrant to spy or any of that. They’ve never had any evidence on Trump.

We’re told that the alterations on the application are so significant that they changed the document’s meaning. We’re also told the alteration would not have had any effect on the ultimate outcome, that is, the FISA warrant would have been issued anyway, but it doesn’t matter because it was altered in a criminal way.

By the way, isn’t Carter Page a military individual? Isn’t Carter Page a graduate of the Naval Academy? So why wasn’t he sacrosanct like Vindman? “O say can you see.” And Bill Taylor? You know, all these former military guys testifying against Trump. We can’t criticize ’em. They’re above reproach. They cannot be in any way criticized or accused of anything. You better be very careful.

But with Carter Page we can make it up on him and we can supply the FISA court with a doctored warrant to essentially permit spying on the Trump campaign. And if you defend Carter Page, why, you better not because he worked with Trump. The Washington Post has confirmed CNN had the original report on this bombshell. The Washington Post has confirmed it, which just means that they both got the leak.

Now, the Washington Post article said that the lawyer worked for Strzok. That’s why the name you hear associated with Strzok is Lisa Page. The Washington Post quietly deleted that detail in subsequent stories. They eliminated from their story as it was continually updated and published that the perp here was tight with Strzok. The Washington Post also said that Horowitz found the lawyer who modified the document falsely stated that a documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the DOJ.

Now, why? I have to tell you, folks, I have to be very, very honest about something. When I saw yesterday that the inspector general report was gonna be released on December 9th, I said, why the hell did they announce that? What in the world is there to gain by announcing that? All you’re gonna do is give the principals from now until December 9th to build up some reaction to it which I think — I think that’s what this is.

I think the reason for this leak of a bombshell is to denude it and to be able to say, “It’s just the Republicans flailing away, knowing how difficult it was for Trump, knowing how well Schiff did, knowing how slam dunk the impeachment hearings were, this is simply a flailing attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that Trump is guilty of whatever.

I’m just gonna tell you right now, folks, I’m not all in on Horowitz. Horowitz is from the same group of people that have been testifying all week and last. And announcing that they’re gonna release this thing on December 9th, this would be much better utilized if it came as a surprise. Not now everybody involved in it’s gonna have whatever length of time between now and then.

So basically, two weeks, if not longer, to come up with some defense or explanation. And we don’t know what else is gonna be in the IG report. This is just one little bit of it that’s been leaked. I mean, if this investigation is real, this inspector general report would end the careers of all the names of people we know here. It would end the career of James Comey. It would end the career of Peter Strzok and James Baker and Bruce and Nellie Ohr, because every one of these people had dealings with defrauding the FISA court.

And that’s what the IG’s investigation is specifically of: The FISA application aspect of all of this. Barr’s guy, Durham, is working on other aspects of this. But the inspector general is almost exclusively dealing with FISA abuses, applications for warrants to spy, what the court was told, who lied if anybody. So we got a leak now suggesting that somebody performed an illegal act in order to get the warrant. But then of course… See? This is exactly what I mean.

The Drive-Bys say, “It doesn’t matter, doesn’t change the outcome. They would have gotten the warrant anyway. There was no need to do this.” So the deflection of this has already begun — and, of course, who got the leak? CNN. So CNN gets the leak, I think, so that everybody on the left can start pushing the narrative that the Horowitz report, “It’s just part of the Republicans’ pushback against a very successful Adam Schiff-lead impeachment process in the House of Representatives.”

In fact, the CNN article even gives it away. It says, “This news could provide the Republicans a political boost at a moment where the Democrats’ impeachment investigation into Trump’s quid pro quo with Ukraine has battered the president.” It has not “battered the president.” There’s no evidence the president is “battered” at all. His approval numbers are up. The numbers supporting impeachment including in key battleground states are down.

The ratings for the Democrat debate on MSNBC this week were at an all-time low. Nobody watched it, which has gotta be great news for Plugs, ’cause he did horribly in this debate. It’s gotta be the best news they could get that nobody saw it. And then of course all the Democrats who think they did great? Nobody saw it. So, you know, big whoop.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look, this is somewhat confusing. I need to parse this. I want to present to you a detailed explanation of Horowitz’s assertion here about how this FISA warrant application was doctored. We think we know who did it. Here’s what Horowitz found, the inspector general — and remember, this is leaked to CNN, which is then leaked to the Washington Post, and both of them got first dibs on this.

Horowitz found that the FBI employee who modified the FISA document… This document is the application for a warrant to spy. It contains all of the evidence the FBI wants the judge to know so that the judge will grant the warrant to spy — in this case, on Carter Page. In his investigation, “Horowitz found that the FBI employee who modified the warrant application lied, falsely stated that he had, quote, ‘documentation to back up a claim that he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the warrant application.'”

In other words, he lied to Horowitz, claiming he had all kinds of factual basis for doing what he did and that he had passed off that information to superiors at the DOJ. The FBI employee, the close associate of Peter Strzok, “then altered an email to substantiate his inaccurate version of events.” So the thing the employee did was lie about evidence that they had on the FISA warrant application, and then created an email after the fact to make it look like it was all aboveboard. It’s like a postdated email.

