Speaker 1: This is uh John and Stephanie Connecticut. Great to have
Speaker 1: you with us. High Hey, Rush, it's Bethany Connecticut, not
Speaker 1: Stephanie Connecticut. What what is it? Bethany Bethany? Okay, Mr
Speaker 1: Mr Sturnley, mishurt you. I've never heard of Stephanie Connecticut either,
Speaker 1: but well it's probably I got a crappy stone. But
Speaker 1: my point is is, why isn't the simple answer for
Speaker 1: everyone who wants to talk about Russian interference in the election,
Speaker 1: The simple answer should be ask Obama. He was the president,
Speaker 1: he was in charge, it was his powers that be
Speaker 1: that had the last day and everything. Why isn't it
Speaker 1: Why doesn't anyone ever want to blame him? And why
Speaker 1: isn't that the simple solution for every Conservatives? Well, you're
Speaker 1: you're getting ahead of something, and I intend to come
Speaker 1: up anyway here, So let me let me get started
Speaker 1: on the on the transition. I want to go back,
Speaker 1: if you remember, not long ago, play the SoundBite from
Speaker 1: Michael Casey, former judge Mcasey, and he was Attorney General
Speaker 1: for a while under George but Bush. And he pointed
Speaker 1: out that the first lie of the mull of the
Speaker 1: first line of the Muller report is a line that
Speaker 1: the investigation began when George Stephanopolos got drunk at a
Speaker 1: bar and totally ambassador from Australia to Russians had dirt
Speaker 1: on Hillary Clinton. That's not when it began. Now, that
Speaker 1: was the end of July two thousand sixteen. Long before that,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama had been talking about Russian intervention in the
Speaker 1: election and pooh pooing it. Well, you're you're exactly right.
Speaker 1: Obama had been talking about the fact that it would
Speaker 1: be impossible to rig a United States presidential election. The
Speaker 1: reason that Obama was doing this was because the Democrats
Speaker 1: were hearing, uh getting getting messages rumbles from the Trump
Speaker 1: administration that the Trump administration Trump campaign was suggesting that
Speaker 1: the Russians were trying to help the Hillary camp pain
Speaker 1: and that the Russians might be involved in some things.
Speaker 1: And this is what caused Obama to go out and
Speaker 1: pooh pooh the idea he was he was basically trolling Trump.
Speaker 1: But this is long before July two thousand and sixteen.
Speaker 1: But you are absolutely right that everybody involved in this
Speaker 1: coup or scandal has direct ties to both Obama and
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. Okay, our last caller from Stephanie, Connecticut. How
Speaker 1: could you how could you not hear about how could
Speaker 1: you think that a town was named Stephanie? You asked,
Speaker 1: you mean the caller confirmed and it was Stephanie. All right.
Speaker 1: Caller threw snartily into the No, the caller threw me
Speaker 1: under the I'm the one who said Stephanie, Connecticut. You
Speaker 1: didn't get thrown under the bus. I did. But see
Speaker 1: that's I take the hit. I'm on the front lines.
Speaker 1: I never complain or blame highly overpain overrated staffers. That's
Speaker 1: part of being the guy. You take the hits, you
Speaker 1: get the acclaim, you also take the blame. No problem
Speaker 1: that it doesn't happen much Stephanie Connecticut. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: what it's set up there. So I I could have
Speaker 1: just said Connecticut, none for and I thought about that
Speaker 1: for a brief split second. His point was, all this
Speaker 1: talk of collusion, all that will no matter what you're
Speaker 1: talking about, it all happened while Obama was president, All
Speaker 1: of this investigation, this coup, when it all happened when
Speaker 1: Obama was president. And that's exactly right. And this has
Speaker 1: long been a question that all of us just how
Speaker 1: high up. Does this go now? You and I, let's
Speaker 1: be honest, we don't have any doubt that Obama is
Speaker 1: in on this and aware of it. And some of
Speaker 1: you may in fact believe that Obama was behind it,
Speaker 1: the energy and the impetus behind it. Some of these
Speaker 1: people were doing things that if they were going rogue
Speaker 1: and a president doesn't know some of these things are
Speaker 1: going on and finds out about it, heads would roll.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are legacies to be concerned with, there's
Speaker 1: the Constitution to be concerned with. But not only were
Speaker 1: they not stopped, they are still being encouraged. Every one
Speaker 1: of these operatives, even the people have been fired, are
Speaker 1: still writing books. They're still out trying to shape the
Speaker 1: narrative on this. And by the way, just as an asside,
Speaker 1: they're more and more people now beginning to ask. And
Speaker 1: I'm glad because I think this is stunning and shocking
Speaker 1: the fact that not one media person, not one has
Speaker 1: sought to find the real story here, that everyone of them,
Speaker 1: hundreds of them, became complicit. These are people that normally
Speaker 1: are standing guard vigilantly against government overreach, government reach into
Speaker 1: civil liberties violations. These are the people that facilitated civil
Speaker 1: liberties violations. They helped it. In fact, folks, in point
Speaker 1: of fact, if you want to get down to brass
Speaker 1: tax on this, this could not have happened without the media.
