Rush Transcripts...Dec. 4th

[mystery-ak]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/


Hate on Parade at Democrat Show Trial

Dec 4, 2019



RUSH: Hi, folks. Once again time for more play-by-play of the news. Are you watching this? I got a bunch of emails today including from a really good friend in California said, “I had to turn this off, Rush, it’s so disturbing. The amount of hate today is so disturbing, I just had to turn it off, otherwise it would ruin my day.”

See, I can’t turn this stuff off because my job is to do play-by-play of the news. So I’m watching this. If you have heard the term “show trial” and never quite understood what it is, this is it. This entire thing is a setup. These three so-called law professors are indeed law professors, but they are appearing today as ultraliberal left-wing hacks disguised as law professors to give this whole proceeding some credibility because the Democrats can’t do that on their own.

These three people — Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt — have obviously been coached. The questions are softball setups unlike I have ever heard. Every one of these witnesses testifying is a fact witness. They’re all talking about how Trump sought opposition research against a political opponent from a foreign leader as though they were on the phone call. They were not on the phone call. They don’t know what happened, outside of the transcript of the phone call.

Jonathan Turley, who was the one voice opposed to the impeachment, not a pro-Trumpster, but he’s opposed to the impeachment, not even asking him any questions. Like Noah Feldman, one of the professors, just said that Trump put personal gain before national security. He doesn’t know that. This is nothing more than left-wing political hackery dressed up. And, folks, the reason why is because the Democrats, none of their civil servant witnesses captured the American people’s attention two weeks ago.

So they went now over to Nadler’s committee and they’ve got these academics, the smartest people in the world we are to believe, these law professors. And by virtue of that they’re supposed to be nonpartisan, you see. They’re just interested in the law. They’re just interested in the Constitution, and they’re just uber, stinking liberal hacks. And I’ve got some audio coming up in a moment that will show you what these people were saying two weeks after Trump won the election, even before the so-called impeachable offenses came up.

We are also learning here the Democrat Party is the largest hate group in the country. Is there any doubt that anger and intolerance and delusion are now propelling and running this party? This entire proceeding today is to cater to who the Democrats think the majority of the American people are, the crazed bunch of left-wingers that live and breathe on Twitter. That is who is being catered to today. And in that sense, it is mission accomplished.

You know what this really is about? This is about attempting to continue the Russia-Trump collusion lie. That’s what this is really all about. They can’t get over that that came up dry. They can’t get over that there wasn’t any evidence of it. And so all of this, even though it’s ostensibly about Ukraine, if you listen to the language, it’s the identical language these hacks were using all during the two years, three years of trying to convince people that Trump colluded with Putin to steal the election from Hillary.

This professor Feldman says that Trump has put the USA at risk by withholding aid to Ukraine. He did not withhold aid to Ukraine. Obama withheld aid to Ukraine for eight years. Ukraine got its defense aid from Trump after a temporary hold. Trump got nothing for it. There was no investigation of Biden, but if you listen to these people, there was.

In fact, based on what these people said today, it is Joe Biden who ought to be indicted, not impeached. Joe Biden has admitted bribery. Joe Biden has admitted that he interfered in Ukraine’s domestic politics when he was vice president and got a prosecutor looking into his son fired. The prosecutor was fired after Biden gave them six hours. Biden has confessed.

It’s on videotape at the Council on Foreign Relations, bragging about what he did. And he told these people, he’s repeating the story, he said, if you don’t believe me, Mr. Ukraine leader, call Obama. Obama will back me up. If you don’t can that prosecutor, you’re not gonna get your aid.

Six hours later, Biden says the son-of-a-bit-me fired the prosecutor. It is just unreal what is happening here. These people are literally testifying as fact witnesses. None of them have ever met Trump. None of them were on the phone call with Trump. Feldman declared that Trump put personal gain before national security. How does he know this? He’s never met Trump. These people are simply going off media reports.

You know what I find fascinating is the Democrats have to call these scholars, these so-called professors because there’s not a one of them that can testify or ask questions that will compel the attention of the American people. They tried with the civil servants from the State Department, from the ambassadorial corps and all of that with the Schiff hearings, and those were a dull bore. This was sophomoric.

If this is what’s going on in law school classes at Harvard and Stanford and the University of North Carolina, God help us!

“And so in your opinion, if the president had stolen the money, what would that mean for impeachment?”

“That would mean impeachment is something you must do.”

“Well, if — if the president did tell the president of Ukraine that he was wanting him to investigate the now debunked CrowdStrike theory, what should Congress do?”

“Congress should impeach.”

I mean, that’s the extent of what we’ve had here. Now, the Republicans are gonna get their go at this this afternoon, but… (chuckles) This is exactly what I told you it is. They’re now in a mad dash to get this done. They are scared to death what’s gonna happen if Donald Trump gets reelected. They don’t have a candidate who can beat him. Oh, man. You ought to see… Kamala Harris is gone, and the Democrats are beating themselves up over the fact that there aren’t any people of color left in the race. I mean, it’s the strangest thing.

Cory Booker. (impression) “I’m very devastated that there are no more people of color remaining in the race.” “What about you?” “Well…” Gayle King on CBS This Morning said (impression), “I am so distressed that Kamala Harris’ voters did not move over and support Cory Booker.” Why, because of race? Is that why? So you’re disappointed in your own party because your own party’s voters didn’t support the black babe, and then the black babe gets out and the meager number of supporters she had is not going over to the black guy — and you tell us we are racists?

Give me a freaking break! This has been an embarrassment to watch this, and then to see these stupid TV networks put chyron graphics up quoting these Democrat left-wing hacks disguised as law professors as though it is earth-shattering, earth-breaking news, when it was utterly predictable what was gonna happen here today. You’ve got three people here who personally hate Donald Trump who have shown up under the guise of fair, objective academic law professors — who, by the way, are experts in the founding, and they are experts in the Founding Fathers.

And I’ve got a big problem with that, because these people and the party they’re in are in the process of undermining the founding of this country, and they dare show up here today and say what the founders feared and what the founders were warning against and that it’s Donald J. Trump? If the founders were alive today, it’s these three law professors they’d be having a cow over, and the whole Democrat Party over which the founders would be thinking, “Maybe our experiment has failed. If this bunch of hacks has become a majority political party in America, our experiment’s over.”

I wish that I could have turned this off, but I can’t because I do play-by-play of the news. Spying on the Republican candidate for president, a witch hunt by Robert J. Mueller — a silent coup that they have admitted to, to overturn the election results of 2016 — a phony impeachment, spying on journalists, shadow banning on social media. That’s what the Democrat Party is, and that’s what this hearing is today — and if it isn’t stopped, we are gonna lose the country. If these people are not politically defeated in this effort, what they’re trying to do, we’re gonna lose the country.

The Democrats are out there accusing Trump of all these phantom abuses of power because that is precisely what they have been doing since Obama was in office. It is blatant, easy-to-spot projection. Abuse of power is a game to them. Character assassination is standard operating procedure. The Steele dossier. Steele dossier is a microcosm of how Democrats go about their business: Lie about people, make it up, pass it off as legitimate. Hillary Clinton laundering money through a law firm to produce a smear document with the help of Russian operatives is how Democrats prepare for presidential elections.

An FBI director covering up criminal behavior of a Democrat running for president, Hillary Clinton, James Comey? That’s considered necessary to protect our democracy? You have the FBI director covering up for the legitimate crimes committed by the Democrat nominee in order to protect our democracy? Give me a freaking break! Deceiving the FISA courts with a phony dossier made up of totally false allegations that is used to get warrants to spy on the opposition political candidate, and they tell us we are threatening our democracy, that Donald Trump is threatening our democracy!

This is all terrifying and not a single word of it would be tolerated, not one bit of it, if any of this were being done by Republicans. And I’ll guaran-damn-tee you these three law professors today, if it were a Democrat president accused of the same stuff, they wouldn’t be anywhere near this hearing, and they wouldn’t have anything similar to say whatsoever. Because they are liberal Democrat hacks disguised as law professors, objective and fair and only concerned about our democracy. Ukraine got its money. Trump did not get his investigation.

The transcript of the phone call has been released. There isn’t anything in it that constitutes an impeachable offense. There isn’t a single witness they have called yet who has met Donald Trump. There isn’t a single witness they have called yet other than Lieutenant Colonel Vindman — O say can you see — who wasn’t even on the phone call. We have a two-tiered justice system, two-tiered journalism, which is how a singular, totalitarian state is established.

If you want examples of abuses of power, you will not find them with Donald Trump.

But you can find them in spades with the Democrats and their academics and their civil servants and their ambassadors and their FBI director and their CIA director and their Director of National Intelligence. You can find all kinds of abuses of power, because they abuse power as a matter of course — and I’m not engaging in rhetoric here. I’m not engaging in speculation. We have watched in real time a coup unfold before our very eyes.

Witch hunts.

Stalinist impeachment hearings.

A show trial.

The Democrats get off on this stuff like their former hero Jeffrey Epstein got off abusing minors.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I’m gonna tell you more about these three hacks that showed up here today. They’re law professors at Harvard, Stanford, University of North Carolina. I’m not mentioning Turley ’cause they didn’t ask him any questions. Turley’s opening statement told ’em, “I think you got dangerously thin stuff to go on here. I’m not sure you should be doing this. I don’t support Trump, but I think this is…” They ignored him. He’s up there just for show. He’s up there just to make it look like there’s some kind of balance.

But here is 50 seconds of audio. It’s actually from video that Brad Parscale has posted. It’s a Trump fundraising campaign ad. These are the three lawyers, Michael Gerhardt, Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan, the three “witnesses” today. They aren’t any witnesses to anything! But they are there testifying how honorable Donald Trump is and how he abused his power. They are nothing but uber-left-wing hacks. That’s what they are first and then they are law professors second, and this audio comprises statements these three made as soon as two weeks after the election in 2016.

(bouncy music)

GERHARDT: I was at the University of Pennsylvania law school yesterday where I teach a class, and my class is still in therapy.

