What Are Democrats Really Doing?


RUSH: We have this sham of an impeachment designed to do what? This is something that I have been giving considerable thought to, because none of this makes any sense if you look at it from the perimeters of conventional wisdom. By this I mean they're never going to get a conviction. See, to me this is the overriding reality of this that makes me question what the real motivations are. And then with what Round Mound of the Gavel did yesterday by accusing the very senators of being part of a cover-up.

They supposedly want to change their minds and vote with them to authorize new witnesses and new documents and all that? The Round Mound of the Gavel pretty much insured that isn't gonna happen now. Susan Collins sent a note to the chief justice. "This is outrageous. Why did you let him say that? Why didn't you stop him?" Nadler is accusing Republican senators of being part of cover-up if they don't vote to authorize witnesses. Now, here's Susan Collins and Murkowski and Cory Gardner and the rest of these four so-called recalcitrants that Schumer was appealing to yesterday.

Here they are sitting there, and of course they're (sniveling) "wanting to be seen as independent and fair and they're wanting to be seen as not in the back pocket of the Trump administration, want to be seen as doing justice and so forth -- and if there's a need for witnesses, they want to make sure they're on the right side," blah, blah, and Nadler comes along and insults them to the point that now they probably can't vote for it. So what's that?

Why in the world is the Round Mound of the Gavel sabotaging ostensibly his own effort? And then throw Schiff in this. Schiff has said some of the most stupefying, outrageous things, such as... I'm listening to Drive-By Media talk about how eloquent Schiff was, how persuasive Schiff was -- how Schiff got in there, dug deep, got in and pulled the heartstrings -- and made these Republican senators wake up. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Adam Schiff actually said yesterday that Donald Trump needs to be removed from office because he didn't follow the talking points prepared for him by the likes of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman -- O don't you dare criticize hiiiim! (Snort!) Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said he prepared the talking points for Trump, and that Trump gets on the phone call and doesn't use the talking points. Schiff says he's gotta be thrown out of office for that! H's gotta be removed because he didn't follow the talking points. That means he went against U.S. policy.

Schiff, in a literally insane rant, claims that Trump failing to use the talking points put together by deep state civil servants attempting to undermine him and conflict with his foreign policy... And it is his that matters. He's the president. He chooses foreign policy. Not Vindman, not Yovanovitch, not any of the others, not Fiona Hill. They don't determine foreign policy. They can prepare talking points all them; Trump can chuck 'em any time he wants. Schiff said because Trump didn't follow the talking points, that he is undermining American foreign policy.

He admits that Trump doesn't have to follow the talking points, but the fact that he didn't means that he's undermining foreign policy. He is foreign policy, Schiff! And I'll tell you something else that's kind of got me worked up. I'm trying to figure out how this happens -- oh, I know how it happens. You go back to the day where Schiff was chairing the House Intel Committee, some hearings, and makes up the transcript about Trump on the phone call with Zelensky.

He literally makes it up, says things like, "Trump got on the phone with Zelensky and said, 'I want you to find some dirt on my 2020 opponent, Joe Biden. I want you to dig up some dirt on him. I want you to make it up if you have to, and I don't want you getting back to me until you do -- and I'm gonna tell you eight or nine times until you get it. You find some dirt on Biden! You dig up the dirt. You make it up, if you have to, and don't get back to me 'til you do -- and you're not getting a dime from us until you do!'"

Schiff says that's what's in the transcript. He's lying through his teeth! Every bodily orifice that Schiff has, he's lying through -- and the Republicans are sitting there and they're not even reacting to it!I'm watching it here from the EIB Southern Command and I'm blowing a gasket asking, "Why aren't the Republicans reacting to it?" Finally, a Republican constituent sent an email to a Republican member of the committee and said, "What the hell are you doing? The guy's lying through his teeth!"

So a Republican member of the committee -- I forget who it was -- then finally called Schiff out on it 30 minutes later, and Schiff said (muttering), "Well, it was a parody. I was doing satire," and yet Schiff gets a pass for this. Adam Schiff, in all of this, gets a pass! He still goes before the Senate in this trial with some kind of moral authority as though he is engaging in the truth. He wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him upside the head. He's making up what the president said on the phone call with the transcript of the phone call there and available for anybody to see.