It’s like Susan Rice did. Susan Rice wrote an email on the day Trump was inaugurated that ostensibly was the notes of a meeting in the Obama Oval Office two weeks prior where Obama said, “Look, on this Trump business, everything’s gonna be done by the book.” It was a post-written, postdated email designed to provide justification for what had been illegally done at first glance, and the same thing is what has happened here. So essentially you have an FBI employee tied tight to Strzok who essentially lies on the FISA warrant application.

He then sent an email after the fact to try to obfuscate — cover up for the lie — or make the lying or incorrect information appear to be valid. Now, we’ve known the FISA warrant application was bogus because there was never any evidence. The FISA warrant application included news stories that the FBI had leaked to people like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Nothing about this has been aboveboard. Now, when we get to the audio sound bites of CNN talking about this, you’ll find Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District New York, saying, “This is a problem. This is a very big problem.”

Like you didn’t know about it?

Come on.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Don’t misunderstand. Folks, this is a bombshell. This FBI FISA warrant application that was doctored, lies, it’s a bombshell. It’s a big, big deal. Don’t missunderstand. I’m just suggesting to you that intelligence guided by experience, the leak goes to CNN, then the Washington Post — all I’m saying is announcing the date where the whole report’s coming December 9th, I just wish they wouldn’t have announced the date. I understand people want to see it, all that. I wish it would be sprung as a surprise, not giving the perps here a chance to build up response to it.

In addition to that, I can predict to you right now the way all of this is gonna be portrayed: as Republicans and Trump in panic, Barr in panic, Durham in panic because Schiff and his motley crew were so, so successful in impeachment that this is simply the last gasp of a dying presidency. This is how they’re gonna portray it. And it isn’t gonna work, but it still ticks me off. I know this is how they’re gonna play it. I know this is what they’re gonna try to say about it.

The bottom line is the bottom is falling out of them, exactly as I was predicting.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Fort Worth, Texas. David, you’re up. It’s great to have you, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Happy Friday.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: So what you described about Horowitz’s report, it sounds bad in terms of somebody, you know, doctoring an email. But at the end of the day, if that’s the big bombshell —

RUSH: Ah, ah, ah. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It’s not just that. The offense is lying on the FISA warrant application.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: The doctoring of the email took place after the lying on the application to back date it —

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: — so that it looked legitimate.

CALLER: Okay. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, because what I want to see is, you know, using Clinton campaign propaganda to get a FISA warrant. That’s what I want Horowitz to comment on.

RUSH: I agree. I agree.

CALLER: If they lied about it, that’s bad, too. But, you know, that’s the thing that I know we all know was really bad.

RUSH: It’s worse than that. But I know. You don’t want this process crime stuff to be the big stuff.

CALLER: I don’t want them to be able to say… You know, ’cause obviously if it’s a Republican and a process crime, it’s still really bad ’cause then they go to jail with Paul Manafort. If it’s a Democrat and it’s a process crime, yeah, they’ll say, “Okay, you know, you got us but at the end of the day, you know, we still had the Russians. We still had to investigate the Russians and the Trump campaign.” I’m really hoping that, you know, there’s more meat in there.

RUSH: Let me just tell you… (sigh) Look, folks, I’m in a very difficult situation here ’cause I gotta be honest with you. At the same time, I don’t like negativity. I’m not a negativist. I’m not a pessimist or anything, but I’m just gonna tell you. I’m not holding out much on Horowitz. This thing should have been out in May. This thing has been delayed for so damn long that even Charles Grassley has been asking, “What the hell is going on with this?”

This guy has all the information gathered back in May. That’s when we first heard this thing was coming. If I were you, my advice would be to lower your expectations on Horowitz — and if I’m wrong about it, be pleasantly surprised. Durham is where the action’s gonna be if there is any, not Horowitz. Horowitz is exclusively the FISA warrant application process and what do we know about that. We know that the FISA warrant was lied to.

We know that the Steele dossier was used. We know the Steele dossier is made up. We know that the FBI knew it was made up. We know the Steele dossier has yet to be verified because it can’t be verified. We know the Steele dossier was actually a series of small dossiers written by Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS in cahoots with Nellie Ohr, who was the link at the FBI to Fusion GPS. We know that the FBI leaked elements of the Steele dossier to the media.

Then the media reports what the FBI leaked so that it looks like there are multiple reports of the details in the Steele dossier. The whole thing is a lie. The entire… Everything on this FISA warrant application that involves the Steele dossier is entirely fabricated, and if Horowitz doesn’t say that, then… (chuckles) If all we’re gonna get here is that somebody working for Strzok lied on the application? Yeah, lied how? We still don’t know what the lie is.

We just know that somebody lied, made altercations on the application, and then backdated an email to justify them. But we don’t know the substance of it. Lindsey Graham is who told everybody we’re gonna have the release on December 9th with hearings on December 11th. That’s when Horowitz is gonna testify. So… (sigh) I shouldn’t say this, because I don’t want to bleed on you, but I have zero expectations of what Horowitz is gonna produce.

