El Rushbo Gets Off the 18th Hole, Tells Us What’s Really Going On With the Mueller Hoax

SNERDLEY: Well, I never thought this would happen, ever, in the history -- Rush is here. He's here. And he will be in shortly. That was an incredible weekend, wasn't it? Hope you all had a wonderful -- this is the Rush Limbaugh program. Don't be surprised. This is Mr. Snerdley. Yeah, I'm not gonna be doing the whole show. I'm not guest hosting.

Rush Limbaugh, our hero, the man of the hour, is here. He's on the premises. He had to take care of a quick piece of business first. So today what we have on tap… I can't wait to hear the show. I can't wait to hear what Rush is gonna talk about because I've seen so many great pictures from the golf outing.

(interruption) Thank you. I have real announcer headphones now. So one of the things that we have, and I'm sure that Rush is gonna talk about, is the incredible weekend that he had playing golf with the president. That was pretty awesome.

And he's on a super-secret phone call, so who knows what is being discussed, ‘cause this is the first time this has ever happened. So it has to be an important super-secret phone call.

And, aside from that and the beautiful pictures that came out, we've got how many Democrats now running for office? Twenty? He's probably gonna talk about that. I can't wait. (interruption) Wait a minute. The secret phone call is over! He's back! The real radio announcer is here!

RUSH: I am sorry about that, sir. Thank you, Mr. Snerdley! Let me clip up here. I don't think this has ever happened, folks. Here we go. Let me sit down in the official Attila the Hun chair. Did you play the theme song opening the program?

Greetings, my friends, great to be here, and thanks to Mr. Snerdley for sitting in here and opening -- this has never happened before, but I just got off the 18th hole and I had to race in here. (laughing) Nah, just kidding.

Anyway, folks, you know, I've been watching all this that you've been watching, the never-ending obsession of the media propelling the Democrat Party with this report, with impeachment. And I'm frustrated here. And I'm gonna make another attempt at explaining what I think is really wrong with all of this.

And it may be futile. We may be beyond the point where we can actually get people repositioned on what happened here. What I'm talking about is we're still talking about this as "the investigation" where Trump was cleared, but now there's some controversy about it. All we heard was Russians, Russians, Russians for two years, and there never were any Russians and there never was any Trump collusion and there never was any evidence of it, and there never was an investigation.

That's not what this was! And yet everybody keeps talking about with that premise or in that way. And that's not what this was! And so all of this talk about Trump and obstruction of justice is moot! All weekend I've been struggling trying to come up with the perfect analogy that I could use to have -- and I'm sure you all understand. I'm looking for ways of getting this beyond you and this audience. I'm trying to arm you with ways in which you can tell others what really happened here and how bogus all of this in the aftermath is.

Now, I know the Democrats have to proceed on the basis that Mueller got it wrong and that there's all kinds of stuff that for some reason wasn't reported and that it's all impeachable because that's how this all started and so they can't let go of it, and Twitter won't let go -- by Twitter I mean their base. And so there's an argument, is it maybe gonna be beneficial for the Democrats -- do you know how big this is? This is Earth Day! This is Earth Day!

According to these wackos we've got 12 years left, 12 years and we're dead. I mean, the Nightwalkers are headed our way! The Night King and the marching army of the dead are 12 years out. And they're not even talking about it today! Earth Day! Global warming, climate change, they're not even talking about it, that's how obsessed they are with this.

I don't think they're ever going to impeach Trump, but they have to make it look like they're going to, and I think there are some of them that do want to, don't misunderstand. But all of this, all of this is not predicated on anything that really happened. All of this is made up.

So I haven't come up with this perfect analogy yet to help people understand. It's not enough to say, "Imagine that you are accused of robbing a bank you've never been to and that your enemies have got an investigation going of this, and there are newspaper stories and leaks placing you near the bank, talking to people who saw you go, but you never did, you've never been there." The analogy doesn't work for a number of reasons because what this involves was more than robbing a bank.

It's not enough just to say that it was a coup or a silent coup, even though that's exactly what this was. Now they're going after Barr. We all knew -- and I predicted that the left would use what Mueller wrote -- Mueller is so clueless. They're even going after Mueller now. Reporters camping outside his church to berate him. What did he think was gonna happen here when he turns in a report that says no collusion after getting everybody excited and expecting to see collusion?

