If the National Enquirer Made a Campaign Contribution by Killing a Story, Then So Has Every Media Outlet
Dec 18, 2018
RUSH: You know, the galling thing here is that so many people in Washington are at least as guilty if not more guilty than Flynn or Manafort or Cohen, especially when you start analyzing campaign finance violations. This gets so in the weeds. So what they’re saying is that the National Enquirer, by buying a story on one of these two women and then not running it, that’s an in-kind campaign contribution.
Well, how do you measure all of the pro-Hillary Clinton stories in the New York Times? What are they worth? Why are they not campaign contributions? Why do they not violate campaign finance law? How about all of the anti-Trump media on CNN alone that the Democrats didn’t have to pay for? Why is that not a campaign finance violation? ‘Cause if they go down this road and if they say that a media company, which is what the National Enquirer is…
Although I should point out that the prosecutors in the swamp are saying, “Eh, Enquirer is not a media company. It’s an entertainment company. This isn’t First Amendment stuff! Don’t kid us.†But it is. They publish a paper. It’s called the National Enquirer. They publish other things. So they said, “No, there not a media company,†but they are a media company. If a media company can be accused of committing campaign finance violations by not running a story that would hurt a candidate — in this case, Trump — well, then, what would happen if the New York Times was the target instead of the National Enquirer?
What would happen if CNN was the target?
They would be raising holy hell in the Drive-By Media! They would be saying, “You can’t come after us for this! It is our job to report the news. It is our job to decide what is news and what isn’t news, and you can’t say that because we didn’t run a story that it’s a campaign contribution!†Yes, we can now because we have just said the National Enquirer made a campaign contribution, in effect, to Donald Trump by burying a story that was not favorable. I’ll tell you, these people are stepping over lines that they themselves drew for decades in order to get Donald Trump.
Once you cross some of these lines, once you tell a media company that its way of doing business — you tell a media company that the day-to-day conduct of its business equals campaign contributions or violations — there isn’t a media company, then, that’s innocent. There isn’t a network that’s innocent. There isn’t a newspaper that’s innocent, because every damn one of them does favorable and unfavorable stories on candidates and campaigns. And if that stuff is now said to… And, by the way, people who want to gain total control over the media, totalitarian types, are gonna love this, folks.
This is where these Drive-By journalists, in their zeal to get Trump, do not realize the precipice that they are approaching by supporting the notion that The Enquirer made a campaign contribution to Trump by burying a story. They do it all the time. Look at Newsweek and the Clinton story and Lewinsky! They buried it. If it weren’t for Matt Drudge, nobody would have known about that. Newsweek could have been charged with a campaign violation because they buried a story that was harmful to Bill Clinton.
They spiked it.
They didn’t run the Lewinsky story!
Drudge got it and did run with it. But if they can go after The Enquirer… You may not think they’re a media company, but don’t tell that to John Edwards. They got John Edwards kicked out of politics by following him around. He’s having an affair in an illegitimate little wampum out there, a little child, papoose. So they’re eagerly supporting this idea that The Enquirer shielded Trump from bad news equals a campaign contribution. (chuckling)
Well, Newsweek sure as hell did that and more for Bill Clinton. Now, there wasn’t a campaign going on, but it was still highly detrimental to Bill Clinton and Hillary and whatever her future was gonna be, and that’s not the only example you could give. Just imagine if all of this attention focused on The Enquirer and Flynn and Cohen and Manafort were focused on any other news media. They couldn’t withstand it, either, nor could anybody else in the swamp.
There isn’t a single person in D.C. that could withstand this kind of scrutiny. It’s like going hunting in the zoo. None of what I just told you is ever mentioned in the Drive-By Media. As such, people that watch the Drive-By Media have no idea what’s going on. You know what the big story in the Drive-By Media is today outside of all this stuff? Millennials are upset that there aren’t enough women at the climate change conference in Poland.
It’s a bunch of old white guys and therefore the wrong things are gonna be done on climate change. It’s a bunch of old fart white guys, and Millennial journalists are fit to be tied there aren’t enough women there. That’s what’s big news outside of all this. This! As far as Drive-By news consumers is concerned, this is over. Trump did it, Russia tampered with votes, and it’s only a matter of time now ’til Mueller lowers the boom.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/12/18/if-the-national-enquirer-made-a-campaign-contribution-by-killing-a-story-then-so-has-every-media-outlet/