(Snort!) Horowitz has produced a bunch of other IG reports up to now. How many of them have been bombshells? It’s had some pretty damning stuff in it, but what of it has stuck? So that’s just me. I’m telling you, I’d love to be wrong about it. But I, again, am using intelligence guided by experience. There’s another thing, another reason I have this attitude. I’ve been hearing for six months, for six… (interruption) What? What, Mr. Snerdley? (interruption) The program… (interruption)

What is Trump saying is gonna be historic, Durham or Horowitz? What’s he saying is gonna be historic? Durham probably would be totally historic if Durham has gotten the bottom of it. But Horowitz is looking at one thing: FISA warrant application process. That is all he’s looking at. Now, that includes the dossier. It’s big. But I don’t… Is it Horowitz’s charge to determine what evidence they used is false or made up, or is all he’s looking at how they used it?

In other words, is the IG supposed to find out when the Steele dossier’s legit or not, or is he just gonna look at how they used it and determine it was improper the way they used it, or is he gonna say it is improper itself? Is part of his investigation to determine whether or not the court was lied to? If so, then it could be bombshell because they were. I know Trump is saying it’s gonna be historic.

Is he talking specifically about December 9th or in general when all of this — whatever all of this is — comes out? I don’t doubt that Trump knows, and I don’t doubt that he’s gotta good indication. We know! We know what they’ve done! That’s what’s so damn frustrating. We know what they’ve done. We know they had nothing. We know that Mueller should have closed the file the moment he was given it, that there was never any evidence. We know.

That’s what’s so frustrating about this. Then you got Ron Brownstein on CNN saying that people like me criticizing bureaucrats, that’s what George Wallace did. So now we’re racist, folks. We’re racist right out of George Wallace and good old Alabama. About all Alabama’s good for is football now. The only time the left will even say the word is when they’re talking about college football ’cause Alabama, that’s where Jeff Sessions is from.

Beauregard! Jeff Sessions. So we’re… Meanwhile, you ought to see the story we’ve got about the racism on Long Island where the left lives. But, yeah, because we don’t bow down and kiss the feet of a bunch of haughty bureaucrats, we’re like George Wallace now? So we know what happened. And I don’t know about you. I’m impatient waiting for this stuff. Horowitz was supposed to be in May. Where is it?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Trump says that the government watchdog report on the origins of the investigation is what’s gonna be historic. Well, that’s Durham. That’s not Horowitz. Trump is saying that Durham is gonna be historic, and we don’t have a release date on that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, keep something in mind about Horowitz. Horowitz can’t charge anybody with anything. He’s just an investigator. All he can do is make criminal referrals. So if he finds evidence of a crime, he has to take it somewhere as a criminal referral. In this case, it might be to Durham or it might be to I don’t know where. Durham would be the likely choice. But I just got an email that may help. I gotta ask you all a question.

I just got an email from somebody who says, “Wait a minute, Rush. Let me tell you what we’re expecting. We are expecting criminal referrals of Comey and McCabe and maybe even Rosenstein from the Durham FISA warrant application. I need to ask: How many of you were expecting that? Maybe this is why there’s a little of a variance between my attitude about Horowitz and yours. (interruption) You are expecting the inspector general…? I’m talking to the program observer here.

You are expecting that the inspector general report will contain criminal referrals for Comey and McCabe and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and all that? (interruption) Okay. And why are you expecting criminal referrals for Strzok-Page? (interruption) Mmm-hmm. (interruption) We know what they did. We know what they did. We know they used the Steele dossier which they know is a lie. They planted it. Look, we can go through the whole thing.

What frustrates me about this — and there are many things — is that all of this stuff that we know still has been entirely totally ignored by what we would call the mainstream media. In fact, I’ve got a sound bite here to illustrate what I’m talking about. Again, let me find it. I had not intended to get to it now. It is… Let’s see. Yeah, give me 9, 10, and 11, and maybe 12.

This is CNN talking about the bombshell from Horowitz about the FBI employee who doctored, altered, lied on the FISA warrant application and backdated an email with false information in it to try to justify the alterations on the application. CNN breaks the news on the Carter Page FISA warrant, and everybody seems confused over at CNN. Here first is Wolf “Blitzed” reporting the breaking news.

BLITZER: We’ve got some breaking news, uh, that we’re following right now. Our senior justice correspondent, Evan Perez, is learning new information about the origins of the Russia probe and what? Uh, there’s, uh, somebody under investigation right now?

RUSH: Oh, the origins of the Russian probe! You know, I’m wrong. These people know exactly what happened. They were complicit in fabricating all of the lies about it. CNN knows exactly what… Look, maybe they don’t. They could be the biggest bunch of dryball dummkopfs that we’ve ever found, or they could be so absorbed in their own little made-up world of illusion that maybe they don’t.