Mueller could have shut this down the day he took the job and saw the empty file on collusion. This report could have been done in one page. But it's not one page. It's 488 pages of gossip. Do you remember how last week I told you that one of the tricks the FBI used to get their FISA warrants approved, they would leak lies, what turned out to be lies.

For two years we saw all these stories with anonymous sources, and they were every day. New York Times, Washington Post, CNN. For two years, anonymous sources, the walls are closing in, all this innuendo and gossip, all these lies designed to convince people that Trump had colluded with Russia, that he was a traitor, that he was a foreign Russian agent. And Mueller has known from the first day he took the job that that's not true, none of that was ever true.

So instead of one page or two pages, we get 488 pages of recycled media. The FBI leaks all those stories to the media. The media prints them, and then the FBI takes those same stories to the FISA court and says, "Look, Judge. It's not just our intelligence. The media knows the same stuff."

Well, the Mueller report does the same thing! The Mueller report recycles what turn out to be totally false and made-up news stories. They've written basically a smear novel here. It's a novel. It's a smear job. It's got a bunch of gossip in it that's allowing all of these news media people to continue to focus on. It didn't happen. And that's why this whole premise needs to be blown to smithereens.

Trump did not "survive an investigation." There wasn't an investigation! (chuckles) Look, I'm gonna apologize again for being redundant here. I know you've heard me say this over and over again, but it really is the key to putting this thing in the rearview mirror, is to get as many people to understand what happened here and that there wasn't an investigation and that Trump survived one, that "Trump came very close..." I'll tell you what Trump came close to. Let me tell you how close this was. Everything about this...

Let me ask you a question. Everything about this was a lie -- everything, folks -- and I'm here to tell you. Even the New York Times has a story over the weekend that, you know what? Maybe the Steele dossier was incorrect. "Interviews with people familiar with Mr. Steele’s work on the dossier and the FBI’s scramble to vet its claims suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after the document became public — and a preoccupation of Trump opponents — in early 2017.

"Mr. Steele has made clear to associates that he always considered the dossier to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation." Are you telling me that now the New York Times is admitting what we've all known; the dossier was a pack of lies? The New York Times is just now getting around to figuring this out and is doing a mea culpa and asking us to be tolerant? Hey, have you called the FISA court and told them this? Have you told the FISA court, "By the way, that dossier we used to get the warrants on spy on everybody? Ahhh, we don't think there's anything true in it."

What did they say here? "he FBI’s scramble to vet its claims suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after the document became public ... in early 2017." When was Mueller appointed? After this! Are you telling me that Mueller was appointed special counsel to investigate a dossier that everybody knew at that time was a pack of lies? Yes! That's exactly what happened. Everybody knew it was a farce! Everybody knew it was from the Hillary Clinton campaign at that time! They ran with it anyway.

They were hell-bent on getting Donald Trump out of office. They had failed in the 2016 presidential election, so they were gonna get it done some other way. There's another paragraph -- get this -- in the New York Times story. It's three writers: Scott Shane, Adam Goldman and Matthew Rosenberg. "How the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source."

Really? You gotta be kidding me. You don't know how the dossier ended up loaded with dubious details? You sure as hell do! This is the whole point! Everybody at the New York Times and everybody in Mueller's office and everybody on the left knows exactly how the dossier came to be loaded with "dubious" ingredients. It was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton! It was opposition research. It was designed for exactly what it accomplished. It was designed to spread lies that the media could tell people were true.

It was designed to create impressions that would nullify and negate the image and reputation of Donald Trump. Here's this. This is a late paragraph of the same story: "Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation." Mr. Steele has not ruled out...? You mean Steele doesn't know how his own dossier got corrupted? Are you kidding us? You're asking us to believe from the New York Times that Steele doesn't know? He wrote it and he doesn't know how it got corrupted? It might be "Russian disinformation"?

They have known this since... Folks, they have known this since before Donald Trump took office. And now that Mueller didn't find any collusion, now they're starting to leak this stuff out in a CYA. Let me ask you this question. It's my original question from a few minutes ago. Since everything else in this is a lie, why didn't they just finish the job? Why didn't Mueller issue a report that confirmed Trump colluded with Russia! Not "confirmed," "said." Why didn't Mueller release a report saying that his investigation found collusion between Trump and Russia?

