The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




RUSH: Last night CNN is back with Dianne Feinstein begging her, “Last time we had you here, Senator, you said you had no evidence — you’ve seen no evidence — of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Well, we brought you back again, and we’d like to know, has anything changed?” Here’s how the exchange went…

WOLF: I just want to be precise, Senator. In all, uh… You’ve had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee. In all the access you’ve had very sensitive information, so far you’ve not seen any evidence of collusion; is that right?

DIFI: Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper stories. But that’s not necessarily evidence.

RUSH: There’s no evidence! There’s no evidence. Let’s go back. It was only May 3rd, 16 days ago, Wolf tried with DiFi the first time…

WOLF: Do you have evidence that there was in, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?

DIFI: Not at this time.

WOLF: Well, that’s pretty — a pretty precise answer. I know the investigation is continuing. Uh, Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

DIFI: Thank you.

RUSH: Right. So there you see Wolf was totally deflated there, totally despondent, totally let down. He thought he was gonna get a bombshell answer from Dianne Feinstein. “Not at this time.” So 16 days later Wolf has her back on his show ho CNN. Listen again…

WOLF: I just want to be precise, Senator. In all, uh… You’ve had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee. In all the access you’ve had very sensitive information, so far you’ve not seen any evidence of collusion; is that right?

DIFI: Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper stories. But that’s not necessarily evidence.

RUSH: Do you…? This is profound! She admits, “Well, there’s no evidence that would establish collusion. There’s all kinds of rumors around. There’s newspaper stories.” Essentially she’s — unwittingly, I’m sure. She’s essentially acknowledged that the newspapers are publishing rumors! Except they’re publishing these rumors as fact with anonymous sources from current and former U.S. government officials. Still no evidence, folks. Still no evidence. None! Zip! Zero! It’s just a bunch of rumors in the newspaper.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Again, back to Dianne Feinstein. Dianne Feinstein says there are rumors! Rumors in the newspapers! So we have now a special counsel. We have… I think it’s three, four, maybe five congressional committees investigating rumors. If Ken Starr had been investigating rumors — if any independent/special counsel had been investigating a Democrat, and that investigation had been going on for over a year and it had produced nothing except rumors — don’t you think Dianne Feinstein would be demanding this Mueller guy not even accept this job, that there not even be a special counsel and to shut this down?

Because, my friends, the congressional investigations — three, four, five of ’em, whichever — and the upcoming special counsel investigation, don’t even such on the big one. You know what the big investigation is? And this is key because the length of time this investigation has been going on… Depending on your start, you could make the case that it has been going on for a year, and it has certainly been going on since July of last year when Comey told us in that July 5th press conference that the DOJ was investigating something, which means Obama knew it, which means they were investigating Trump then.

Well, Obama administration was investigating a potential candidate of the Republican Party for president. One of these investigations is the one done by the real intel guys, and I’ve been calling this the real investigation: The FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. These are the pros. Supposed to be the pros. This is where we have people who tell us that they are even able to read Putin’s mind and to divine exactly what he did, when he did it. How could it be possible that they have investigated enough that they can read Putin’s mind, but they can’t tell us definitively if there’s any evidence of collusion between Trump’s people and Putin’s?

Forget the congressional investigations. Those are relatively new. Forget the DOJ. The intel people — the people that have been doing the unmasking, the people that have been surveilling the Russian ambassador. These people have been going at this for a hell of a long time, and they don’t have any evidence, either. There is no evidence! When does that arrive? When does the evidence of collusion finally show itself in this investigation?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I’m dead serious. Where is this evidence? We’ve been at this over a year. I looked it up. There are five different congressional investigations. I’m gonna put this in even better perspective. We have five House and Senate investigations. We have the big investigation that involves surveillance of people like the Russian ambassador. That’s the investigation conducted by the NSA and the CIA and the FBI, and these are the pros.

These are not a bunch of bumbling congressional investigators. These are intelligence pros. We have CBS, ABC, NBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and they are all looking into this. And look at how many different anonymous sources in just a year. All of the anonymous sources. And despite the number of sources for over a year, folks, we don’t have any evidence. We don’t even have anything that leads us to believe we’re getting close to any evidence. All we have is everything every entity on the left — the media, newspapers, TV networks, cable networks, websites, you name it.

They are all pursuing this, and they all are saying the investigation is ongoing, and they’re all talking to former and current government officials. There are people that we’ve never heard of that are leaking multiple times an hour, not multiple times a day. When you add all of this up, all of the various investigations — and especially the one by the pros that involve wiretapping and surveillance and maybe even FISA warrants. When you add the congressional investigations, when you add the media investigations, when you tabulate all of the unnamed/anonymous sources — and then you add it all up to over a year — and there still isn’t even an indication there is any evidence to find?

At what point do, say, people in the media who are leading this and their followers in the Democrat Party…? At what point do they start to ask, “Is there going to be any evidence?” At what point do they start asking themselves, “Is there any evidence?” Because, I’m telling you this, these people who are trying to find it are overturning everything they think is in their way. This matters every bit as much to them as what they do to get rid of Richard Nixon. If there is any evidence that the Trump campaign or Trump himself colluded with the Russians, it would have been found.

There just too many people looking for it. How many people are paying? How many people have offered gratuities if some real evidence is found? Oh, yes, I know. Keeping the story in the news is the value here. There doesn’t have to be any evidence. All there has to be is “the seriousness of the charge.” The nature of the evidence — to more and more media and Democrat investigations — is irrelevant. But it is not irrelevant to me. Evidence is the nature of the investigation, and there isn’t any. For over a year, with the best and brightest and the dirtiest and the sleaziest and the sneakiest people looking for it!

They haven’t even found anything they think they can make up and pass off as evidence, because it won’t hold up. Normally in a case like this where there is such desire to expose Trump for what they’re alleging him to be so that they can get rid of him and humiliate and embarrass everybody that voted for him, in some cases there would be something they could make up that would be supported by foundational evidence elsewhere. They can’t even do that. Meaning, they don’t even have a… They’re not close enough to their premise to even make up a tiny little lie that establishes collusion.

And they aren’t going to find any, because there isn’t any. And it’s been stated by many people other than me over the course of recent months; Obama has stated the practical impossibility of tampering with a presidential election in the United States. And it is not possible. They’ll shift this, like “global warming” became “climate change,” “collusion” will become “interference” or “hacking.” “Collusion affecting the outcome of the election” will be abandoned and it’ll be replaced by “evidence of the Russians attempting to meddle.”

Of course, they want the investigation to be prolonged and elongated. But at some point.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This