But it is still the case that the FBI and all of these people were running a false flag operation to try to overturn the election results. There is no doubt about it. It shouldn’t take a one-year investigation to uncover it because it’s already been uncovered. But CNN claims last night to just now, for the first time hear about rumblings. So Wolf “Blitzed” throws it to the correspondent, Evan Perez…

PEREZ: This is an investigation that began, uh, ah, uh and was found as part of the, uhh, the probe that’s being done by Michael Horowitz, the inspector general for the Justice Department. And what he found was that there was a — a — an employee at the FBI who altered a document that was used in the preparation for one of the FISA warrants, one of the warrants — uh, surveillance warrants — that was, uh, done against Carter Page, who was the Trump campaign aide. This document, whatever changes were made, uh, was substantive enough to change the meaning of the document. Again, this is an altered document. There’s a lot we don’t know about this employee and what the motivations were. But it is a big deal, obviously, for you to make a change to a document, to alter it in any way.

RUSH: “It’s a big deal. See, it’s a big deal to make a change to a document, folks. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah! To alter it in any way is a really big deal. We don’t know who did it.” Can you say Lisa Page? All you gotta do is read what Horowitz said: “a close associate of Peter Strzok,” and both of them were fired for the text messages, the affair they were having going back and forth as they were setting up a backup plan to get rid of Trump in case this one bombed out.

CNN claims not to know.

Now we go to the first guest or witness that CNN called, Preet Bharara. He’s a Schumer guy. He’s the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, now known by everybody as the famous SDNY. It’s the Justice Department, but this is the federal district for the Southern District of New York. It’s not Horowitz. It’s not Durham. It’s not the D.C. Justice Department. This is the U.S. attorney’s office, Southern District of Manhattan. Preet Bharara ran the office during the Obama administration.

So Wolf Blitzer says, “So, Preet, what is your reaction to this?”

BHARARA: That’s kind of an alarming, uh, bit of news. If there was an FBI agent sworn to uphold the Constitution who, uh, can be proven to have altered a document in connection with a legal proceeding — including the — the obtaining of a FISA warrant — that… that’s really serious. It doesn’t get a lot more serious than that. That’s not a good thing. It’s a terrible thing. This particular thing that Evan Perez has just broken the story on does sound serious to me.

RUSH: As though they’re hearing about it for the first time. “Oh, wow, this could be really bad!” How can they not know that this stuff was done? Carter Page was never even charged. Carter Page was the man on whom they got the warrant to spy, and he was never charged with anything. So why in heaven’s name were they spying on Carter Page? Answer is: They weren’t. It was part of the deception. You get the warrant to spy on Page, and you can spy on anybody he’s talking to.

You get the warrant to spy on Page and you can bug him, you can monitor his phone calls and anybody’s talking to — and he was, for a brief period of time, in the Trump campaign. (sniveling) “And he also had friends in Russia! So you see, it’s very important to get a warrant to spy on Carter Page because he traveled to Russia, and it was very, very important to make Russia look like they were really, really at the bottom and behind all this.”

Here’s Carter Page himself. He was on Fox Business today, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, who said, “Explain to us what happened for those people who have not been following this as closely as you and I have.”

PAGE: They have just been putting false information out there to the media — the Democrats and their allies in the media — constantly pushing lies after lies. It gets picked up by the Comey-McCabe FBI, and they got a warrant — a fraudulent warrant, I believe — to spy on myself as a way of getting into the Trump campaign. I’d get calls from the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN. They’re asking me about these same two false allegations which the Democrats, their consultants and their lawyers were all pushing. None of them picked it up. But finally, they found someone from Yahoo News to put out this disinformation to the world and really interfere in the U.S. presidential election. There has been a continued cover-up to this very day.

RUSH: Yeah. Exactly right. And everybody’s expecting Horowitz to unveil all this. And now we’re expecting, some people, expecting criminal referrals of Comey and McCabe and maybe even Rosenstein or Rosenstein — I’ve heard it pronounced both ways. And here’s Carter Page: basically get a warrant to spy on me so they could spy on everybody else. I was never charged with anything. And his story about Yahoo News put out this defamatory information to the world about what he had done to justify the warrant to spy on him. It was a pack of lies.

And then the Steele dossier followed shortly there after, published by BuzzFeed, as Fiona Hill pronounces it. Boy, did that woman pull some sleight of hand on Ukraine yesterday too. I gotta unpack that. That woman tried to distort everything about Ukraine’s involvement in all this. And she did it very cleverly, very craftily. She made it look like there was only one allegation of Ukraine involvement, and that was Trump’s version and that Trump’s version is wrong and that Ukraine had nothing to do with it.

And that was absolutely untrue. Ukraine was up to their eyeballs in trying to sabotage Trump. Now, Horowitz, the IG, is not looking into any of that. By the way, here’s Ed Meese, who was on The Daily Caller website. The correspondent Amber Athey was interviewing former attorney general Meese. “There have been a lot of comparisons of Trump’s scandal to Watergate, but if there’s spying going on using the FISA warrants against a political opponent, that sounds much more like Watergate to me.”