FELDMAN: I’m a registered Democrat and have been — have been my whole life.

KARLAN: There are other bad things in the world to fear — including, of course, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and ICE agents who are out of control.

GERHARDT: On the Republican side, it’s largely not fact based.

FELDMAN: There are all kinds of things that the President has done thus far that already I think would reach that — reach that level, most likely.

KARLAN: Even if as a progressive you would believe as I do that I should be paying higher taxes.

FEMALE ANCHOR: Noah, you do urge Congress to start thinking clearly about the power of the impeachment if the President Trump did indeed invoke emergency powers after this tonight?

FELDMAN: (phone) The courts block you, and then eventually Congress sets out to impeach you.

NADLER: (music ends) With a trial in the Senate, we may be able to find out who started this coup d’etat.

RUSH: “With a trial in the Senate, we may be able to find out who started this coup d’etat.” The Democrats have admitted that that’s what this is. So here are the three — Gerhardt, Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan — and they literally are left-wing Democrat hacks who were disturbed as all get-out after Trump won the election in 2016. Pamela Karlan: “There are other bad things in the world to fear — including, of course, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and ICE agents who are out of control.” Gerhardt: “On the Republican side, it’s largely not fact based.” It’s these people that don’t have any facts.

There’s not a single bit of evidence that anybody’s produced. These people are up testifying as though they were in the American foreign policy establishment when Trump was doing whatever he was doing with Ukraine. But I’m telling you, folks, the way to understand this — if it’s possible. The way to understand this, if you listen to the language here, is these people are still litigating the Trump-Russia collusion case.

Every time they talk about “colluding with a foreign power,” every time they mention “using a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent,” these people cannot get over that they bombed out on the Russia-collusion affair. They can’t get over it, they can’t accept the Mueller report’s findings that there wasn’t any, and so they’re still living it, trying to make it real. And all Ukraine is, is a little tiptoe in the direction they wish this had gone.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I want to go down the list of the cast of characters here. Now, the Republicans have just begun. Doug Collins is a ranking Republican from Georgia, and he’s giving his opening statement now, soon be asking questions. He’s listing all of the evidence they have not been given from the Schiff report. All the things that are still being kept in some closet somewhere that they’re not being allowed to see.

So as this transpires this afternoon, it will be following the same course as all the others. The morning testimony will look devastating. It’s over for President Trump. He may as well just resign. And then they get to the afternoon session, things blow up, so we’ll even keep you apprised.

I want to first tell you who the lawyer is that the round mound of the gavel has chosen as staff counsel to interrogate the witnesses. Of course, this is all a script. Folks, if you watch this, this is essentially a kindergarten teacher asking his students if they can remember the answers to the test that he gave them 30 minutes prior to the hearing beginning. It’s sophomoric. It’s embarrassing to watch this.

(imitating the hearing) “And do you think on this basis the president should be –”

“I think he should be hung! I think he should be hung right now, not just impeached.”

It’s infuriating to watch this because this whole thing is a show. It is a scripted show designed to accomplish what Schiff failed to do, and that’s to come up with some compelling reason for people to watch this. So when what’s-his-name, Nadler, turns to counsel for questioning, he’s turning to a really dorky looking guy by the name of Norm Eisen.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ lawyer asking the penetrating questions, is a former White House official under Obama. Eisen founded a left-wing hack group called CREW, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which targets Republicans and conservatives and ignores Democrats except just for show. CREW, C-R-E-W.

The Democrat lawyer Norm Eisen founded CREW before going on to join the Obama administration. In 2011, Norm Eisen served as the ethics czar in the Obama Regime. Obama later appointed an ambassador to the Czech Republic and then after that Eisen served as a CNN political commentator. Schiff’s lawyer was an MSNBC commentator. Nadler’s lawyer is a CNN commentator. He was a supporter of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ lawyer on this committee, cowrote a New York Times op-ed in December 2018 talking about new evidence of collusion with Russia, one year ago, new evidence. There has never been any. There hasn’t been a shred of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Mueller couldn’t even find it. This guy one year ago writes an op-ed in the New York Times talking about new evidence of collusion with Russia.

I’m telling you, they have not given that up. They are still trying to make that connection with as many of their supporters as they can. No evidence has been found. The lead counsel on Schiff’s committee, Daniel Goldman, he was also an MSNBC pundit. And he also endorsed the Russian collusion hoax. So the two lawyers that Democrats have chosen to ask questions of the so-called witnesses are a bunch of hacks that believe in the coup, that supported the coup, that believe the Trump-Russia collusion story that no evidence exists for.

Now to the lawyers, the guests. Noah Feldman. All three of these people hate Donald Trump. They loath him, folks. They have been calling for Trump’s removal from office since the first week after he was elected. Noah Feldman was among the first to pronounce that Trump’s call with Zelensky was a crime. Feldman has declared a number of Trump’s actions to be impeachable offenses, including Trump’s pardoning of Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona. When Trump pardoned him, this guy Feldman said that’s an impeachable offense. Get rid of Trump.

He said that Trump tweeting about being wiretapped is an impeachable offense. Get rid of Trump. He even said that Trump deserves to be impeached for calling the fake news the enemy of the people. The lead guest today, the star guest said Trump should be impeached for these three things, pardoning Joe Arpaio, for Trump saying that his wires had been tapped at Trump Tower, and by calling the fake news the enemy of the people.

Noah Feldman also claimed the debunked story about Trump directing Michael Cohen to lie was an impeachable offense. But Trump did not direct Michael Cohen to lie. Feldman even said that an ad for Mar-a-Lago that accidentally appeared on the State Department website was a violation of the emoluments clause and Trump should be impeached for that. Feldman is a proud member of the Russia collusion cult.

This guy’s a leading law professor at Harvard and he’s a kook. He is a conspiracy cook who was heavily embedded in the coup attempt. He claimed in 2017 that more and more evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia has come to light, even though none has. That’s a star witness today.

More recently the star witness, Noah Feldman, wrote an op-ed in which he declared what makes Trump’s alleged conduct so terrible is not that he froze aid to Ukraine for a policy purpose. What makes Trump’s alleged conduct outrageous is the appearance that he was doing it for his own personal benefit. Except Ukraine got the money. And Trump did not get his investigation. And he did not link the two. The two were not linked. There was no quid pro quo.

Gordon Sondland, what did Trump say? “I don’t want anything from Ukraine. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I don’t want a quid pro quo.” Trump did not link the two. Ukraine got their aid. It was under Obama Ukraine didn’t get any aid. It was under Obama that his vice president threatens the prosecutor. Well, threatens the country, if they don’t fire the prosecutor, they’re not gonna get their aid.

These witnesses have as much as convicted Joe Biden today, if anybody knew what the hell he had done even though he’s admitted it and confessed to it and it’s on video and it’s all over media except you’ll never see it the New York Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, but we’ve played it for you, Biden bragging about how he got the prosecutor fired. The prosecutor, who was looking into his son, threatened to withhold United States military aid.

And, by the way, when Russia moved in, annexed Crimea, one-third of Ukraine, Obama still didn’t come to their rescue even though we had a treaty promising them we would. Donald Trump gave them their aid. There was no personal quid pro quo whatsoever and yet this kook Feldman is out claiming he’s got new evidence of Russia collusion, all these impeachable offenses that Trump has engaged in. And now he’s withholding aid to Ukraine that he did not withhold for his own personal gain.

And Feldman has called for a new special counsel to investigate Rudy and William Barr, the attorney general. “But Rush, but Rush, he’s just a law professor.” He’s a political hack. He’s a political hack activist. He’s appearing today as an academic. Pamela Karlan, the lone acknowledgment and tip of the hat to diversity on the Democrats’ panel, she was one of 42 legal scholars, quote, unquote, who wrote a letter attacking Trump even before he took office.

That letter told Trump he had to change his views on a number of issues, and it criticized rhetoric. After Trump fired Comey, Pamela Karlan said that Trump had been behaving extraordinarily badly, said Republicans would spur the country towards a constitutional crisis if they failed to hold Trump in check. And where are we?

So these two witnesses have hated, have opposed Donald Trump since his campaign. The hatred has intensified since his election. Their efforts to undermine him and get rid of him have intensified even further. And yet they appear today as reasoned, unaffected, terribly concerned about the future of the Constitution scholars.

Michael Gerhardt. He’s from the North Carolina University of Law school. He’s been calling for Trump’s impeachment for a long time. Even though he testified during Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 that members of Congress are unlikely to pursue similar charges against the president ever again.

Now, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and suborning perjury. He was not impeached over Lewinsky. Back then Gerhardt said this will never happen again. Gerhardt argued Congress should agree to have bipartisan support before authorizing congressional subpoenas or investigations. They haven’t done that. And yet he’s up there supporting everything they’re doing here trying to get rid of Trump because there is no bipartisan here and he has previously said on the record impeachment must be bipartisan or it is worth nothing.

He said at the very least, members of Congress should require committee chairs and ranking minority members of committees to agree before initiating investigations or issuing legislative subpoenas, none of which has transpired in the impeachment inquiry against Trump.

Jonathan Turley, who was called by the Republicans even though Turley is actually a liberal Democrat, last month Turley said that the Democrats are proceeding on the narrowest basis for impeachment in the history of the country. And they’re not even asking him any questions.

[mystery-ak]

Forget Bribery, Now It’s Abuse of Power

Dec 4, 2019



RUSH: I’m holding here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a piece today at Breitbart by Joel B. Pollak, and the headline is: “Adam Schiff’s Report Cites No ‘Bribery’ or ‘High Crimes;’ Only Tweets.” Now, I wonder why this is. If you recall, let’s go back to early days of the Schiff committee hearings. You remember what they were preceded by? Pelosi out there saying the president had committed “bribery.” Bribery! They had never alluded to bribery at all, and then all of a sudden before the Schiff hearings get going, it’s bribery.

You know why? ‘Cause bribery is one of the things mentioned in the Constitution’s impeachment clause: High crimes, misdemeanors, bribery. Yet Schiff’s report doesn’t mention bribery. These witnesses today, they haven’t talked much about bribery at all. You know what they’ve been talking about? Abuse of power. That’s what all their messages have been about. So, once again, the Democrats struck out. They went out and they focus grouped the terms they were using.