Speaker 1: If the c i A, If Brennan and Clapper and
Speaker 1: Come at all had not had the media, they could
Speaker 1: not have pulled this off. And I don't just mean
Speaker 1: from the standpoint that, uh, the media didn't look into them.
Speaker 1: They actively needed the media as sympaticos. They needed the
Speaker 1: media as members of the army. They needed media as
Speaker 1: members of the operation. It's not just the media didn't
Speaker 1: try to expose what they were doing. It's that the
Speaker 1: media was the army. And if that weren't the case,
Speaker 1: this wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as it did.
Speaker 1: I think it's safe to say that this coup could
Speaker 1: not have happened without the media. And now people are
Speaker 1: starting to realize this, and they're starting to take note
Speaker 1: of just what really happened here, that there was not
Speaker 1: one attempt by anyone in the legacy the mainstream media
Speaker 1: that attempted to get any of this right. More and
Speaker 1: more people are referencing this in the tweets and story
Speaker 1: and I am happy to see it. Now. I ran
Speaker 1: across the piece that was sent to me by a
Speaker 1: good friend over the weekend from the Federalist, and it's
Speaker 1: written by h A. Goodman. That's a long piece. Will
Speaker 1: link to it at Russia limba dot com. That the
Speaker 1: headline is this John Durham, which is BARS investigator? Who
Speaker 1: is Bars investigator? John Durham needs to investigate why the
Speaker 1: information generating the Muller probe is all linked to Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: At a certain point, it cannot be mere coincidence that
Speaker 1: every major figure involved in probing Trump's campaign is linked
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton in some manner. Now, his point was Obama,
Speaker 1: but I think Obama and Hillary are inseparable. Here. The
Speaker 1: FBI had a budget approaching ten billion dollars during Comey's
Speaker 1: tenure as its director. Combined with the budgets for the
Speaker 1: c i A and the n s A, these agencies
Speaker 1: cost taxpayers around thirty billion dollars annually. Now that may
Speaker 1: seem cheap, it may seem less than you would think.
Speaker 1: The c i A Black ops budget alone, nobody knows
Speaker 1: what it is. CIA owns airlines, the c i A
Speaker 1: owns all kinds of things. Ten billion dollar budget for
Speaker 1: the CIA, but it will go with the number thirty
Speaker 1: billion combined FBI, c i A, n s A. Therefore,
Speaker 1: one would think that incriminating evidence derived from the FBI,
Speaker 1: n s A or c i A could have linked
Speaker 1: Trump to Russian hackers or crimin operatives. If that evidence
Speaker 1: existed for thirty billion dollars, you could find it. Thirty
Speaker 1: billion dollars in the best of the brightest, with that,
Speaker 1: you could find it. Instead, almost all the major findings
Speaker 1: used to justify investigations into Trump's campaign or linked to
Speaker 1: Hillary not the CIA's work, not the n s a's work,
Speaker 1: not the FBI's were pretty much every major finding led
Speaker 1: by the dossier. Pretty much every leak that the New
Speaker 1: York Times and CNN in Washington Post ran came from
Speaker 1: somebody associated with Hillary Clinton. The heads of America's top
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies used a dossier link to Clinton funding a
Speaker 1: tech firm outsourced by the d n C. This would
Speaker 1: be Fusion, GPS and CrowdStrike. They used hearsay from Alexander Downer,
Speaker 1: the Australian ambassador who is a donor to the Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation and an associate of same. The evidence leading up
Speaker 1: to the Mueller probe was so specious that the Department
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security, in the Office of the Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence reports that were compiled by Clapper and others
Speaker 1: had warrantied disclaimers. Pray and Trump was investigated based on
Speaker 1: intelligence linked to statements like quote, Department of Homeland Security
Speaker 1: does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any
Speaker 1: information contained within and quote. Judgments are not intended to
Speaker 1: imply that we have proof that shows something to be affect.