MEESE: In many ways what happened in the Obama administration and the spying on the campaign is much more like what happened in Watergate, where there were actually improper violations of the law, in one case a burglary, in the other case the misuse of FISA information or of a FISA warrant, I think that’s a very different situation than anything that is even alleged here.

RUSH: So the point here is that everybody knows what happened. The media is engaging in a cover-up of it, and they’re trying to act now like they’re shocked and stunned that this has been discovered. “Oh, this is very serious stuff,” says Preet Bharara. “Oh, this is problematic.” Come on, Preet. You people knew all of this.

But I don’t know, folks. I think that Comey and McCabe ought to be indicted and sent up the river. But can you see the swamp doing that to itself? And Horowitz is the swamp, folks.

[mystery-ak]

Why Are Brennan and Clapper Still Center Stage?

Nov 22, 2019



RUSH: I have a question. It’s gonna sound rhetorical, but I mean it. John Brennan was, in my mind, a corrupt CIA director during the Obama administration. John Brennan was — and he brags about it — instrumental in this entire effort to undermine Donald Trump’s campaign and then reverse the election results. He was a CIA director and, folks, there is little doubt that he was the conduit between British intelligence and the FBI.

So British intelligence would use their informants like Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to plant information with people like George Papadopoulos. Alexander Downer, the Australian ambassador, would hear something from Papadopoulos who had been told something by FBI informants. He would then call the FBI, “Hey, I’ve got this guy from the Trump campaign bragging that the Russians have Hillary Clinton emails.”

Papadopoulos didn’t know that ’til the FBI informants told him. So the FBI acts like, “Oh, my God, we got a gold mine here!” and then they call who? They call the MI5 guys, the MI6, U.K. intelligence and they call Brennan. That’s station to station. That’s U.K. intelligence to U.S. intelligence. MI6, CIA. It’s Brennan who then takes that information to domestic FBI — Comey and Clapper — and this is the arrangement. Okay. So this is all done while Obama is president, folks.

And everything I’ve just told you, by the way, is not speculation. It’s not what somebody guesses. We know these things happened. We know that they were manufacturing and planting evident because there wasn’t any evidence. That’s what’s so maddening about this. Well, when Obama left office, so did Clapper, and so did Brennan. So why are they still instrumental in all this? John Brennan’s not the director of CIA anymore. He’s got nothing to do with the federal government right now.

Why in the world is he still… (interruption) No, he’s not just a commentator. This cabal is still operating. Brennan is one of the leaders. Why does he still have any official standing to do anything? This guy’s constantly threatening Trump on Twitter, promising that he’s going down (impression), “Can’t wait ’til you go down, can’t wait ’til you get a taste of your own ill-mannered scumminess,” stuff like this, as though he’s still a ranking official in this ongoing effort to undermine Trump.

The answer to the question is because he still is, because this bunch serves and operates outside the existing corridors of power. This is the problem. This cabal, this… It’s got many names now. Establishment, deep state, pick your name. Even these former ambassadors to Ukraine and the European Union who have been ousted by Trump, they’re still heavily involved. Look at Vindman. The whistleblower was moved back over to the CIA and yet he’s the whistleblower.

He reports to John Brennan, and then he got in league with Adam Schiff. But he’s gone. He’s no longer part of the Trump administration. These people are operating outside the corridors of power that result from elections. We elect Trump president. He then appoints people. Now, one of the things that’s happened is Trump didn’t clear house. Do you know that when Obama was elected and after he was inaugurated, he fired every ambassador?

And that’s standard. There’s nothing unusual about it. Every president generally fires every U.S. attorney. There are over 90% of them. There are 90 U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country. They are appointed positions. They have to be approved by the Senate. But every president fires every one of them, except Republicans don’t. Republicans keep some of them in office to show good faith with the media and with the Democrats.

George W. Bush a prime example. George W. Bush waited until his second term to fire 25 U.S. attorneys. Do you remember that day? The media went nuts accusing Bush of rank partisanship and asking, “What did he have to cover up? What’s he trying to hide? You don’t fire U.S. attorney.” Yes, you do! Bill Clinton fired every damn one of them and put his own people in there. Obama did the same. Obama got rid the every ambassador for George W. Bush.

There might have been a couple or three holdovers. But for the most part, they’re all gone. It’s standard operating procedure. The newly elected president puts his own people in there. Like Gordon Sondland — and how did Sondland get the job? He was a Jeb guy. So how did Sondland get the ambassadorship? It’s because he donated a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration. That’s how you buy ambassadorships. Everybody does it. So Sondland gets appointed.

But the point is there are so many people still in this deep state that have nothing to do with Trump. They are Obama holdovers. They’re still there. Trump has not cleaned house, not nearly to the extent that he could have — and because they’re still there he has to go hire people like Rudy. Rudy is a great crimefighter, he believes. He believes Rudy Giuliani’s one of the greatest… Rudy Giuliani is a former U.S. attorney.