Remember “quid pro quo” didn’t work but “bribery” did. So they shifted to bribery. Then they had their hearings, and guess what? The audiences plummeted during those two weeks. So bribery didn’t even come close. So now it’s time to change the strategy. Well, wait a minute. Why do you have to change the strategy if there are real impeachable offenses here? Just lay ’em out. Whatever the president’s done that is a high crime and misdemeanor, tell us about it. But they haven’t because there isn’t anything.

Instead, we are getting focus group-directed strategies by the Democrats. So now obviously… Bribery’s not in the Schiff report. All those witnesses, Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, Bill Taylor, George Kent — O say can you see — Vindman, all of them, were focused and oriented on the bribery aspects, that Trump was bribing the president of Ukraine with aid if he didn’t get the investigation of Biden. So they got Wile E. Coyoted. Now, they’re on to something new here. So what we are witnessing is an actual strategic maneuver that isn’t based on anything impeachable.

The Democrats are running political opposition research. They are creating a campaign issue to create a black mark on Trump’s resume for the 2020 presidential campaign, and now they have settled on “abuse of power,” and what is this abuse of power? Well, according to the programmed and scripted question-and-answer testimony today, the abuse of power is Trump “colluding with a foreign government to investigate a political opponent.” Trump colluding with… They’re heading back to Russia, folks.

Well, they never really left it. But they’re trying to tie what they think into it. They have created this belief, this phantom belief in the minds of millions Americans that the Russians tampered with the election and Trump helped ’em and colluded. “Russian meddling” means frustrations messed around with voting machines. That’s what they mean by it. That’s what they want people to believe, and so now Trump has all of a sudden… “Forget bribery. Nope! I guess there’s no bribery.

“Uh, high crimes and misdemeanors? Well, we don’t know what those are. The academics are trying to tell us what, uh, high crimes and misdemeanors are. High crimes and misdemeanor is now putting a picture of Mar-a-Lago on the State Department website. A high crime and misdemeanor calling the press ‘the enemy of the people’ and ‘fake news.’ He’s abusing his power. He’s calling us names. He’s calling liberal Democrats names. He’s insulting us.”

So now they moved on to presidential abuse of power. It’s patently obvious to me. Now, is presidential abuse of power easy to understand than bribery? Is it easier to prove, is it easier to illustrate to mind-numbed robots on the Democrat side watching this? Because that’s been the sole focus. Every one of these three hacks acting as scholarly lawyers has focused on abuse of power and how it threatens the Constitution and how George Washington warned everybody about it, and about how James Madison warned everybody about it — and even the king of England was worried about.

All these people were worried about abuse of presidential abuse of power.

(chuckles) How many presidents don’t? As they’re defining it today, how many presidents do not abuse power? The whole nature of the establishment of our government is a fight for power. The three branches are constantly fighting for more and more power. The legislative wants to get power from the executive. The executive wants to deny them and get more power for himself. Abuse of power? The way they’re setting this up, there isn’t a president in the future safe from impeachment. They don’t care. But all of this — bribery and then abandoning it, and whatever else — now settling on abuse of power, it still adds up to one thing.

They’ve got nothing.

[mystery-ak]

Will the Republican Party Reject Trumpism in 2024?

Dec 4, 2019



RUSH: I also have a fabulous piece here by Mr. Angelo Codevilla — who, by the way, I interviewed not long ago for the current issue of The Limbaugh Letter. He’s the professor that came up with the original characterization of “ruling class” (meaning deep state) versus us, “the country class,” and he said something I… When I read the piece today… I could tell during the interview that he was working on this piece.

Some of the things he said in the interview have been expanded upon in this piece, and what the piece deals with is what happens when Trump’s gone. And this is a question, by the way, I get all the time. I think we even had it yesterday on the program. (impression) “Rush, what Republicans are gonna pick up after Trump’s gone?” It is the question, and there are a lot of people who believe that Trump has now shown the way and that future Republican leaders will be as confident and combative and as Trumpian as they know how to be — without, maybe, the rough-around-the-edges traits.And, my friends (chuckles), as I said yesterday, I’m not so sure of that. Would somebody give me the evidence that that can happen? Why is Trump so rare? Why is Trump a one-off? It’s because there isn’t anybody like him. There’s not a single person like him out there, and I’m not just talking about the outsider-versus-insider aspect. There’s not a single Republican who could tolerate a smidgen of what Trump’s daily existence is. They just couldn’t tolerate it. They would do whatever they could to stop it or walk away from it — and it’s not gonna go away.

Whoever the next Republican nominee or president is is gonna get this same treatment, depending… Although there’s a caveat. It depends how this is ultimately dealt with. If this ends up really hurting the Democrats, they might make minor modifications in things. But I don’t think that’s the case. I mean, these people… They are the Wellstone memorial. They are this silent coup. They are a bunch of Stalinist totalitarians. This is what really grated on me today.

These guys, these expert academics speaking up for the founding and the Constitution? These people are part of the cabal that’s trying to undermine it in the name of power for the Democrat Party! Even Codevilla alludes to this. Let me give you the pull quotes from this thing that I found fascinating. “From President Obama on down, the political, educational, media, and corporate establishment had long since taken for granted that placing the opinions, interests, tastes, and the rights of the rest of America on the same plane as their own amounts to ‘false equality.'”

In other words, we are forever going to be thought of as inferiors to the deep state, the ruling class, the establishment. We’re gonna always be the inferiors. We’re gonna always be the deplorables. We’re always going to be the hayseed, hick kooks. Codevilla writes, “They had come to regard us as lower beings. No matter whether they attributed our purported inferiority to our alleged racism, sexism, etc., or just plain stupidity, they negated the possibility of common citizenship with us.” What he means here is that we will never be seen…

Meaning conservatives, Republicans, anybody who’s not them. We will never be seen as coequals, as citizens, coequals as human beings in a common country with a common set of values. We are always going to be seen as inferior, stupid, racist, sexist, bigoted beings. Making the prospect of “common citizenship,” i.e., a unified country, impossible. Codevilla thinks we’ve lost it. It’s impossible to ever have common citizenship with ruling class, and by that he means this long-sought-after unity.

“Can’t we all come together? Can’t we all just become one?” No. He believes they don’t want that, and Trump… By the way, he is so right. Trump is the living example of it. Trump is the living example of their hatred for us, something I have been pounding into people’s heads for as long as I’ve been talking about it. Their hatred really is for us. Trump is somebody that’s gonna come and go. He can only serve two terms, eight years maximum. Their hatred is for us.

We elected him. We foisted him on them. We’re never gonna be members of the club, however you want to analogize this. Codevilla writes, “The moment that Hillary Clinton’s reference to those disinclined to vote for her as ‘deplorables’ and ‘irredeemables’ made this unmistakable,” and it made “Donald Trump’s victory became possible.” Another pull quote: “In either case, after the 2020 elections ordinary Americans will have to deal with the same dreadful question, we faced in 2016: How do we secure and perhaps restore our fast-diminishing freedom to live as Americans?

“And while we may wish for help from Trump, we have to look to ourselves and to other leaders for how we may counter the ruling class’s manifold assaults now, and especially in the long term.” Again, this is simply an acknowledgment that can’t sit around and let Trump do everything. Can’t sit around and wait for Trump to do it, wait for Trump to beat ’em back. It’s gonna take all of us, and even at that… So what happens when Trump leaves?

There isn’t anybody for us to say, “Well, let such and such take care of it.” Who’s it gonna be? Mitt Romney? Take your pick of names. “Since 2016, the ruling class [the deep state] has left no doubt that it is not merely enacting chosen policies: It is expressing its identity, an identity that has grown and solidified over more than [50 years], and that it is not capable of changing.” And here is… Are you ready for Codevilla here? You may not want to hear this.

But since I’ve cited the piece and you can go read it, I’m gonna read it to you. “That really does mean that restoring anything like the founders’ United States of America is out of the question.” He thinks the ruling class has become so big, so powerful, so discriminatory, so mean-spirited, so anti-constitutional, democratic freedom that the idea of unifying the country around the “common citizenship” that we’re all one, that we are all citizens of the country.

He says it’s not possible anymore, “out of the question.” Restoring the country to its founding vision is “out of the question.” He says, “Constitutional conservatism on behalf of a country a large part of which is absorbed in revolutionary identity; that rejects the dictionary definition of words; that rejects common citizenship, is impossible. Not even winning a bloody civil war against the ruling class could accomplish such a thing.”

That’s what he said to me in the interview. Of course, that’s when the red flag went up. It was not so much fatalistic as it was his honest assessment that the arrogance combined with the condescension, the outcast way in which they view people not members of their group or club or whatever, their lack of desire for people like us to even be in their midst… There’s no way of changing that about them.

I asked him, “It’s impossible to defeat them?” He said, “I don’t think it’s possible to defeat ’em.” And that’s what he puts in here, even a bloody civil war against the ruling class would not accomplish the restoration of the country as founded.

So what he means here is get ready, because life, if you care about this kind of stuff, is gonna be a never-ending political battle. And the only elements of this that will be fruitful are when we win politically. But those are temporary things that have to be built on. Not sure I accept this total “all hope is lost” attitude, but he holds it.

Here’s one final pull quote. “In 2016 and since, we have learned that our ruling class has amassed the power and developed the taste to revel in making us miserable. We have also learned that to avoid this, we must undo or separate ourselves from them, their structures, and priorities. Knowing that they regard us as illegitimate, we have no choice but to return the favor. Living as we do in revolutionary times, we—and whoever would lead us—must act accordingly.”

In other words, it’s gonna be a constant battle. And this whole notion of crossing the aisle and showing we can make government work, forget it. It’s not possible. They don’t want it. What he’s saying is, the time-honored, traditional Republican who accepts the inferiority and then attempts to be liked or accepted is the death knell.

