RUSH: Everybody we’re talking about here is on the same political side, and they all have one political objective, and that is to get rid of Donald Trump.

Sharing is Caring!

via rushlimbaugh:

RUSH: What is this? “Emails Show White House Effort to Justify Trump’s Aid Hold.” Who has to justify it? If Trump wants to withhold aid to Ukraine, there’s nothing impeachable about that. Okay. So there might be an email trail showing Trump’s justification for it. So what? The place was a corrupt hellhole. Before he sends more money, he wants to find out if they’ve made their promised reforms.

This is a CNN headline. “Emails Show White House Effort to Justify Trump’s Aid Hold.” Like somehow somebody at the White House thinks what Trump did is an impeachable offense, so they gotta construct an email chain to make it look like there was justification. Trump doesn’t need justification. He’s the president of the United States. He runs executive branch. He runs foreign policy. If he wants to withhold Ukraine money, he can do it.

Why was none of this concerning anybody when Obama didn’t give Ukraine a dime for crying out loud? I’m sorry to get worked up about this, folks. But this is such an outrage what is continuing to happen here. I see little stories like this pop up, and I’m sorry, I cannot restrain myself. I have to comment on it the moment I see it because this is just ridiculous. “Emails show White House effort,” as somehow as the way they’re gonna nail Mulvaney. How?

“Emails show Trump officials debated legality.” There’s nothing legal or illegal about withholding aid. This is all this phony bribery allegation. “Yeah, Trump was promising unless they investigated Biden they weren’t gonna get any.” Well, the problem is they got the money and there still hasn’t been an investigation of Biden. So now you want to impeach Trump for a thought crime.


RUSH: Well, some of these learned civil servants were finding a way to defy Trump’s wishes in Ukraine. You know, it takes me — no, I have not forgotten the Pelosi stuff, and I’m gonna get to it in a mere minute, but since I’m on this path here, I was reading a number of things over the weekend: Sports Drive-Bys, news Drive-Bys, tech blogs, you name it.

And it’s amazing. In the variety of Drive-By news outlets, there was a theme, and the theme was, how could anybody accuse decorated, honored civil servants of lying? How could anyone accuse every one of those witnesses at the Schiff committee, how could anybody accuse all of them of lying? Lieutenant Vindman, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman — O say can you see — a decorated army military man shows up in uniform, they all loved Fiona Hill, the Democrat money pays for her work at Brookings, even though she tried to say that she appeared as a nonpartisan. That’s the way she pronounced it. What am I gonna do?

And you had Taylor, and you had George Kent, this endless parade of these people. And throughout the media, “Could all of them be lying? I can’t believe these defenders.” Nobody is saying they lied about anything, not all the time and not everything. I have a different question. Why is it that you people in the Drive-By Media and everywhere, why is it that you automatically believe everything they say? Why do you not question anything any of them say?

Why do you question everything Trump says and even thinks? Why do you never question the intelligence community? Is the U.S. intelligence community impervious to political influence? In other words, is the intelligence community the United States so pure and so precious that there’s no amount of political influence that can affect their work? Are you kidding me? Is the U.S. intelligence community so perfect that they are impervious to corruption?

I mean, the U.S. intelligence community and these civil servants are hoisted up as the perfection of humanity. They are unassailable, they are unquestionable, they are the epitome of class, dignity, sophistication and perfection. And you can’t question them. These people believe everything they say, when it’s convenient.

Did not the U.S. intelligence community working with the intelligence communities in Western Europe, did they not all say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? They did. The U.S. intelligence community was so certain of that, we went to war in Iraq to get rid of those, to find those and get rid of those weapons of mass destruction. Lo and behold, we got there, there weren’t any. And who was it that had all kinds of egg on his face?





Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.