He’s not some rogue lackey. He’s a former U.S. attorney who brought in Gotti. The Gotti bunch was brought down during Giuliani’s tenure. A great FBI man is Jim Kallstrom. It was a great era for the New York FBI when Rudy was U.S. Attorney. They brought down Gotti’s bunch and some of the others. Rudy is not some off-the-wall wacko. He’s been a friend of Trump’s for decades. Trump trusts him.

If Trump wants to find out what’s going on in Ukraine because he doesn’t trust what he’s being told, if he believes that Ukraine played a role in undermining his campaign (which it did), then it makes perfect sense that he would send somebody over there to make sure that the corruption has been dealt with, somebody that he trusts, somebody that he thinks is a great crime fighter.

But Rudy’s being portrayed, smeared as some kind of off-the-wall idiot who doesn’t know what he’s doing — some brute, some lackey, some stoolie — when he’s a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He’s the former mayor of New York City. He then set up a company, Giuliani Partners, which was to help corporations solve corruption and criminal activity within their own walls — like drug companies dealing with the theft of the product.

They would hire Giuliani Partners to figure out who was doing it. So he’s Trump’s guy. Trump trusts him more than he trusts some of these people that have been testifying before Schiff. It makes perfect sense. But notice how everybody gets smeared, and all of these people who have direct ties to the Obama administration are continually portrayed as the heroes.

They are portrayed as the legitimate occupants of these positions, and everybody Trump has nominated, everybody Trump’s appointed is some sort of stool pigeon. And that’s the way they’re trying to play it; that’s the way they are portraying this — and right in the thick of all of these people, is John Brennan, the former CIA director.

And James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence. Why are they still prominent in this? Trump did not hold them over. He got rid of them. I’m telling you, all roads lead to Barack Obama on this. And I don’t know if the roads that we’re on are ever gonna get there. But that’s where they lead. And if it’s not direct, it’s indirect. Wherever Obama is, is a stop on this road.

Some of these people may now be operating independently of Obama, but they were originally charged by him. How to get the Steele dossier out, Obama conducted the meeting, instructing Comey to do it on January 6, 2017, in a meeting with Trump at Trump Tower. It was Clapper, it was Brennan, Comey and Obama in a meeting where they discussed how the hell are we gonna get this dossier out. We need to get it in the public.

The answer, show it to Trump. That will make it news. Comey was given the assignment in a meeting with Obama. Brennan and Clapper right there. Who did Comey call when he came out of that meeting? He called Clapper. And what did he say to Clapper? And this he’s testified to. He said, “Mission accomplished.” What did Clapper do? Clapper called CNN, said the president was just told about the Steele dossier.

Bammo. Within hours CNN’s running the story about the Steele dossier. The golden showers, that Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on a bed in Moscow. The machinations of that going public were hatched in the Obama Oval Office with Obama, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper in the meeting. And whatever other functionaries.

Now, Horowitz is not gonna get to any of this ’cause none of this involves the FISA court.

[mystery-ak]

Good Economic News Ignored and Suppressed by the Media

Nov 22, 2019



RUSH: There’s some economic news I want to share with you here because do you realize economic news doesn’t make the cut anymore? Unemployment news, new jobs, doesn’t make the cut. Original reporting is presented with a blah. The news today is unexpected.

“U.S. consumer sentiment unexpectedly rose in November, according to data released Friday by the University of Michigan. The university’s index of consumer sentiment climbed to 96.8 from 95.5 last month.” The numbers don’t mean anything. The trend is what’s important here.

“Economists polled by Dow Jones expected consumer sentiment to dip,” meaning they expected you to be less excited about consuming, less excited about engaging in commerce. The Dow Jones experts thought that you would be depressed and down in the dumps because of impeachment. Instead, consumer sentiment is way up. In fact, it has continued its second best streak in history. People 45 and under have huge expectations, economic expectations for next year.

In other words, people are looking forward with eager anticipation to the future economically. No wonder it doesn’t get reported. U.S. manufacturing hit a seven-month high and a 10-month high in output. Now, these are releases of economic news that no longer get reported, no longer get covered, no longer get explained because they all are traditional indications of the success of a presidency because they indicate the economic vitality of a country.

And so this good economic news is being ignored and suppressed by the media as though it doesn’t even exist.

Instead, CNN and MSNBC are giving us steady diets of deep state bureaucrats, former CIA directors, and celebratory Democrats slapping each other on the back over the impeachment hearings.

[mystery-ak]

Trump Validates My Ukraine Context Take

Nov 22, 2019



RUSH: Trump called Fox & Friends today. You know, folks, it’s very difficult. You know, I’m not a back-slapper, I don’t turn around to try to find my own back with my own hand very often, but I came up with this explanation to people this week, the context of all these things that happen.

And if you understand the context, it all makes perfect common sense. And it is amazing how many people now are utilizing that contextual theory. In fact, Peggy Noonan writes a column today saying even the president’s defenders are not even defending what he did. There’s nothing to have to defend! There’s not a single thing to have to defend here. How in the world can putting all of this in context so that it makes utter perfect common sense be a weak defense? What’s weak is the charges, the allegations. There have been nothing to them from the get-go for three years. Anyway, everybody’s now using this context business, including the president himself.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I do want you to hear some of Trump’s appearance today on Fox & Friends. ‘Cause he was unloading.