We have learned that we must undo or separate ourselves from them and their structures and their priorities because they regard us as illegitimate. We better start looking at them the same way. Instead of hoping the news treats us fairly, instead of hoping that somehow the media gets its just due, we gotta stop worrying about how they might change to our liking and just say screw them.

Which then takes us back to the question. Who after Trump? Now, a lot of people think that the Republican Party has learned and seen and the next Republican, whoever the nominee is, perhaps president, is gonna learn from Trump and this is how you deal with ’em day in and day out, just punch ’em in the face every day. Don’t give them an inch, don’t acknowledge they’re legitimate. That’s exactly what Trump did. He does not acknowledge their legitimacy, particularly the media, particularly his tweeting.

Isn’t it interesting, “I wish Trump would stop tweeting. It makes me so nervous.” Get ready to be nervous the rest of your lives if you’re gonna care about this stuff. By the way, it’s possible, it’s possible to live your life and be totally distant from all this, if you want. It’s not possible to live unaffected by it, but it is possible to live where you don’t follow it every day and so you don’t get miserable.

Does anybody know, can somebody cite for me a Republican who’s gonna pick up whatever the Trump mantle is and run with it, or is it more likely — pick a name, pick any Republican that you think will get the nomination. Let’s say Trump wins in 2020, so it’s 2024, the Republican primaries, candidates, we don’t know who the possibilities are, but pick a name among those you do know.

What I think is gonna happen, if it’s among names we know, after this person, whoever it is, wins the Republican nomination in 2024, one of the first things this person’s gonna say is, “It’s time now to move on from the incivility and the mean-spiritedness of Donald Trump and try to bring the country back together.”

They’re gonna accept the idea that Trump is the reason we’re divided. Unless there’s some name we don’t know of yet that’s gonna rise and surface that is going to attempt to further the Trump model. But take any Republican you know right now. Can you tell me who you think will try to carry on as Trump? “But, Rush, look at the economy and look at –” Folks, what do most Republicans care most about? What the media thinks of them. What the media says about them.

And what do most Republicans do in that case? Look, there’s some exceptions. I’m not saying all. They sidle up, they rip. What does Romney do? What did McCain do? Sell out their own party. That’s what they did. Criticized their own party. It’s a no-brainer. “From this day forward, we are moving away from the Trump example. No more criticism of the press. The press is a valid institution. It’s constitutionally mandated. The days of calling the press enemy of the people are over in my administration.”

You don’t think that’s gonna happen? Well, if you can see that happen, then you can see everything else happening too. “No more tweeting. No more calling people names.” Whatever their bugaboos about Trump are, that’s what they’ll promise they’re not gonna do anymore. And they’re gonna make the mistake of thinking that that’s what a majority of Americans want to hear. They will ignore the fact that Donald Trump got elected twice. They will consider it an aberration somehow like the Democrats still do.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to get started on the phones in Cincinnati. Ron, you’re next. It’s great to have you, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you for taking my call, Rush. Mega dittos.

RUSH: Thank you. Thank you very much, sir.

CALLER: You bet. Hey, so if the impeachment goes through then it will go to the Senate, where you’ll have a few prominent never-Republicans that will be sitting on the jury, Romney prominent among them. And I’m curious what are your thoughts on how listening to all the evidence and then having to cast his vote, how that will affect whether or not he’s gonna continue to be the loudmouth and idiot that he’s been.

RUSH: I want to ask you a question. I don’t want you to misunderstand my tone, and I don’t want you to misunderstand anything. I’m genuinely curious. Why do you care what Mitt Romney is gonna say, think, or do?

CALLER: It’s less about Mitt Romney and more about the Never Trump Republicans. Rush, I spoke to you right before the 2016 election, and I asked what you thought of the Never Trump Republicans and that potentially Trump might get impeached, and you said I was shrewd, and I pointed to the Constitution and that the founders gave us just a tremendous tool for handling situations like this. So it’s less about Romney and more about the Never Trumpers. And me as a fan of the Constitution first, I’m loving that Trump’s trumping them, literally, trump card, he’s trumping them.

RUSH: The Never Trumpers or the Democrats?

CALLER: Yes. The Never Trumpers. He’s got the Democrats so far underwater on this, it’s unbelievable, but now he has an opportunity to shut up even the Republicans, which I’m delighted for if the Senate trial goes through. That’s what I’m really anxious to see.

RUSH: See, the thing about this is the Democrats don’t think they’re underwater. Think they’re winning. And Romney doesn’t think he’s underwater. Romney still believes he’s gonna be able to get rid of Trump. So do all the Never Trumpers.

[mystery-ak]

Trudeau and European Schoolgirls Caught Gossiping About Trump

Dec 4, 2019



RUSH: All right, now, I promised we’d get to this and it’s Justin Trudeau. So there was an open mic. There was a reception at Buckingham Palace. Did you hear this? Official receiving line. You got the queen, Prince Philip’s not there, he’s not well. Prince Philip’s not there, the queen’s husband. You got the queen, you’ve got Prince Charles, who, the guy’s a little kooky himself. He’s a climate change guy that burns up more carbon dioxide than you and I could in our lifetimes. And then Camilla, his high school sweetheart who he ended up marrying.

But Princess Anne did not join the receiving line. Princess Anne stayed in the doorway, and the queen was not happy that Princess Anne apparently, according to way it appears, was dissing the president of the United States as the president and Melania are going through the reception line. The queen apparently loves Trump. The queen apparently wants him to come back a lot.

So he came back, NATO thing, reception for him there and all the other NATO people. Princess Anne was there and she got a stare-down from the queen and the look on the queen’s face like, “Where the hell are you? Get your… over here.” And Princess Anne just kind of shrugged and lifted her hand.

The queen was embarrassed. This queen, by the way, I would think she’s embarrassed every day by her kids. But that’s just me. I guess most parents have the ability to see beyond the embarrassing nature that their kids engage in.

Anyway, there was an open mike. During the reception, and this Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau, the head honcho in Cuba — isn’t this the guy that dressed up in blackface? Justin Trudeau went to a party blackface. What was he doing, an impersonation of Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia? So, anyway, the reception was late ’cause Trump was late, and the reason Trump was late was that he did another press conference. He decided he wanted to talk to the media.

And Trudeau is talking to Boris Johnson, the British prime minister and the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, and there’s a mic catching Trudeau. They’re talking to the French president Emmanuel Macron. And here is how it sounded.

TRUDEAU: Emmanuel was meeting with the American…

JOHNSON: Is that why – is that why you were late?

TRUDEAU: He was late because he takes a four – forty minute press conference off the top. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, he announced… (Macron interrupts but is unheard)

RUTTE: The fake news media. (Rutte and Macron laugh)

TRUDEAU: You just watched his team’s jaws drop to the floor.

RUSH: Now, when this thing first aired the Drive-By Media, including Fox News, portrayed this as these people mocking Trump. What a joke, they said, Trump, look at this guy. Why, even his staff’s jaws dropped to the floor. I don’t think they were mocking Trump. I think they’re sitting there in disbelief that he spends so much time with the media, including being late to one of these boring receptions that they have to go to.

And then Trudeau talking about, “Yeah, the fake news media.”

I think they would all love to be able to talk to the press like Trump does, except maybe not because they may be part of the whole press cabal, you know, a bunch of leftists. So they don’t see the media the way we do or the way Trump does. Trump then punched back. This is this morning in Watford, England, at the summit, at the meeting between Trump and Angela Merkel, a reporter said, “Mr. President, have you seen the video of Prime Minister Trudeau talking about you last night?”

THE PRESIDENT: Well, he’s two faced and honestly with Trudeau, he’s a nice guy, I find him to be a very nice guy, but you know the truth is that, I called him out on the fact that he’s not paying 2% and I guess he’s not very happy about it. So, I called him out on that and I’m sure he wasn’t happy about it. But that’s the way it is. Look, I’m representing the U.S., and he should be paying more than he’s paying and he understands that. I can imagine he’s not that happy, but that’s the way it is.

RUSH: So they ran with it in the Drive-By — well, look who’s up there on CNN, Andrew McCabe. Let’s just put a collection of liars up on television as official commentators. Andrew McCabe was fired in disgrace from the FBI, and there he is, an official commentator weighing in on the testimony so far this morning.

Here’s the headline: “Three legal experts testify Trump committed impeachable offenses. One expert dissents.” And one expert was extremely powerful in his dissent.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know something else about that video of Justin Trudeau and Boris Johnson? You know what that looked like to me? It looked like… What would be the best way to describe it? It looked like a bunch of schoolgirls whispering about somebody they don’t have the courage to face. “Did you see what he did? Did you see what he did? Do you believe what he did? I don’t believe it! I don’t believe what he did!” You know, little gutless wonder Millennial types who haven’t the guts to face Dad and tell Dad what they think. They have to just talk to themselves about “What embarrassing thing it is they’re late because Trump had to go talk to the fake media.”

[mystery-ak]

The Clintons Were Regulars at Epstein’s Ranch

Dec 4, 2019



RUSH: Have you heard that Bill and Hillary Clinton were regular guests of Epstein’s at that ranch of his in Arizona? Yes, they were. Both of them! Both of them. Not just Bill, but both of them were guests of Epstein at the ranch.

We haven’t heard much about what went on in the ranch. We’ve heard about the island, we’ve heard about the Manhattan penthouse, and we’ve heard about the fleet of private jets in the Mile High Club there. We’ve not heard much about this Arizona, other than the fact that Epstein had a ranch. Oh, we’ve heard a lot about Prince Andrew. His mommy canceled his 60th birthday party. Oh-oh my, folks. Can you imagine the humiliation among his friends at the sandbox? His mommy canceled his birthday party. I can understand this if you’re 10. If you’re 60 and your mother cancels your birthday party…

[mystery-ak]

Angry Hillary Donor Makes Up Her “Expert” Testimony

Dec 4, 2019



RUSH: I just learned something about Democrat “witness,” and I put that in quotes, Pam Karlan, Pamela Karlan. She is the Stanford law professor who’s been testifying about what a reprobate Donald Trump is. “He abused his power!” All of this rotgut, partisan hackery. Well, it turns out that this witness donated thousand dollars of dollars to Hillary Clinton and was on Hillary Clinton’s short list of Supreme Court nominees.

