http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/05/19/trump_makes_scotus_list_goes_after_bill_clinton_sexual_assault_allegations_and_hillary_corruption_despite_warningsTrump Makes SCOTUS List, Goes After Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Allegations and Hillary Corruption Despite Warnings
May 19, 2016
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The New York Times, on Tuesday, warned Donald Trump. In an actual news story, the New York Times warned Donald Trump to steer clear of any of the Clinton scandals, don't go anywhere near any of them. Don't go to Whitewater. Don't go to Lewinsky. Don't go to Bill Clinton's affairs. Don't go anywhere near any of those Clinton scandals. The Times trying to help Trump here by telling Trump that if he does that, it will backfire on him. That's the New York Times trying to be helpful to Donald Trump.
Patrick Healy, in the New York Times, says: "Donald Trump plans to throw Bill Clinton’s infidelities in Hillary Clinton’s face on live television during the presidential debates this fall, questioning whether she enabled his behavior and sought to discredit the women involved. Trump will try to hold her accountable for security lapses at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and for the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens there.
"And he intends to portray Hillary Clinton as fundamentally corrupt, invoking everything from her cattle futures trades in the late 1970s to the federal investigation into her email practices as secretary of state. ... Another goal is to win over skeptical Republicans, since nothing unites the party quite like castigating the Clintons. ... For Hillary Clinton, the coming battle is something of a paradox. She has decades of experience and qualifications, but it may not be merit that wins her the presidency -- it may be how she handles the humiliations inflicted by Trump.
The story goes on to warn Trump that if he goes anywhere near any of these things, that it'll backfire on him and it will probably irreparably harm his campaign. That was yesterday morning in the New York Times. So let's go to the audio sound bites. Last night on the Fox News Channel, Sean Hannity show, this exchange took place.
HANNITY: What about what Clinton's done? How big an issue should that be in the campaign? For example, I looked at the New York Times. Are they gonna interview Juanita Broaddrick? Are they gonna interview Paula Jones? Are they gonna interview Kathleen Willey? In one case it's about exposure. In another case it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will.
TRUMP: And rape.
HANNITY: And rape.
TRUMP: Big settlements, massive settlements.
HANNITY: $850,000 to Paula Jones.
TRUMP: And lots of other things. And impeachment for lying.
HANNITY: Smearing, besmirchment of women.
TRUMP: He losing your law license. He lost his law license, okay? Couldn't practice law. And you don't read about this on Clinton.
RUSH: No, no. So he went there, he mentioned the rape word, everybody knew it was gonna happen 'cause they leaked the details of the interview that Hannity had with Trump. But on the same day the New York Times warns Trump don't go there, don't do it, don't go anywhere near the Clinton scandals. Trump might be the first, I don't know, the first Republican politician to ever bring up the charge by Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton raped her.
So he clearly didn't listen to the New York Times. Do you think the New York Times is trying to help Trump? Do you think the New York Times was warning Trump to stay away from any of these scandals just to make sure that he didn't shoot himself in the foot and damage his campaign? You think the New York Times wanted Trump to avoid this so that he could maybe win the election against Mrs. Clinton? We don't think that, do we?
So why would the New York Times advise Trump to stay away from these scandals on the basis it could backfire if they don't want him to win? If they want Trump to lose, then why are they trying to help him? Well, they're not, is the bottom line, not trying to help him. This is the protective shield around the Clintons that the Drive-By Media has erected, defended, protected, since 1993, 1994. And they are trying to intimidate Trump, maybe some of his supporters. I don't think they can intimidate Trump. Maybe trying to intimidate some of his supporters to maybe talk to him and caution wiser counsel. "Don't go there, Mr. Trump. It's potential quicksand. You don't want to get stuck in there." And Trump obviously has other plans.
Trump put out his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, 11 names. Snerdley, did you know one of the names on the list, what's her name, Gloria Sykes? I'm not sure of the first name. She's the wife of Charlie Sykes, the talk radio host in Milwaukee who led the conservative talk radio assault on Trump in Wisconsin. So Trump has put his ex-wife on his list of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees.
I've read a bunch of different conservative blogs on this. In some of the conservative think tanks, you find some people upset that he didn't pick from prominent judges and jurists that they would have picked. From Ivy League schools, yeah. But aside from a few people in think tanks, apparently across the conservative sphere out there, there was universal applause for this list that Trump put together, and it's epitomized here by Dr. Krauthammer last night on Special Report with Bret Baier.
KRAUTHAMMER: I think it'll have a dramatic effect in doing that. The one thing holding back people who've resisted supporting Trump, or at least the major thing, is the fear of what a Clinton presidency would do to the Supreme Court and how it would change it for a generation. Now you get a list of 11 who are quite sterling, three of them clerked for Justice Thomas, two of them for Justice Scalia, the six federal judges all appointed by George W., which means they are conservative and they are relatively young. So this is a future-looking list.
RUSH: Dr. Krauthammer excited about the list. Other conservatives, some at National Review, were as well. As I say, some of the think tanks, I can't think off the top of my head, but some think tanks were upset that some of the older jurists that they think are really good -- Patrick Kavanagh is one. But some of the jurists that they like actually have voted to sustain parts of Obamacare. And so others in the conservative movement said it's a good thing Trump did not -- we don't need anybody else on the court that thinks Obamacare is okay, no matter what else they are, we don't need anybody else that thinks that.
And they pointed out, as Dr. Krauthammer did here, that all these names on Trump's list, they are young. If they got on the court, they'd be there for decades, which is a factor given their lifetime appointment.
END TRANSCRIPT