I still maintain that people cannot possibly understand what Trump goes through every day and what he has to be quiet about. The stuff he sits there and has to listen to about himself and watching this official Washington, D.C., worldwide deep state. Who do you think’s behind trying to sabotage Bibi Netanyahu? Do you think the deep state’s only in Washington? The deep state’s not just in Washington. It’s in the European Union. Israel has their own version of a bunch of bureaucrats that are unelected, trying to undermine the will of people in democratic societies.

It’s really what we’re all up against here. It’s us, the democratic process versus a bunch of invisible, unelected people who don’t think that the people are the final arbiters of who serves, who’s elected, and who has power.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, Trump made the point, they wanted to impeach Nixon because he wiretapped the Watergate headquarters of the Democrat National Committee, and yet he was wiretapped. He was spied on by the FBI via the FISA warrant on Carter Page, and they want to impeach him!

So Trump was on Fox & Friends today. Let’s start here with audio sound bite number 3. He was on for, what, 25 minutes with them today on a phoner. And we have just a few of the sound bites. He’s talking about the altered documents to the FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page, the bombshell that was reported late yesterday afternoon. This is what Trump said about it.

THE PRESIDENT: They wrote up the phony, fake dossier. Hillary Clinton paid for it, and the Democrats. A lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine. They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? That’s what I asked actually in my phone call, if you know, I asked it very point-blank because we’re looking for corruption.

Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? You look at my call, I said, you know, corruption. Also, by the way, going back to that, why isn’t Germany putting up money? Why isn’t France putting up money, all of the European nations? Why aren’t they putting up? You have the European Union. How come it’s always the United States that puts up money? The suckers. Why is it always the United States?

RUSH: What he means is, how come other people aren’t trying to take care of Ukraine versus Russia? Why’s it always us? The French aren’t doing anything to protect Ukraine. The Brits aren’t doing anything to protect Ukraine. Well, the answer is they don’t have a defense to help out with because we pay for theirs too.

Now, this business of the CrowdStrike company, they are headed by a former Ukrainian who hates Putin. This theory that the Democrats’ server is in Ukraine, that’s kind of out there. There are two Ukraine – I want to say activities that relate to the attempt to undermine Trump’s campaign and presidency. Now, the popular belief is that the CrowdStrike version of Ukraine involvement’s kind of bogus, nobody can prove it, that nobody knows where the DNC server is and that it’s in Ukraine or not, nobody knows.

Now, Fiona Hill shows up yesterday, and what she cleverly did was debunk that and then take the debunking of that to suggest Ukraine had nothing to do, it was all the Russians. But she was dead wrong about it and she knows that she was wrong. This is a woman who shows up claiming she’s a nonpartisan. She’s not a nonpartisan! She is a left wing activist like they all are. She worked at the Brookings Institution, an uber-left-wing think tank. They’re not nonpartisan.

The truth about Ukraine is that there were Ukrainians attempting to undermine Trump’s campaign. Whether the Russians were in on it with them or not is irrelevant. The Ukrainians did have people trying to undermine Trump. That happened. She tried to make it look like that that didn’t happen because the CrowdStrike version of Ukraine involvement is not true.

But we know that the Ukrainians were involved. Politico and the Washington Post, any number of others did stories. The Ukrainian court even convicted a couple of people for trying to undermine Trump’s election. It did happen. Ukraine was involved. And it’s key to understand that because that explains why Trump was so reticent to give them any money. It’s why he was demanding that they show they had ended that era of corruption.

The previous Ukrainian president prior to Zelensky is who had helped undermine Trump’s campaign, had worked against it. Remember The Politico story that I think we were the first to bring to your attention that the Ukrainians now had to do a 180 because Trump won the election and they had to now show that they were sorry and wanted to be on Trump’s good side.

There’s no question that Ukraine meddled in the Trump election, the Trump campaign. Whether the Russians did or didn’t, either, the Ukrainians did. Trump knows it. So they elect a new president, Zelensky. Remember all through the Obama years we didn’t give them a dime. This is another thing.

Here’s all of these witnesses, including Fiona Hill, so worried Ukraine was defenseless against these mad, evil Russians. Well, Ukraine now has defensive aid because of one man, Donald Trump. Your guy, Obama, denied them everything because he didn’t want to tick off Putin. It was Obama in league with Putin, not Trump.

God this stuff is maddening. So Ukraine wants the money that Obama never gave them. Trump says, essentially, what are you gonna do for it? We’re not passing out U.S. dollars anymore, willy-nilly. That’s not what I campaigned on, that’s not what I believe. We’re gonna give money to legitimate allies. We’re only going to help people who want to help us.

So Trump gets on the phone with Zelensky and starts demanding that the anti-corruption efforts that he ran on are actually gonna be implemented. It makes perfect sense, particularly when he’s talking to the president of a country which had just years prior tried to undermine his campaign. In order to find out if Ukraine was now playing straight, he sends his buddy Rudy over there because Rudy is a great crimefighter, former U.S. attorney Southern District of New York, former mayor of New York.