And then it all went up in smoke when Hillary couldn’t even run a campaign, couldn’t even draw flies to book signings or campaign stops, couldn’t even deign to go out into these states where some “deplorables” live. No wonder she’s unhinged. No wonder she’s ticked off. I wouldn’t be surprised if this woman wore one of those vagina hats in protest after Trump won. Remember that, when Trump announces a travel ban and so forth and all these vagina-hat women start showing up all over?

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if she’s one of them. She donated thousands of dollars to Democrats, was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So is it any surprise that this babe has a vendetta? They all have a vendetta against Trump! But again, I’m telling you, Turley? Turley’s one voice, I think, was able to illustrate and put in context the lunacy of all of these so-called legal scholars.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I got sound bites of all these people (sigh), and you really need to see them, too. The arrogance and the superiority these people have just drips off of them. I don’t know what it is. Is it arrogance? It’s also condescension. This babe, Karlan, pulled a Pencil Neck. She even made up a story about Trump denying the Louisiana governor disaster relief. Grab sound bite number eight.

Remember what this is. This is an impeachment hearing. Trump’s abused his power. No, Trump committed bribery! Oh, no! They dropped the bribery. There isn’t any bribery. That didn’t focus group well. So now he’s abused his power. The New York Times is coordinating: Trump has abused his power! It’s all these people are saying, and here’s Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testifying as part of her opening remarks.

KARLAN: (shouting) Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that’s prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president says, “I would like to do you… I would like you to do us a favor. I’ll meet with you and I’ll send disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal.” Wouldn’t you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, that he betrayed the national interest?

RUSH: Stop the tape! It didn’t happen. That’s why I was so livid watching. This did not happen. She is building off the same technique that Adam Schiff used. Adam Schiff lied about the call between Trump and Zelensky while he was sitting in his committee chair. The actual chair. The committee was in session, and Adam Schiff said that the president told the president of Ukraine to “dig up — make up, if you have to — dirt on my opponent.

“He told him seven or eight times, ‘Make it up, dig it up, and don’t get back to me until you’ve found it. Now I’m gonna send my guy over there, Rudy. You’ll like him. Let him help you. But don’t get back to me ’til you’ve found and made up that dirt on my opponent.'” That’s what Schiff said, and it was a total lie, because Trump had released the transcript. Nothing even close to that happened — I mean, not even close. Schiff totally made it up.

And he was called out on it, and he then said, “Well, I was doing parody to try to make the point. I was trying to, you know, lighten the proceedings.” It wasn’t funny, and he got away with it for 30 minutes before a single Republican called him out on it. I’m blowing a gasket watching it on TV, and there’s not a single Republican who objected to it, and here comes this babe making up another story based on that lie. “Imagine you live in Louisiana and you need some hurricane relief, and the president says, ‘I’m not gonna send it to you until you dig up dirt.'”

None of this ever happened!

These are law professors. These are the most brilliant among us. These are the best and the brightest. These are people teaching students about the law. She’s an abject faker and liar, because she’s a partisan hack who has been poisoned with abject hatred. She’s a donor to the Democrats, a donor to Clinton, and she was on Hillary’s short list for a Supreme Court nomination if Hillary had won. So she’s understandably ticked off and hates Trump because he wouldn’t…

This is made up!

Trump never told the president of Ukraine to “make up dirt, dig up dirt, and don’t get back to me ’til you found any,” and he certainly never told the governor of Louisiana any such thing. This stuff needs be gaveled down and closed immediately. This is a… It goes beyond character assassination and lying. You want to talk about abuse of power? The Democrats are engaged in it in spades here. I mean, this is just beyond the pale — and to have this woman presented as an unassailable witness because she’s a scholar and she’s a law professor and she teaches at Stanford, and you can’t object!

Just like you couldn’t object to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman — O say can you see. “You better be very careful around Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, and you better be very careful around Karlan because she’s a woman and you can’t criticize a woman.” This is just outrageous. “Imagine if…” She’s trying to make an analogy. Later, one of these other lawyers, this guy Gerhardt from North Carolina, says, “You know, my analogies aren’t nearly as good as Professor Karlan’s, but let me try.

“Let’s say that you’re robbing a bank and as you’re leaving with the money. You know you’re gonna get caught so you drop the money on the floor. Did you rob the bank or not, even though you don’t leave with the money?” I said, “W-w-what bank did Trump rob?” No, folks. I tell you, a bunch of people were sending me notes this morning watching this thing, telling me they had to turn it off ’cause they couldn’t deal with the hate. The hate they were watching made ’em uncomfortable.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This Jersey City, New Jersey. This Michael. Hello and welcome to the program.

CALLER: Thank you. Thank you. Listen, here’s my question. Why are the Democrats having this hearing with four academics who have no direct knowledge whatsoever about what’s going on? I don’t understand.

RUSH: I’ll tell you why, it’s a great question, I’ll tell you exactly why they’re doing it. ‘Cause none of the other witnesses were compelling and influencing anybody, and they didn’t have any personal contact with Trump, either. They had all these ambassadors and all these Foreign Service civil servants, and every one of them had secondhand knowledge, and they were boring stiffs. And the audience ratings plummeted every day they were on. So it was a bomb.

So the Round Mound of the Gavel decides we need something compelling and we need something official, and he realizes there’s not a single Democrat that can offer any credibility. So they have to go out there and grab who they think are credible and unassailable. And who are they? Scholars, lawyers, professors. And these professors have been acting as fact witnesses.

This is a comment I made at the beginning of the program, and it’s another thing that ticks me off. These people are acting like they were on the phone call, they heard Trump make the phone call, and it was outrageous what happened. They’re all acting like they’re the whistleblower, in essence.

None of them met Trump. None of them know Trump. None of them heard the phone call. The transcript of the phone call is out. The babe is making up stories, but the reason they’re doing this is because they think — oh, another thing. They have shifted away from bribery because that bombed out on ’em like Wile E. Coyote. So now they’ve shifted to abuse of power.

So these constitutional experts are there to explain the stupid idiots that are the American people why what Trump did is so bad and why Trump needs to be kicked out of office. It is pure liberal hackery on display here. I’m so ticked off I can’t tell you.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to read to you about this Pamela Karlan. The more that we learn about her, one of the so-called witnesses today… I want to read to you here from National Review back in 2013, October 10th. From the article: “Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan is a favorite candidate of the Left for a Supreme Court seat, in large part because (as this 2009 New York Times article put it) the Left ‘hungers for a full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer.'”

Right.

By the way, she “puts herself in a category of ‘snarky, bisexual Jewish women.'”

That’s how she describes herself: “Snarky, bisexual Jewish women.”

The article goes on to say that she is a supporter of partial-birth abortion. What’s strange about that? She’s a commie babe, for all intents and purposes. But here she is as a scholarly, objective constitutional lawyer witness to abuses of power of Donald Trump. Remember, this woman thought she was destined for the Supreme Court after Hillary Clinton would win the presidency, something to which she donated thousands and thousands of dollars.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Bevin in Richmond Virginia. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks so much for taking my question.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: You kind of already were getting to it, but I’ve been wondering all day, first of all, why the expert lawyers who have been lecturing — I’m not gonna use the word “testifying” but lecturing — to us are allowed to be called “witnesses.” That is my first question because my concern is, they’re not witnesses, and they’re not testifying. But by calling them witnesses, it gives them a heightened sense — to the public, a heightened sense — of authority.

RUSH: And credibility. Bingo. You’re exactly right.

CALLER: Yeah. What I was listening to, the bit I listened to, is such a mind game. These lawyers basically… I thought, you know, “They’re lawyers. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.”

RUSH: (laughing)

CALLER: And they immediately just —

RUSH: (laughing)

CALLER: — come right out and say, “Trump did it!”

RUSH: No. They’re lawyers. “We take the case only if we think we can get you a judgment that we’re gonna take 70% of.”

CALLER: Well, I just don’t understand why those lawyers can sit there and definitively say Trump has done something illegal when it hasn’t been proven yet.

RUSH: Well, how can the press say it?

CALLER: Well, the press is the press. But, I mean, you’re a lawyer. You’re —

RUSH: No, no. The press isn’t the press. These are all left-wing hacks now, Bevin.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: That is the answer to your question. They are not appearing as lawyers today. That’s the disguise. That’s the camouflage. That’s how they’re obfuscating. That’s how they’re hiding. These are the epitome of uber, angry, hate-filled, left-wing hacks, angry that Trump won the election. They are part of the effort to get him thrown out of office, to reverse the results. They’re showing up as lawyers and witnesses, because this is how the Democrats think they can be unsalable, how they can be not criticized, how they can be not not believed. They are supposedly experts you cannot disbelieve.

CALLER: Yeah. I’m wondering, though, too, why is there no accountability? Because if they’re going to accuse the president of the United States of committing a crime definitively before he’s been proven to, why is there no accountability for that?

RUSH: Well, because — interesting question. Congress has its own set of rules of conduct and behavior and law, in a sense. Like, you might say, well, how come the Republicans don’t get their own witnesses, how come they don’t get Trump’s lawyers and so forth.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: The House can make the rules and they can deny the minority anything they want to deny them. Elections have consequences. And Democrats can run this House of Representatives however they want to.

CALLER: Wow.

RUSH: See, the remedy, the accountability in this case is at the ballot box.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: No, no. That’s not just a cliche.

CALLER: No, I agree.

RUSH: That’s the accountability. They’re not accountable in a court of law here. There’s no way you can go in and say that Nadler has committed a crime by virtue of the way he conducted hearings. You can’t accuse him. You can’t accuse these witnesses of committing crimes by testifying to things they haven’t seen. They’re being called witnesses, but their expert opinion is what is being sought.

CALLER: Yeah. Well, besides praying fervently that God would bring justice in this situation, I’ve also kind of been praying, like you said, that the American people, Democrat or Republican, would wake up and see through this mind game and be offended that they’re trying to take us for fools.