Why does anybody debate Schiff's version of the phone call as legitimate? Schiff makes up what he calls a parody, and now all of a sudden, the word "dirt" is somehow part of the transcript, when it isn't! "Trump was trying to dig up dirt! Trump was trying to do this! Trump was trying to find this about Biden," when it's not part of the transcript. Andy McCarthy had a piece yesterday/last night, saying that because Schiff has done this, Schiff has now opened the door to calling the Bidens if there are witnesses called.

Because Schiff has totally mischaracterized what Trump asked Zelensky to do regarding Biden and his kid Hunter in the investigation. So since Schiff has put forth a fallacious, phony, lying version of that, the president's team has a legal opportunity and requirement to correct that record -- and that may be calling Schiff (which I still think they ought to do, make him the face of this), and call the Bidens. The Democrats are literally paranoid that that would happen.

Schumer and the rest of these guys in their public statements, press conferences, are doing everything they can to make it sound like, "Mentioning the Bidens in any of this is insane. It shows the president's lost his mind." This is all about the Bidens. It's all about the investigations and what Biden was able to do as a member of the United States government to grease the skids for his family for years and years and years.

The reason all this is relevant is they're trying to throw Donald Trump out of office for something that he didn't do, for a scandal he wasn't engaged in, for misconduct he did not enter into -- and yet it is all over the place on the Democrat side, starting with Hillary and the Steele dossier. Now the FISA warrant totally make-up abuse on Carter Page, which now all these people are admitting to. Down to the Mueller report. On the let's-go-get-Trump side of this, nobody has found anything. There's no impeachable offense. There's no crime.

So what's really this all about? What are the Democrats doing? 'Cause let's go back to the reality they're not gonna get a conviction -- and especially now. I don't care how persuasive anybody might think that some of these House managers' cases have been. By the way, the TV ratings daily are plummeting. You've seen that, right? The top was 11 million. Twenty million's what the first day of Kavanaugh got with Blasey Ford. This thing is 11 million, and they're dropping every day. Reuters and CNN are wringing their hands, destroyed, distressed about this.

So they know they're not gonna get a conviction (chuckles), and now they're not gonna get four Republicans to vote to authorize witnesses if they ever were. But Nadler coming in and accusing essentially Susan Collins and Murkowski and Cory Gardner and whoever else they're trying to get in there of "participating in the cover-up." Nadler's statements that he made yesterday as part of his press statement were so far out of bounds, they were so radical left that I said, "Wait a minute. This isn't right. There's something going on here that people are not seeing."

If you circle back, it all goes back to the fact that they know they're not going to get a conviction -- and yet they're doing this. So why? Well, look, there's some obvious answers. They're trying to dirty Trump up for the 2020 campaign, and there's a theory that they're trying to dirty up enough Republican senators that are vulnerable to maybe win the Senate to go along with the House so that they can shut Trump down even if he is reelected. I think there's even more than that going on. Those two things are relevant; I'm not saying they're not happening.

But I think there's a... I mean, what kind of rhetoric did the Round Mound of the Gavel use yesterday? Who was that rhetoric intended for? The Democrat base! The lunatic fringe of the Democrat base. You put this together with some of the other news out there. Obama... According to Charles Gasparino at Fox News, Obama is getting so scared of Bernie that he's considering a national statement urging Democrats not to vote for Bernie Sanders. That is an all-out assault on who, in addition to Crazy Bernie?

That is an all-out assault on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has become one of Bernie's biggest advocates and is toying publicly with the idea of a third-party 'cause the Democrat Party isn't left enough. Well, here comes the Round Mound of the Gavel yesterday and he starts uttering resistance-type lingo! He starts uttering language that people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want to hear and people that might be inclined to support her want to hear. You go to New York where all politics is local.