He cleaned up crime in New York City, for crying out loud, was the author of the broken windows policy, got rid of the squeegee guys that were harassing everybody coming out of the tunnels. Rudy cleaned up crime in that city. Trump trusts him, has known him a long time, sends him over there. He trusts him more than he trusts the ambassadorial crew and a bunch of the Obama holdovers. They want to impeach him for that. And Vindman — O say can you see — pretty much admitted it. They all did.

“Trump went outside channels. He used alternative channels. He did not use the interagency group,” because he couldn’t trust it. They had tried to undermine his election. None of this is hard to understand. The context of this makes Trump’s actions perfectly sensible and brilliantly smart. That’s why everybody’s starting to adapt a contextual argument, by the way, because it makes all of this easily understandable and takes away any cloud of supposed criminality, lawbreaking, whatever cloud they want to cast over Trump’s behavior here.

It’s the exact opposite. He loves America. He wants to make sure America’s no longer used, taken advantage of, not respected. Exactly what every president ought to do, not hand out money all over the world for whatever reasons! Diplomats love handing out money. It’s how they buy love and respect from all the people they give it to. It’s not their money. It’s the U.S. Treasury’s money, it’s U.S. taxpayers’ money. They love giving it away. They love spreading it around.

Trump thinks it’s stupid to give away money to countries that are not our allies, and particularly a country which has attempted to undermine his own campaign, without first ascertaining that they’ve cleaned up their act. That’s all Trump did. They ended up getting their money. And guess what? The president told Zelensky supposedly, “You want a meeting with me in the Oval Office? Then you gotta do this.” Well, whatever, Zelensky got his meeting with Trump.

And he got his aid. And there never has been an investigation of the Bidens that Trump supposedly demanded. So all of this makes perfect sense that every one of Schiff’s witnesses came up there and tried to distort everything I just told you into some sort of criminal behavior or incompetent behavior or dangerous, risky behavior. All it was was utter, uber-common sense. Next Trump sound bite, number 4 here. Well, there’s no question. Trump just kept talking. Here’s the next bite…

THE PRESIDENT: I watched Joe Biden with the prosecutor — who a lot of people said was a great prosecutor — and they took him off. And he was prosecuting that company. And the kid, who never made 10¢ in his life and all of a sudden is making millions of dollars —

DOOCY: Hunter Biden.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, you tell me. This is a guy who got thrown out of the Navy dishonorably, gets thrown out of the Navy and made no money — went through, made no money. All of a sudden, his father becomes VP and he’s making millions and millions of dollars. But there’s another reason that is maybe to me the most important. Why isn’t Germany, France, the European Union…? Why aren’t all those countries in Europe, why aren’t they paying? Why is it always the United States the sucker? I got elected on that.

RUSH: He makes the point again — and of course, if you go talk to the diplomatic corps, “Well, it’s the United States’ role in the world to fund allies.” But Trump’s exactly right. This is what he ran on. He ran on the fact we’re gonna get us out of meaningless wars where there’s no U.S. national interest vitally at stake. We’re gonna get out of these situations where we just endlessly send American money with no reciprocity. We’re not gonna start paying money to nations that aren’t our friends, that are not our allies.

Here he is talking about Rudy. We’ll have this last bite before the break. Here this one is…

THE PRESIDENT: Rudy is a great crimefighter. Rudy is the best mayor in the history of New York City. Rudy Giuliani is a very legendary figure in our country. Rudy Giuliani was one of the great crimefighters of all time. He’s also a friend of mine. He’s a great person. He’s like an iconic figure in this country for two reasons. He was the greatest mayor in the history of New York, and he was the greatest crimefighter probably in the last 50 years. When you’re dealing with a corrupt country, with Rudy Giuliani, he’s got credentials because of his reputation. When Rudy Giuliani goes there and you hear it’s a corrupt country, it means a lot.

RUSH: Okay. So we want to convict Trump for trusting Rudy and why? Well, how is Rudy being portrayed? Rudy’s being portrayed as a bumbling Inspector Clouseau kind of guy. Rudy is being portrayed as some guy that goes on TV, doesn’t know what he’s talking about, gets confused, mumbles and stumbles around. He’s kind of a little lackey idiot. It’s not who Rudy Giuliani is. But this is what they do, folks.

They destroy (try to) the credibility of anybody who effectively opposes them. But it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because Trump won the election, he’s president, and he can send anybody over there he wants to represent him. He can send anybody over there he wants as a… My grandfather once was a one-time, little, specific-trip ambassador to India in the Eisenhower administration. The president can send anybody they want. It was 1958.

They can send anybody over there they want. They’re elected. And just because it doesn’t go through the usual channels does not mean the president’s committing any kind of a crime, for crying out loud. Nobody elected this bureaucracy. Nobody elected the diplomatic corps. Nobody elected the State Department. And yet these people are running around acting like they have dibs on all this, and presidents with whom they disagree don’t even have to be listened to or respected or paid any attention to.