RUSH: Well, I can identify with that. To be honest with you, I’ve had that same hope my whole life —

CALLER: Yeah. Thank you for –

RUSH: — that some force, that some power, that something would happen that would cause the American people to see this for what it is.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: But you can’t wait for that to happen. You have to try to help it along, which is why I am behind the Golden EIB Microphone. I know the polls where the press, the media’s got the lowest approval ratings, respect that it’s had in a long, long time. But there’s something about if people see the words written on a page, piece of paper, newspaper, even on a Web page, it’s true. “I read it.” Some people, “I saw it on TV. It’s gotta be true. I saw it.” And depending on who said it on TV, it’s true.

The two most powerful institutions in the creation of public opinion are education, education system, and the media. And it’s a constant, constant battle. And through my life I have been both pleasantly surprised that more people than I ever dreamed saw things the way I did, and I’ve also been dumbfounded that people didn’t. So you just never know.

You have to realize most Americans are not watching this, Bevin, even if these things get boffo ratings. The highest ratings these things got during Schiff’s committee I think was 13 million, and that was spread out over, what, four networks, maybe five. That’s nothing in comparison to the numbers of people that vote. And then the numbers got smaller every day there were hearings.

Now, the Democrats know that. They were terribly let down. They were thinking Watergate hearings with 50 million people watching. So that’s what they’re still trying to create here. It’s another reason why they got these people. They think these people are gonna be automatically more credible and more powerful and more compelling than a bunch of dryball civil servants were.

But they still don’t have a fact witness who can testify to any allegation they’ve made. And that, at the end of the day, is all anybody really needs to know. They’re making all these accusations, and they don’t have one witness who saw it happen, who heard it happen, who knows that it happened. Even their whistleblower was a fake, secondhand, and was blown to smithereens when the transcript of the call was revealed.

That’s what’s so mind-bogglingly frustrating to me about this. There hasn’t been any evidence for any allegation they have made in three years plus.

[mystery-ak]

Turley Turns the Hearing Around in the Afternoon

Dec 4, 2019



RUSH: I think something has happened here that the Democrats did not expect — and this is constant, this is common. It is amazing how the formula… Well, it’s not the formula. It’s amazing how this has played out. Let me say what I mean. During the Schiff hearings, in the morning we got all those witnesses and all their devastating assessments. It was all hearsay, but it was pure, unobstructed hatred for Donald Trump — and the only questions were asked by Democrats.

That was the entire morning. By the time this program started, people were saying, “Oh, my God, Rush, this looks so bad! (mewling) Why can’t we ever catch a break? It’s so bad.” The afternoon session would come, and the Republicans would blow them out of the water, and everybody would feel better. It happened every day of the Schiff hearings. So today we got the first day of the Round Mound of the Gavel and his hearings, and it’s the same thing.

We’ve got these three hacks, these three legal scholar law professors and a scripted question-and-answer session with a CNN and partisan left-wing hack lawyer asking the questions, and man, oh, man, these law professors are just dumping on Trump. “Why, he’s the scourge of the earth. He is the worst example of humanity there’s ever been. This guy should be impeached for calling the news ‘fake news.’ This guy should be impeached because he had a picture of Mar-a-Lago on his State Department website one day by accident. This guy’s horrible!”

This Feldman and all these people, it was infuriating. It was pure, adulterated hate. And we get the afternoon. All morning long the Democrat lawyer didn’t ask Jonathan Turley any questions. Jonathan Turley is not a pro-Trumpist, but he does not approve of this investigation, this impeachment, because he thinks it’s catch all. He says, “You people don’t have anything. You’re running around here on generalities and your political preferences are dominating everything, and this is a dangerous precedent.”

What has happened, folks, is after the morning session — a couple hours of intense and partisan anti-Trump hatred — the Republicans got to include Turley. One voice — Jonathan Turley’s voice — has turned this whole thing around. All it took… Now, this is my perspective here having to watch this in little two- and three-minute snatches as you know. But do not doubt my perceptibility talents, and I’m telling you that Turley…

The equivalent would be letting half the air out of the balloon and stopped it from floating. And now it’s just hovering up there and nobody knows whether it’s gonna crash back down or keep lifting. And I really do think that just a single voice of sane reason in opposition to this madcap, hate-filled partisanship has ended up shifting the balance just like it did during the Schiff hearings. Let me show you what I mean, ’cause I have three sound bites from Turley.

And these… Let’s see. I’ve got… Well, these are all opening statement. This is not even from questions he was asked. But it was the questions he was asked afterwards. When we get those bites, what I’m saying here is gonna have even more weight. But let’s go to with these three ’cause will illustrate what I’m talking about. Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University, and this is what he said about the “impeachment charges,” quote-unquote, against the Trumpster.

TURLEY: I really don’t have a dog in this fight. But you can’t accuse a president of bribery; then when some of us note that the Supreme Court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation, say, “Well, it’s just impeachment. We really don’t have to prove the elements.” That’s a favored mantra that it’s sort of close enough for jazz. Well, this isn’t improvisational jazz. Close enough is not good enough. If you’re gonna accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick, because you’re trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States.

RUSH: Damn straight! He’s noting, “Where’s the bribery? You guys talked about bribery for two weeks under Schiff and we can’t find it today. You’re moving the target all over the place.” He said, “You’re just trying to get close,” and they are. All they’re trying to do is get close enough. They want a black mark on the Trump resume. They know they’re gonna get an acquittal over in the Senate. This is part of the 2020 campaign.

I’ve gone through the past two days what they know they face if they lose 2020. They face a 7-2 Supreme Court, conservative Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade threatened. The borders closed. Guns? Nothing done about it the way they want. They’re in abject panic mode here. I do think their attitude, their psychology is screwed up enough, they can think they’re winning during all this because they always do. They think they’re winning because the polls are on their side, except some of them on impeachment aren’t.

They think they’re winning because the press reports their angle every day. But Turley is calling them out here. “You know, you left-wing…” He’s not calling them names like I am, but he’s saying, “You left-wing partisan hacks up here, you can’t just come out and start talking about bribery and then offer no evidence for it. And then you can’t just say that and then forget it and move on to some of these other nefarious things. We are talking about removing a duly elected president, and just ’cause you don’t like him, it’s not enough!”

Now, it’s interesting: After his opening statement, Turley have not asked any questions. Very few. In fact, he was asked, “Mr. Turley, did you write these words in the Wall Street Journal?” and the stupid lawyer read the words. “Yeah, but that’s not the context.” “That’s a yes or no. I don’t care about your context! Yes or no, did you write those words?” “Yes.” So there’s lawyers are enforcing their stupid, “I’m not interested in your context. This is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.” Just like, you know, lawyers do to scared-to-death citizens on the stand in your common, everyday trial in circuit court.

Now here is Turley continuing on that theme…

TURLEY: My testimony lays out the criminal allegations in the previous impeachments. Those were not just proven crimes. They were accepted crimes. That is, even the Democrats on that Judiciary Committee agreed that Bill Clinton had committed perjury. That’s on the record, and a federal judge later said it was perjury. In the case of Nixon, the crimes were established. No one seriously disagreed with those crimes.

RUSH: There are no crimes here! There’s no evidence of any crime here. (angrily) “He needs to be impeached because he called the news ‘fake news’! He called the news the ‘enemy of the people.’ He needs to be impeached because the Mar-a-Lago picture was on the State Department website. He needs to be impeached because he won. He needs to be impeached because he colluded with Russia.” No, he didn’t. “Well, yes, he did. We believe it, so it happened,” and then Turley told the Democrats they are the ones who are abusing power by rushing into all of this.

TURLEY: You have such a short investigation it’s a perfect storm. You set an incredibly short period, demand a huge amount of information and when the president goes to court, you then impeach him. Now, does that track with what you’ve heard about impeachment? Does that track with the rule of law that we’ve talked about? If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You are doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.

RUSH: Bingo in everything. It is Biden who demanded a prosecutor get fired in exchange for aid to Ukraine, which was never forthcoming, by the way. I don’t need to go through that again. Yeah, the president goes to court to stop you from getting his tax records, to stop you from getting his secret conversations with lawyers and you say he’s abusing his power? You are by seeking them in the first place and by trying to hurry this thing up.

So it’s no wonder why Turley was not asked any questions by the round mound of the gavel’s lawyer. But the Republicans did ask him questions and we’ll have some of those. I’m just telling you, here you had these three obviously partisan hacks dressed up and disguised as legal scholars and law school professors who are experts in policy and it just took one voice, it just took one voice to properly characterize the extremeness of the Democrats on this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The three Jonathan Turley sound bites that we played were not from his opening statement. They actually were from questioning this afternoon. What happened was that the ranking Republican on the committee, Doug Collins, asked Turley an open-ended question. “Mr. Turley, since you were not asked any questions for the most part during the morning session, I want to ask you your general thoughts on all this,” and he just let him run.

So Turley essentially got an open-ended question to expand and advise his opening remarks. And those three sound bites were an answer to the question that Collins asked, which is open ended. Basically, “Mr. Turley, what do you want to say to all this?” And so Turley got a chance to react to the partisan extremism and the hackery that had gone on all morning. And he called ’em out on it perfectly. And, see, all it takes is one voice.

Now, I say that from my perspective watching it. I don’t presume to be able to tell you how average Americans walking through airports, seeing it on CNN hear it, but anybody paying attention to it, it was unmistakable. Turley nailed ’em. Turley nailed what they’re doing. He nailed their motivations for it, and he made it clear he’s got no dog in the hunt, meaning he’s not a pro- or anti-Trumpist. He’s a constitutionalist first.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Turley. Audio sound bite 25. Listen, ’cause this is a money sound bite.

TURLEY: My testimony lays out the criminal allegations in the previous impeachments. Those were not just proven crimes. They were accepted crimes. That is, even the Democrats on that Judiciary Committee agreed that Bill Clinton had committed perjury. That’s on the record, and a federal judge later said it was perjury. In the case of Nixon, the crimes were established. No one seriously disagreed with those crimes.