And you're saying, "Well, Rush, there isn't any evidence of that." There isn't any evidence for anything, is the point, folks. There's no evidence for anything you think you've learned in the past two years. There is no evidence for a single thing regarding collusion. Therefore, all this stuff that happened that is said to be obstruction is likewise made up. It all happens in a universe where the target knows he's being set up, where the target knows he's being screwed, where the target knows he's being set up for ruination.

He knows he didn't do it.

He knows it didn't happen.

He knows they don't have any evidence for it, but he's gotta play along with this investigation story because it's already been set in motion. So he has to play along with it and he has to manage it as best he can. He knows he didn't do it! He knows it didn't happen! So anything they now claim is obstruction in the process cannot possibly be, because there wasn't an obstruction! There was an attempt to destroy him! And I think if somebody sets out to destroy you, you pretty much can do whatever you need to defend yourself.

But Trump went the extra mile: Millions of documents turned over, answered written questions, did not deny anybody the chance to talk to Mueller, did not assert executive privilege. So now the New York Times says that "Mr. Steele’s work ... suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after ... early 2017. ... How the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source. Another possibility -- one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out -- could be Russian disinformation."

No. Steele made it up.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Trump had a great tweet this morning after getting back to Washington. He says, "How do you impeach a Republican President for a crime that was committed by the Democrats?" Which is a great question. Every crime that ended up occurring here was committed by Democrats. But before getting back into that, I want to ask you again and put this in context. Everything about this was a lie, and the New York Times is now admitting, the dossier was never true, and they're only just now beginning to realize it even though they admit they knew it in early 2017.

So everything in it is a lie.

The dossier was the primary ingredient used to get FISA warrants to spy. So since everything in this is a lie, for two years the mainstream media -- New York Times, CNN, Washington Post (two years, folks, four to five stories a day) -- nothing but lies. So now Mueller does a report, and his report features recycled news stories as though they are part of his investigation. He doesn't cite the news stories; he just repeats the same stuff that he's already leaked to the media during the investigation and calls it evidence, or insufficient evidence or what have you.

Why didn't they close the loop? Why didn't they issue a report...? Since everything else is a lie, why didn't they finish it and say, "...and we have found that the president of the United States did indeed act in corporation and collusion with the government of Russia to sabotage the 2016 election"? It would have been very easy. Why didn't they? I'm serious. Why didn't they? Since everything else in this thing is a lie, why didn't they finish the job? Think where we would be today had that report concluded that Trump colluded with Russia.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Looking forward to chatting with you as we go to the phones later on. 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.

People ask me all the time if I think Barr is serious about this investigation, and I do. And I think there are several Republicans, Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows, and a number of others who are serious about pursuing it, too, particularly the FISA application process, which is what the inspector general is looking into, Mr. Horowitz. And I'll tell you why I think this is true.

It’s predictable, we predicted it here that everybody on the left was going to use the gossip. I'm sorry for being frustrated here, folks. In my own estimation, I'm failing to communicate exactly what I am trying to say here. I keep taking verbal stabs at it.

We have a 488 page report that need not exist because none it was based on anything that really happened. There was no evidence. There was no collusion. And so everything in this, the 488 pages, is just a narrative. It's a trail of bread crumbs that has been left for the Democrats to continue to pursue this impeachment phantom or otherwise, that they are hell-bent on and cannot let go of.

There has to have been some internal conflict on the Mueller team. You cannot tell me that there were not some of these team members which were Hillary Clinton donors -- they were Trump haters -- you cannot tell me that some of those people on that team did not want to issue a report saying there was collusion. And yet the report found none. None. No evidence of collusion and no evidence of obstruction of justice.

And yet look at what's happening. The news every day since is as though that report says the opposite of what it says. Because Mueller -- I think there had to be a compromise. I think some people on that team wanted this report to find collusion even though it wasn't there and just get rid of this guy who they despise. But for some reason those people were either outvoted or something happened and this report does not contain that.

But as a compromise, this report is 448 pages of rumor and gossip and innuendo that, if this kind of scrutiny of any presidency were undertaken, similar results would occur because nobody is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.