Speaker 1: That's why every story on this in paragraph thirteen reference
Speaker 1: the fact that none of this had yet been proven,
Speaker 1: but all of the evidence that came from intelligence agencies
Speaker 1: did come with disclaimers that I just read you. William
Speaker 1: Barr has hired prosecutor John Durham to investigate the origins
Speaker 1: of the Mueller investigation. A key issue for Durham to
Speaker 1: resolve is why the inciting information never originated within the
Speaker 1: US government. Why has the funding for Democrats, along with
Speaker 1: other blatant conflicts of interest being ignored by Comey, Clapper,
Speaker 1: and Brennan. Although an estimated seventy percent of intelligence budgets
Speaker 1: go to private contractors, these private companies work with classified
Speaker 1: material and their workers hold security clearances. Fusion GPS, the
Speaker 1: firm Clinton the Democrats hired to compile the Steel dossier
Speaker 1: did not provide the FBI classified intelligence. In fact, the
Speaker 1: Steel dossier still unverified and anyone can read it within
Speaker 1: the BuzzFeed article that publicized at all CrowdStrike. The third
Speaker 1: party tech firm the d n C hired to analyze
Speaker 1: its servers instead of the FBI did not provide the FBI,
Speaker 1: the CIA, or n s A any classified intelligence from
Speaker 1: their investigation of the server, since the d n C
Speaker 1: is a private entity that never allowed U s intell
Speaker 1: agencies near its servers. The words nothing that came from
Speaker 1: official work of the CIA or the FBI or the
Speaker 1: n s A actually ended up in this investigation. It
Speaker 1: all came from people or firms associated with Hillary Clinton. Comey,
Speaker 1: for example, never used intelligence derived from US sources to
Speaker 1: initiate or justify investigations into Trump's campaign. All the information
Speaker 1: that Comy, Clapper, and Brennan used to justify investigating Trump
Speaker 1: was data linked to Clinton or Democrats in some manner.
Speaker 1: During a Fox News interview with Bill Hemmer, William Barr
Speaker 1: explained that initiating a counter intelligence probe from the Steele
Speaker 1: dossier was very unusual. Can you tell us about the
Speaker 1: Steele dussie what role did it play? Bar? Well, that's
Speaker 1: that's one of the questions. We're gonna have to look at.
Speaker 1: Very unusual situation. To have opposition research like that, especially
Speaker 1: one that's on its face, had a number of clear
Speaker 1: mistakes and somewhat June analysis, and to use that to
Speaker 1: conduct counter intelligence against an American political campaign would be
Speaker 1: strange development. I'm not sure what role it played, but
Speaker 1: that's something we're gonna have to look at. Emmer, do
Speaker 1: you smell a rat in this? Bar? I don't know
Speaker 1: if I describe it as a rat. I just say
Speaker 1: the answers I'm getting are not sufficient. Durham will no
Speaker 1: doubt investigate the intent behind these decisions and the true
Speaker 1: reasons America's intelligence agencies outsourced virtually all of the evidence
Speaker 1: against that. That's the key Clapper brand. They were outsourcing
Speaker 1: everything to the Brits. They're outsourcing everything to to steal
Speaker 1: to Fusion GPS. Everybody they outsourced it to was linked
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton, folks. Everything, every aspect of this, None
Speaker 1: of it came from legitimate FBI or CIA investigations. In
Speaker 1: other words, even struck Strokes, Mark, and Page were clued
Speaker 1: into the things they did by tip offs and guidance
Speaker 1: from the Clinton campaigner people therein At a certain point,
Speaker 1: it can't be mere coincidence that every major figure involved
Speaker 1: in probing Trump's campaign is linked to Hillary Clinton in
Speaker 1: some manner. Christopher Steele, desperate to prevent Trump from being president,
Speaker 1: was paid a hundred and sixty grand by Democrats before
Speaker 1: he compiled as dossier. Democrat National Committee lawyers met with
Speaker 1: FBI officials before a surveillance warrant was granted, raising questions
Speaker 1: as to why the FBI would meet with a political
Speaker 1: parties lawyers yet not informed Trump that his campaign was
Speaker 1: under investigation. Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele, was
Speaker 1: paid by money from Hillary Clinton and the d n C,
Speaker 1: and funneled through a law firm to compile the Steele dossier,
Speaker 1: not the FBI, not the CIA, not the n S A.