RUSH: Right. So he’s reminding everybody Clinton literally committed crimes. Now, you knew that because you listen here regularly, and I’ve known that and told you. He committed perjury. He suborned perjury (for those of you in Rio Linda, that means he asked people to lie) and he lost his law license for a year. But there was a crime there — and with Watergate, there was the perception of crimes, although I’ll never forget my dad.

My dad was so livid at what happened to Nixon. My dad… Until he died 18 years later, when the subject of Nixon came up, my dad lost it. Whoever dared bring up Nixon to my dad (impression), “Tell me what he did! Name one thing! What did he do?” And nobody could name anything. People wilted and faded away into the carpet when my dad was really mad. “What did he do? Nobody can tell you what Nixon did!”

Anyway, you can tell people what Clinton did. He lied under oath. Okay.

[mystery-ak]

Hate on Parade at Democrat Show Trial

Dec 4, 2019



RUSH: Hi, folks. Once again time for more play-by-play of the news. Are you watching this? I got a bunch of emails today, including from a really good friend in California said, “I had to turn this off, Rush, it’s so disturbing. The amount of hate today is so disturbing, I just had to turn it off, otherwise it would ruin my day.”

See, I can’t turn this stuff off because my job is to do play-by-play of the news. So I’m watching this. If you have heard the term “show trial” and never quite understood what it is, this is it. This entire thing is a setup. These three so-called law professors are indeed law professors, but they are appearing today as ultraliberal left-wing hacks disguised as law professors to give this whole proceeding some credibility because the Democrats can’t do that on their own.

These three people — Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt — have obviously been coached. The questions are softball setups unlike I have ever heard. Every one of these witnesses testifying is a fact witness. They’re all talking about how Trump sought opposition research against a political opponent from a foreign leader as though they were on the phone call. They were not on the phone call. They don’t know what happened, outside of the transcript of the phone call.

Jonathan Turley, who was the one voice opposed to the impeachment, not a pro-Trumpster, but he’s opposed to the impeachment, not even asking him any questions. Like Noah Feldman, one of the professors, just said that Trump put personal gain before national security. He doesn’t know that. This is nothing more than left-wing political hackery dressed up. And, folks, the reason why is because the Democrats, none of their civil servant witnesses captured the American people’s attention two weeks ago.

So they went now over to Nadler’s committee and they’ve got these academics, the smartest people in the world we are to believe, these law professors. And by virtue of that they’re supposed to be nonpartisan, you see. They’re just interested in the law. They’re just interested in the Constitution, and they’re just uber, stinking liberal hacks. And I’ve got some audio coming up in a moment that will show you what these people were saying two weeks after Trump won the election, even before the so-called impeachable offenses came up.

We are also learning here the Democrat Party is the largest hate group in the country. Is there any doubt that anger and intolerance and delusion are now propelling and running this party? This entire proceeding today is to cater to who the Democrats think the majority of the American people are, the crazed bunch of left-wingers that live and breathe on Twitter. That is who is being catered to today. And in that sense, it is mission accomplished.

You know what this really is about? This is about attempting to continue the Russia-Trump collusion lie. That’s what this is really all about. They can’t get over that that came up dry. They can’t get over that there wasn’t any evidence of it. And so all of this, even though it’s ostensibly about Ukraine, if you listen to the language, it’s the identical language these hacks were using all during the two years, three years of trying to convince people that Trump colluded with Putin to steal the election from Hillary.

This professor Feldman says that Trump has put the USA at risk by withholding aid to Ukraine. He did not withhold aid to Ukraine. Obama withheld aid to Ukraine for eight years. Ukraine got its defense aid from Trump after a temporary hold. Trump got nothing for it. There was no investigation of Biden, but if you listen to these people, there was.

In fact, based on what these people said today, it is Joe Biden who ought to be indicted, not impeached. Joe Biden has admitted bribery. Joe Biden has admitted that he interfered in Ukraine’s domestic politics when he was vice president and got a prosecutor looking into his son fired. The prosecutor was fired after Biden gave them six hours. Biden has confessed.

It’s on videotape at the Council on Foreign Relations, bragging about what he did. And he told these people, he’s repeating the story, he said, if you don’t believe me, Mr. Ukraine leader, call Obama. Obama will back me up. If you don’t can that prosecutor, you’re not gonna get your aid.

Six hours later, Biden says the son-of-a-bit-me fired the prosecutor. It is just unreal what is happening here. These people are literally testifying as fact witnesses. None of them have ever met Trump. None of them were on the phone call with Trump. Feldman declared that Trump put personal gain before national security. How does he know this? He’s never met Trump. These people are simply going off media reports.

You know what I find fascinating is the Democrats have to call these scholars, these so-called professors because there’s not a one of them that can testify or ask questions that will compel the attention of the American people. They tried with the civil servants from the State Department, from the ambassadorial corps and all of that with the Schiff hearings, and those were a dull bore. This was sophomoric.

If this is what’s going on in law school classes at Harvard and Stanford and the University of North Carolina, God help us!

“And so in your opinion, if the president had stolen the money, what would that mean for impeachment?”

“That would mean impeachment is something you must do.”

“Well, if — if the president did tell the president of Ukraine that he was wanting him to investigate the now debunked CrowdStrike theory, what should Congress do?”

“Congress should impeach.”

I mean, that’s the extent of what we’ve had here. Now, the Republicans are gonna get their go at this this afternoon, but… (chuckles) This is exactly what I told you it is. They’re now in a mad dash to get this done. They are scared to death what’s gonna happen if Donald Trump gets reelected. They don’t have a candidate who can beat him. Oh, man. You ought to see… Kamala Harris is gone, and the Democrats are beating themselves up over the fact that there aren’t any people of color left in the race. I mean, it’s the strangest thing.

Cory Booker. (impression) “I’m very devastated that there are no more people of color remaining in the race.” “What about you?” “Well…” Gayle King on CBS This Morning said (impression), “I am so distressed that Kamala Harris’ voters did not move over and support Cory Booker.” Why, because of race? Is that why? So you’re disappointed in your own party because your own party’s voters didn’t support the black babe, and then the black babe gets out and the meager number of supporters she had is not going over to the black guy — and you tell us we are racists?

Give me a freaking break! This has been an embarrassment to watch this, and then to see these stupid TV networks put chyron graphics up quoting these Democrat left-wing hacks disguised as law professors as though it is earth-shattering, earth-breaking news, when it was utterly predictable what was gonna happen here today. You’ve got three people here who personally hate Donald Trump who have shown up under the guise of fair, objective academic law professors — who, by the way, are experts in the founding, and they are experts in the Founding Fathers.

And I’ve got a big problem with that, because these people and the party they’re in are in the process of undermining the founding of this country, and they dare show up here today and say what the founders feared and what the founders were warning against and that it’s Donald J. Trump? If the founders were alive today, it’s these three law professors they’d be having a cow over, and the whole Democrat Party over which the founders would be thinking, “Maybe our experiment has failed. If this bunch of hacks has become a majority political party in America, our experiment’s over.”

I wish that I could have turned this off, but I can’t because I do play-by-play of the news. Spying on the Republican candidate for president, a witch hunt by Robert J. Mueller — a silent coup that they have admitted to, to overturn the election results of 2016 — a phony impeachment, spying on journalists, shadow banning on social media. That’s what the Democrat Party is, and that’s what this hearing is today — and if it isn’t stopped, we are gonna lose the country. If these people are not politically defeated in this effort, what they’re trying to do, we’re gonna lose the country.

The Democrats are out there accusing Trump of all these phantom abuses of power because that is precisely what they have been doing since Obama was in office. It is blatant, easy-to-spot projection. Abuse of power is a game to them. Character assassination is standard operating procedure. The Steele dossier. Steele dossier is a microcosm of how Democrats go about their business: Lie about people, make it up, pass it off as legitimate. Hillary Clinton laundering money through a law firm to produce a smear document with the help of Russian operatives is how Democrats prepare for presidential elections.

An FBI director covering up criminal behavior of a Democrat running for president, Hillary Clinton, James Comey? That’s considered necessary to protect our democracy? You have the FBI director covering up for the legitimate crimes committed by the Democrat nominee in order to protect our democracy? Give me a freaking break! Deceiving the FISA courts with a phony dossier made up of totally false allegations that is used to get warrants to spy on the opposition political candidate, and they tell us we are threatening our democracy, that Donald Trump is threatening our democracy!

This is all terrifying and not a single word of it would be tolerated, not one bit of it, if any of this were being done by Republicans. And I’ll guaran-damn-tee you these three law professors today, if it were a Democrat president accused of the same stuff, they wouldn’t be anywhere near this hearing, and they wouldn’t have anything similar to say whatsoever. Because they are liberal Democrat hacks disguised as law professors, objective and fair and only concerned about our democracy. Ukraine got its money. Trump did not get his investigation.

The transcript of the phone call has been released. There isn’t anything in it that constitutes an impeachable offense. There isn’t a single witness they have called yet who has met Donald Trump. There isn’t a single witness they have called yet other than Lieutenant Colonel Vindman — O say can you see — who wasn’t even on the phone call. We have a two-tiered justice system, two-tiered journalism, which is how a singular, totalitarian state is established.

If you want examples of abuses of power, you will not find them with Donald Trump.

But you can find them in spades with the Democrats and their academics and their civil servants and their ambassadors and their FBI director and their CIA director and their Director of National Intelligence. You can find all kinds of abuses of power, because they abuse power as a matter of course — and I’m not engaging in rhetoric here. I’m not engaging in speculation. We have watched in real time a coup unfold before our very eyes.

Witch hunts.

Stalinist impeachment hearings.

A show trial.

The Democrats get off on this stuff like their former hero Jeffrey Epstein got off abusing minors.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I’m gonna tell you more about these three hacks that showed up here today. They’re law professors at Harvard, Stanford, University of North Carolina. I’m not mentioning Turley ’cause they didn’t ask him any questions. Turley’s opening statement told ’em, “I think you got dangerously thin stuff to go on here. I’m not sure you should be doing this. I don’t support Trump, but I think this is…” They ignored him. He’s up there just for show. He’s up there just to make it look like there’s some kind of balance.