For example, the story about Trump ordering Don McGahn to fire the special counsel and McGahn refused to do it because he thought Trump was wrong. What's the bottom line? The bottom line is the special counsel was not fired. So where's the obstruction? “Well, Trump wanted to fire him.” Doesn't matter. He didn't.

Trump didn't need Don McGahn to fire him. He didn't need anybody to get rid of Mueller. He didn't need anybody to get rid of Comey. He didn't need anybody to get rid of anybody he wanted to get rid of. The bottom line is Mueller was not fired! "Yeah, but Trump wanted to fire him. He told McGahn to do it and Trump was only saved because McGahn refused to do it."

So? Where's the crime? "It's not a crime. It's just despicable. The guy's a reprobate." Oh, that he was impeachable? "Well, we think it is if we can prove it." What do you mean, if you can prove it? All along, when is it gonna sink in? There isn't any proof! We wouldn't have the report we have if there was proof. There isn't any proof. The quest to manufacture proof continues. This is exactly what this is.

But now they're turning on Barr. We all knew that they would use these bread crumbs in the Mueller report to keep this whole obstruction and collusion myth alive. But now they seem even more intent on destroying Barr, and some in the media are evening focusing on Mueller! And the reason they want to take Barr out is because they believe him.

They know that Barr is a man of integrity. When Barr says he thinks there was spying on the campaign, it means he knows there was. And he has somehow given the indication that he may actually act on some of these criminal referrals that are coming from Horowitz and Nunes and Lindsey Grahamnesty and maybe even Huber. That's the lawyer that Sessions appointed to go looking at things that we still don't know anything about.

I, for one, think Barr is serious about this. And I'll tell you, I don't even think Barr's seriousness is focused on defending Trump per se. I think Barr is like anybody in that town ought to be if there's even a scintilla of decency and reason. They ought to be shocked over what happened here. There ought to be some genuine, real rage and even a dose of fear over how close 10 or 12 unelected zealots came to succeeding in a silent coup to overturn a presidential election. That has got to frighten people who hold the Department of Justice and the rule of law in high regard.

There has to be accountability for what happened and there has to be accountability for who did it and there has to be accountability for how it happened and even why. And I think Barr is exuding his intention to do so. And I think that's why there is an increasing abject panic, and I think that's why the Democrats are hyping their intent to impeach above even what it otherwise is.

Remember the left every day, life is war, and every day is a battle. And they never take time off. Think of them as a snake that's awake 24/7 slithering through this country doing whatever they can because of their own self-hatred and unhappiness.

Now, I want to go back to the dossier for one moment for a point. The New York Times, as I said in the last half hour, has acknowledged the Steele dossier is not factual. Well, it might not be factual. This is so mind blogging. In fact, Mollie Hemingway tweeted when the Times story came out. She said ha-ha, funny story, you'll never believe it. That dossier we spent years defending – this is the New York Times speaking -- that dossier we spent years defending as legitimate and a worthy basis for FISA wiretaps on citizens is so unfounded it might actually be Russian disinformation? Just like the collusion skeptics warned.

The New York Times is actually reporting the dossier may be Russian disinformation. They knew that even before Trump was inaugurated. So here's something I've always thought to be curious. Dossier is fake, fake research led to an FBI investigation. That fake FBI investigation led to fake news. And that fake news led to a special counsel investigation of fake collusion and fake -- see, even there it didn't lead to fake collusion and didn't lead to a special counsel investigation. It was simply a part of a coup. The dossier was an element of the coup! There was no investigation here. There was something made to look like it was an investigation, but it was not an investigation.

Now, I've always thought this to be curious. Hillary Clinton paid for the dossier, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, her campaign. Why would Hillary Clinton and the Democrat National Committee working on her behalf, why would they spend $10 million for research that was all BS and never demand their money back? You know the one thing missing in all of this -- well, more than one thing missing, but one of the curious things missing, all these stories the dossier now fake -- where is Hillary Clinton demanding her money back?

She supposedly paid $10 million for oppo research on Donald Trump. She paid this guy Steele to go out and find dirt on Donald Trump and this guy produced a bunch of lies. Where is her anger? She really wanted to do damage to Donald Trump. She wanted to get rid of Donald Trump. She wanted to get back at Trump for defeating her. Where is their anger over the fact that this dossier is a bunch of garbage?