Speaker 1: Clinton allies gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the
Speaker 1: political campaign of Andrew McCabe wife. Yet the former FBI
Speaker 1: Deputy director only recused himself from Clinton's email probe one
Speaker 1: week before the election CrowdStrike. The only entity to analyze
Speaker 1: the claimed d n C email hack was outsourced and
Speaker 1: paid by the Democratic National Committee. Australian diplomat Downer informed
Speaker 1: the FBI of a conversation with George Papadopoulos. Or down
Speaker 1: stated that Trump campaign official was given information by a
Speaker 1: Russian operative about the d n C emails. Downer is
Speaker 1: not even mentioned in the Muller report, was never interviewed
Speaker 1: during the Muller probe, and is linked to the Clinton Foundation.
Speaker 1: And yet the opening line of the report says that
Speaker 1: it all began with Papadopoulos telling down her about the
Speaker 1: point goes on in this piece, and it's very good,
Speaker 1: and it's one of these pieces. Nothing in this is new.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm going through the rush. We knew that
Speaker 1: would have heard that. The point is Mr Goodman's come along,
Speaker 1: and later blatantly stated that everybody involved here running this
Speaker 1: coup was somehow tied to the Clinton campaign, not officially, FBI,
Speaker 1: not officially. C I A not a fit and these
Speaker 1: people didn't do any counter intel investigation there own. They
Speaker 1: were just working with each other, setting Trump up in January,
Speaker 1: telling him the Golden Shower story from the dossier that
Speaker 1: was to get it as news on CNN and then elsewhere.
Speaker 1: Back to the phones, Henderson, North Carolina, this is a lamar.
Speaker 1: Great to have you, Lamar. How are you doing, sir,
Speaker 1: Hey Rose, good to talk to you. Hey. I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty clear if you delve into it a little bit,
Speaker 1: why Mueller doesn't want to testify, and that's because of
Speaker 1: a couple of questions he can't answer. Uh. He never
Speaker 1: expected an attorney general bar to be appointed, and so
Speaker 1: his kind of fallback plan if he couldn't find uh
Speaker 1: slam dunk case to challenge the O o LC guidance
Speaker 1: and and diet Trump anyways, was to float this language
Speaker 1: in his report, with the O l C guidance being
Speaker 1: the excuse where he's got two parallel paths going. He
Speaker 1: did not accuse Trump of any wrongdoing. And then aside
Speaker 1: from that, he puts all of this O l C
Speaker 1: guidance language implying that that's the reason, but he never
Speaker 1: actually explicitly says that's the reason. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: if I were to tell you, Rush, we just got
Speaker 1: to the beach, but you can't go in the water
Speaker 1: because of the bacteria, the sharks and the riptide and
Speaker 1: then somebody comes up later and ask you, Rush, why
Speaker 1: didn't you go in the water, and you say, because
Speaker 1: I can't swim. One had nothing to do with the other, right, So,
Speaker 1: but he wants it to appear that way. And you
Speaker 1: can see this battle going on between bar and Mueller,
Speaker 1: back and forth, and Barn knows what he was up
Speaker 1: to the whole time. So he asked him that question
Speaker 1: explicitly in the March fifth meeting and had him admit
Speaker 1: in front of witnesses that the OLC guidance is not
Speaker 1: the reason that he did not indict Trump or try
Speaker 1: to or accuse him of any wrongdoing. And from there
Speaker 1: on it's been a battle back and forth. So Mueller
Speaker 1: followed up with that whiney letter in March complaining about
Speaker 1: the characterization of Bars letter, and then, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: he had he had his press conference after that, and
Speaker 1: the d o J had to follow that up with
Speaker 1: another statement saying, hey, these two statements are let me
Speaker 1: let me jump in over for a second, because it's
Speaker 1: not quite this complicated. Let me once again put this
Speaker 1: through the complexity synthesizer. The Mueller team had nothing, ever,
Speaker 1: they never had any evidence of collusion. They had to
Speaker 1: manufacture the illusion or illusion of UM obstruction and then
Speaker 1: reference it because what they were doing from the get
Speaker 1: go was preparing think of the Mueller team as the
Speaker 1: House UM impeachment lawyers. That's what they have done. They
Speaker 1: have tried to create a case for Democrat House managers
Speaker 1: to use in impeaching Trump. Mueller doesn't want to testify
Speaker 1: because he doesn't doesn't want to have to answer questions
Speaker 1: the Republicans would ask about the things he ignored.