But here is 50 seconds of audio. It’s actually from video that Brad Parscale has posted. It’s a Trump fundraising campaign ad. These are the three lawyers, Michael Gerhardt, Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan, the three “witnesses” today. They aren’t any witnesses to anything! But they are there testifying how honorable Donald Trump is and how he abused his power. They are nothing but uber-left-wing hacks. That’s what they are first and then they are law professors second, and this audio comprises statements these three made as soon as two weeks after the election in 2016.

(bouncy music)

GERHARDT: I was at the University of Pennsylvania law school yesterday where I teach a class, and my class is still in therapy.

FELDMAN: I’m a registered Democrat and have been — have been my whole life.

KARLAN: There are other bad things in the world to fear — including, of course, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and ICE agents who are out of control.

GERHARDT: On the Republican side, it’s largely not fact based.

FELDMAN: There are all kinds of things that the President has done thus far that already I think would reach that — reach that level, most likely.

KARLAN: Even if as a progressive you would believe as I do that I should be paying higher taxes.

FEMALE ANCHOR: Noah, you do urge Congress to start thinking clearly about the power of the impeachment if the President Trump did indeed invoke emergency powers after this tonight?

FELDMAN: (phone) The courts block you, and then eventually Congress sets out to impeach you.

NADLER: (music ends) With a trial in the Senate, we may be able to find out who started this coup d’etat.

RUSH: “With a trial in the Senate, we may be able to find out who started this coup d’etat.” The Democrats have admitted that that’s what this is. So here are the three — Gerhardt, Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan — and they literally are left-wing Democrat hacks who were disturbed as all get-out after Trump won the election in 2016. Pamela Karlan: “There are other bad things in the world to fear — including, of course, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and ICE agents who are out of control.” Gerhardt: “On the Republican side, it’s largely not fact based.” It’s these people that don’t have any facts.

There’s not a single bit of evidence that anybody’s produced. These people are up testifying as though they were in the American foreign policy establishment when Trump was doing whatever he was doing with Ukraine. But I’m telling you, folks, the way to understand this — if it’s possible. The way to understand this, if you listen to the language here, is these people are still litigating the Trump-Russia collusion case.

Every time they talk about “colluding with a foreign power,” every time they mention “using a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent,” these people cannot get over that they bombed out on the Russia-collusion affair. They can’t get over it, they can’t accept the Mueller report’s findings that there wasn’t any, and so they’re still living it, trying to make it real. And all Ukraine is, is a little tiptoe in the direction they wish this had gone.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I want to go down the list of the cast of characters here. Now, the Republicans have just begun. Doug Collins is a ranking Republican from Georgia, and he’s giving his opening statement now, soon be asking questions. He’s listing all of the evidence they have not been given from the Schiff report. All the things that are still being kept in some closet somewhere that they’re not being allowed to see.

So as this transpires this afternoon, it will be following the same course as all the others. The morning testimony will look devastating. It’s over for President Trump. He may as well just resign. And then they get to the afternoon session, things blow up, so we’ll even keep you apprised.

I want to first tell you who the lawyer is that the round mound of the gavel has chosen as staff counsel to interrogate the witnesses. Of course, this is all a script. Folks, if you watch this, this is essentially a kindergarten teacher asking his students if they can remember the answers to the test that he gave them 30 minutes prior to the hearing beginning. It’s sophomoric. It’s embarrassing to watch this.

(imitating the hearing) “And do you think on this basis the president should be –”

“I think he should be hung! I think he should be hung right now, not just impeached.”

It’s infuriating to watch this because this whole thing is a show. It is a scripted show designed to accomplish what Schiff failed to do, and that’s to come up with some compelling reason for people to watch this. So when what’s-his-name, Nadler, turns to counsel for questioning, he’s turning to a really dorky looking guy by the name of Norm Eisen.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ lawyer asking the penetrating questions, is a former White House official under Obama. Eisen founded a left-wing hack group called CREW, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which targets Republicans and conservatives and ignores Democrats except just for show. CREW, C-R-E-W.

The Democrat lawyer Norm Eisen founded CREW before going on to join the Obama administration. In 2011, Norm Eisen served as the ethics czar in the Obama Regime. Obama later appointed an ambassador to the Czech Republic and then after that Eisen served as a CNN political commentator. Schiff’s lawyer was an MSNBC commentator. Nadler’s lawyer is a CNN commentator. He was a supporter of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ lawyer on this committee, cowrote a New York Times op-ed in December 2018 talking about new evidence of collusion with Russia, one year ago, new evidence. There has never been any. There hasn’t been a shred of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Mueller couldn’t even find it. This guy one year ago writes an op-ed in the New York Times talking about new evidence of collusion with Russia.

I’m telling you, they have not given that up. They are still trying to make that connection with as many of their supporters as they can. No evidence has been found. The lead counsel on Schiff’s committee, Daniel Goldman, he was also an MSNBC pundit. And he also endorsed the Russian collusion hoax. So the two lawyers that Democrats have chosen to ask questions of the so-called witnesses are a bunch of hacks that believe in the coup, that supported the coup, that believe the Trump-Russia collusion story that no evidence exists for.

Now to the lawyers, the guests. Noah Feldman. All three of these people hate Donald Trump. They loath him, folks. They have been calling for Trump’s removal from office since the first week after he was elected. Noah Feldman was among the first to pronounce that Trump’s call with Zelensky was a crime. Feldman has declared a number of Trump’s actions to be impeachable offenses, including Trump’s pardoning of Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona. When Trump pardoned him, this guy Feldman said that’s an impeachable offense. Get rid of Trump.

He said that Trump tweeting about being wiretapped is an impeachable offense. Get rid of Trump. He even said that Trump deserves to be impeached for calling the fake news the enemy of the people. The lead guest today, the star guest said Trump should be impeached for these three things, pardoning Joe Arpaio, for Trump saying that his wires had been tapped at Trump Tower, and by calling the fake news the enemy of the people.

Noah Feldman also claimed the debunked story about Trump directing Michael Cohen to lie was an impeachable offense. But Trump did not direct Michael Cohen to lie. Feldman even said that an ad for Mar-a-Lago that accidentally appeared on the State Department website was a violation of the emoluments clause and Trump should be impeached for that. Feldman is a proud member of the Russia collusion cult.

This guy’s a leading law professor at Harvard and he’s a kook. He is a conspiracy cook who was heavily embedded in the coup attempt. He claimed in 2017 that more and more evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia has come to light, even though none has. That’s a star witness today.

More recently the star witness, Noah Feldman, wrote an op-ed in which he declared what makes Trump’s alleged conduct so terrible is not that he froze aid to Ukraine for a policy purpose. What makes Trump’s alleged conduct outrageous is the appearance that he was doing it for his own personal benefit. Except Ukraine got the money. And Trump did not get his investigation. And he did not link the two. The two were not linked. There was no quid pro quo.

Gordon Sondland, what did Trump say? “I don’t want anything from Ukraine. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I don’t want a quid pro quo.” Trump did not link the two. Ukraine got their aid. It was under Obama Ukraine didn’t get any aid. It was under Obama that his vice president threatens the prosecutor. Well, threatens the country, if they don’t fire the prosecutor, they’re not gonna get their aid.

These witnesses have as much as convicted Joe Biden today, if anybody knew what the hell he had done even though he’s admitted it and confessed to it and it’s on video and it’s all over media except you’ll never see it the New York Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, but we’ve played it for you, Biden bragging about how he got the prosecutor fired. The prosecutor, who was looking into his son, threatened to withhold United States military aid.

And, by the way, when Russia moved in, annexed Crimea, one-third of Ukraine, Obama still didn’t come to their rescue even though we had a treaty promising them we would. Donald Trump gave them their aid. There was no personal quid pro quo whatsoever and yet this kook Feldman is out claiming he’s got new evidence of Russia collusion, all these impeachable offenses that Trump has engaged in. And now he’s withholding aid to Ukraine that he did not withhold for his own personal gain.

And Feldman has called for a new special counsel to investigate Rudy and William Barr, the attorney general. “But Rush, but Rush, he’s just a law professor.” He’s a political hack. He’s a political hack activist. He’s appearing today as an academic. Pamela Karlan, the lone acknowledgment and tip of the hat to diversity on the Democrats’ panel, she was one of 42 legal scholars, quote, unquote, who wrote a letter attacking Trump even before he took office.

That letter told Trump he had to change his views on a number of issues, and it criticized rhetoric. After Trump fired Comey, Pamela Karlan said that Trump had been behaving extraordinarily badly, said Republicans would spur the country towards a constitutional crisis if they failed to hold Trump in check. And where are we?

So these two witnesses have hated, have opposed Donald Trump since his campaign. The hatred has intensified since his election. Their efforts to undermine him and get rid of him have intensified even further. And yet they appear today as reasoned, unaffected, terribly concerned about the future of the Constitution scholars.

Michael Gerhardt. He’s from the North Carolina University of Law school. He’s been calling for Trump’s impeachment for a long time. Even though he testified during Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 that members of Congress are unlikely to pursue similar charges against the president ever again.

Now, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and suborning perjury. He was not impeached over Lewinsky. Back then Gerhardt said this will never happen again. Gerhardt argued Congress should agree to have bipartisan support before authorizing congressional subpoenas or investigations. They haven’t done that. And yet he’s up there supporting everything they’re doing here trying to get rid of Trump because there is no bipartisan here and he has previously said on the record impeachment must be bipartisan or it is worth nothing.

He said at the very least, members of Congress should require committee chairs and ranking minority members of committees to agree before initiating investigations or issuing legislative subpoenas, none of which has transpired in the impeachment inquiry against Trump.

Jonathan Turley, who was called by the Republicans even though Turley is actually a liberal Democrat, last month Turley said that the Democrats are proceeding on the narrowest basis for impeachment in the history of the country. And they’re not even asking him any questions.