Well, there won't be because they were thrilled with what Steele produced! Hillary Clinton had to know that the dossier was nothing more than a bunch of smears. That's what she paid for. For months the media wouldn't publish it because nothing in it checked out, but Hillary and the DNC said nothing. There was no outrage over the work product. Imagine before we all knew about it, the dossier's out there all during the fall of 2016, and nobody will print it, nobody will publish it.

Hillary Clinton's gotta be livid. She paid $10 million for this thing, and nobody's gonna run it because they can't verify it. Why isn't Hillary Clinton angry? Why wasn't the DNC angry over the fact that this $10 million investment wasn't being used and wasn't working? She paid for fake October surprises, fake news. The idea was after she won and if the Trump camp complained about it, well, that would be too late.

But there's so much in this if you just examine it within the rubric of common sense, so much of it falls into place for what it all actually was. And the Mueller report has all these recycled media stories, just like the FISA warrant application did. I would submit to you that no modern president has endured this kind of fanatical hatred, and it has to be extra aggravating that much of the contents and language of this report confirms Trump's claim that his so-called inquisitors were a cabal of angry Democrats.

If you look at the footnotes of the Mueller report, you'll see what they were reading. And you'll understand why the report feels like it was written by the White House Correspondents' Association. The Mueller report is recycled news stories. They're looking at these news stories that they participated in leaking the data to and then citing them as so-called evidence for what was going on. Yet none of it is true!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, let me apologize again for missing the opening moments of the program. I really was on a very important, super-secret phone call that ran long, and I got off of it as quickly as I could. The people on the other end (person on the other end) knew full well the time. It's never happened before but it could not be avoided. I'm just glad Mr. Snerdley was able to come in here and somewhat adequately hold the fort.

Now, one more thing before I go to the phones and this dossier. Folks, this New York Times story on the dossier over the weekend is a bombshell that, of course, is not being treated as a bombshell. It's a quasi-mea culpa. But they are saying that Christopher Steele, who wrote the dossier, is now admitting that it may be that he ended up reporting a bunch of "Russian disinformation."

Russian disinformation. Now, stop and let's just break this down. If the dossier -- which is all they had to get the FISA warrants to spy on Trump. If the dossier is now being admitted to by the people that ran the coup as "Russian disinformation," that is the irony of all ironies. It means the very people who were going after Trump for collusion with Russia to interfere with our election were themselves colluding with Russia to corrupt an American election!

Christopher Steele, acting on money and orders from Hillary Clinton, worked with Russia to spread disinformation to rig the 2016 presidential election. This is what Barr is going to investigate. There was an attempt to steal this election. There was an attempt to rig it. And then there was an attempt to get the victorious president thrown out of office after he won. And it was the Democrats, and agents in their employ, who were colluding with Russians! All right. Let me get a phone call in there.

RUSH: Allentown, Pennsylvania. Hey, Chuck. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Great to speak with you, Rush. Mega dittos. Been listening to you since 1990.

RUSH: I appreciate that, sir. Thank you very much.

CALLER: My take on why Mueller never closed the loop is I believe it would have started a revolution in this country.

RUSH: What kind of revolution? Like, tell me what you think would have happened.

CALLER: I believe that there would have been a lot of people up in arms.

RUSH: Yeah, but what were they gonna do about it?

CALLER: (sigh) Uhhh...

RUSH: What would Trump people do about it? Aside from the fact that Donald Trump people are the ones that have the guns in America, what would they do about it? (chuckles) The left doesn't have any guns, not that they want us to know about anyway. Don't they throw their guns away?

CALLER: (chuckles)

RUSH: No, of course not.

CALLER: Well, they don't throw their guns away --

RUSH: No, no, this is... Folks, look. I... See, yours is the logical answer. Yours is the logical answer: "Because Mueller knew that that would be going too far. To actually issue a report with his name on it claiming that the president of the United States is a traitor? He couldn't go that far." Why not? They got right up to that line. They wanted everybody to conclude that on their own. Why not just say it? This is my point! They tried to make everybody think this for two years. Why not just say it in the report?

"Well, Rush, they knew that would tear the country apart. That would cause..."

So? What the hell have the last two years been? Nah, there's something here, folks.

This article originally appeared on Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

Want to know more about Rush Limbaugh? Get his official bio, social pages & articles on iHeartRadio Read more

title

Content Goes Here