Is Nadler perhaps gonna be primaried by somebody chosen by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because he, Nadler, is not sufficiently resistant to, radical left-wing enough? Now, if Nadler is worried about a challenge, it would make perfect sense for him to do what he did yesterday. In other words, it could well be that part of the explanation for this is that some of these House managers -- Nadler, Schiff -- are actually doing all of this to keep their base together, not bust up Trump's connection to his ('cause they can't, and they know that by now). Now, in Schiff's case, I honestly think that he needs professional help right along the lines with Antonio Brown.

I think they need to be seeing the same shrink, they need to get the same kind of mental health care, 'cause I think Schiff has lost it totally. There's a great piece today by somebody at PJ Media, I think. If you're a parent, have you got a kid who loves performing, loves doing things in the living room, and you can't get 'em to stop and you have to act like, "Oh, that's so cute, Little Johnny;" you have to encourage 'em 'cause you're the parents? That's Schiff.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One of the interesting things about all these House managers are gone on and on and on (sobbing), "Ukraine and Donald Trump! Donald Trump denied aid! (sniffling) Donald Trump withheld aid! (sniffling) Donald Trump said, 'You can't have your aid unless you give me Biden. You can't...'" None of that's true! They got their aid. But guess what? Three of the House managers that have gone on and on and on about the importance of Ukraine voted against military aid to Ukraine in every piece of legislation that came up. That is Hypocrisy 101.

Of course, this doesn't stick to Democrats much, but the fact is, they don't care about Ukraine. Adam Schiff and the Round Mound of the Gavel and all the rest, they don't care about Ukraine. When given the chance to participate -- voting -- on military aid for Ukraine, they voted against it. The Obama administration denied all aid to Ukraine for eight years after requiring that they disarm. We signed an agreement promising to defend them if they're attacked, and they were, and Russia annexed and took Crimea -- and we didn't do a damn thing.

And Trump somehow is now going to be impeached -- or has been impeached -- because he delayed aid that they eventually got? In the phone call that somehow magically has been referred to as "dirt," even though that word's not even in the transcript...?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's Neil in Matthews, North Carolina. Great to have you. Hello.

CALLER: Thanks for taking my call, Rush.

RUSH: Yes, sir.

CALLER: Listen, what has been glaringly overlooked in the Biden quid pro quo Ukraine situation is that Joe Biden was merely acting as a mouthpiece for President Obama. In his own words at the Council on Foreign Relations meeting, Joe Biden clearly established it as a fact. When Biden told the Ukrainian officials to fire the prosecutor or they're not getting their money, Ukraine officials immediately challenged him. They said, "You have no authority, you're not the president," to which Biden answered with two words that implicate President Obama. Biden said, "Ask him." So it's not "quid pro Joe" --

RUSH: No, he said he said, "Call him."

CALLER: -- it's "quid pro O."

RUSH: He said, "If you don't believe me, call Obama!" No, no, that's all true. Every bit of that's true. Now, I happened to see the House managers yesterday making their case for all this. You know, their version of that Biden admission to the Council on Foreign Relations? "Biden knew the prosecutor was corrupt. Biden was trying to get the prosecutor fired! Biden did. Biden got what he wanted. Trump doesn't have the..." They're trying to say that Biden was not trying to get rid of the prosecutor who was going after his son. They're saying that Biden was trying to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor, that Ukraine was resisting. They have twisted this. They're lying about so many things, it's hard to keep up with it. But I get your point.

I wish I had more time to make it, but we're out.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So I got an email during the break, "Rush, I didn't hear what you said Schiff said that Trump should be thrown office 'cause he didn't follow the talking points." Here's the quote. Schiff said yesterday, "I just want to underscore this. He's not obligated to his use talking points. He's not obligated to follow the recommendations of his staff no matter how sound they may be. But what this makes clear is that Donald Trump was not conducting U.S. policy. It was his private, personal interests he was conducting.

"If it was U.S. policy, he would have followed the talking points that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman says he prepared, but he didn't." So Schiff is trying to say Trump needs to be thrown out of office because the very fact he didn't follow the talking points put together by people he didn't trust, means that he was engaged in his own personal foreign policy, not the best interests of the United States. Folks, that is evidence of how nothing they have -- how little to nothing they've got -- to have to make that claim in terms of suggesting it warrants being removed from office.