I Knew They’d Find Another Accuser Because I Know Liberals

0
157

RUSH: Another email during the break: “Mr. Limbaugh, how did you know, because all weekend I saw people saying on Twitter that you predicted this. You predicted another woman would come forward. How did you know? How did you know?” Well, let’s go back to the audio sound bites. This is last Thursday, me on my program…

BEGIN RUSH ARCHIVE CLIP

RUSH: I’m telling you right now it’s already in the works with, and I know it’s in the works because I heard a Drive-By Media person talking about it. The Drive-By Media person was Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post who says she wouldn’t be surprised if more women surface over the weekend alleging similar acts by Kavanaugh. She’s just telegraphed that they’re out there trying to find women that they can convince to come forward and say what they want them to say. You know they’re working on that.

You know that the Democrat Party, you know that the media — they’re working in tandem — are scouring women who went to the same school or went to school where Kavanaugh was seen, you know, lurking around and so forth. And they’re gonna try to find as many women — not too many, find one or two women — to come forward and say, “Yeah, I didn’t want to come forward but I’m watching what’s happening to Christine Blasey Ford, and I can’t stand it.” So don’t be surprised.

END ARCHIVE CLIP

RUSH: Well, and it’s happened. No great shakes here. Predicting this was… If you know the left, as I do, it was simple. I’ll even buttress it further. Ronan Farrow: “New Kavanaugh Accuser Came Forward Because Democrats Came Looking.” What did I say here? You know the Democrats, the media, they’re working in tandem scouring women who went to the same school or went to school where Kavanaugh was seen. Farrow confirms even that. “The accuser came forward because the Democrats came looking,” and they didn’t have to look hard.

This woman was a recipient of George Soros funds. Every one of these people, one way or the other, is connected to Hillary Clinton or her campaign. Every one of them! All of this is ultimately going to be traceable back to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. You mark my words. Here is Karen Tumulty, just to show you that this is what… I didn’t need this. I didn’t even need this to tell me that it was gonna be another woman show up before today. But this is Karen Tumulty last Wednesday night on the All-Star Panel of Special Report Bret Baier.

TUMULTY: The thing I think we all need to remember is that we still have 4-1/2 days until Monday. And we’re… The way the news cycle works in these times, this — this whole thing is probably gonna take five or six twists and turns.

BREAM: Right.

TUMULTY: Now, maybe other people coming out of the woodwork either to verify what Judge Kavanaugh is saying or to back up when she is saying. By Monday, this could look like a very different situation.

RUSH: Bingo! And here we are at Monday, and it looks like a completely different situation. They went out and they found this woman. This woman’s story has so many holes in it, the New York Times will not run it. This story has twelve holes in it that people now have spotted in analysis. There’s nothing to it, but the left doesn’t care. This is my point from the opening hour. They’ve got nothing to lose with this depravity. They’ve got nothing to lose by taking every bit of American culture they can into the gutter.

Their base will applaud them. Their base will reward them for this. There is nothing for them to lose. There is no shame directed at them for what they’re doing. Interestingly enough, if they weren’t trying to get rid of Kavanaugh, their base would be pummeling them to death. Their base is demanding this. Not to say the Democrats wouldn’t be doing it on their own anyway. But my point is that it wasn’t that long ago that this kind of thing in American politics would doom the party trying it.

And if the Republicans tried it today it would doom them because the media would turn on them and accuse them of upsetting the Constitution and jurisprudence and ages and ages of case law. They’ve got nothing to lose here. They don’t control the Senate now. They don’t control the House. They’ve got literally nothing to lose. The way of looking at it is there’s there’s no “too low” they can go — and in the process, they’re taking the country right with them, particularly when they’re walking politics. David “Rodham” Gergen on CNN last night with the anchor Ana Cabrera. Question: “Is it fair to have any timeline at this point for getting through any potential investigation and putting Kavanaugh up for a vote?”

GERGEN: There has to be a couple days where not only the senators and the White House, but the public can absorb this and begin to make judgments. You know, we need to be a little patient with this process playing out so that… Again, I can’t tell you how important I think it is to the future of the press in this country that if he is going to be brought down, that the press is not seen as complicit in that effort.

CABRERA: Yeah.

RUSH: Well, now, if you’re even thinking about that, then it must be it’s already hit you that you are complicit. I mean, what a statement. Stop and think of this. David “Rodham” Gergen — who has worked for every president you can think of — says, “I can’t tell you how important I think it is to the future of the press in this country that if he is going to be brought down, that the press is not seen as complicit in that effort.” (chuckles) A little too late for that, don’t you think, Mr. Gergen?

The press cannot be seen as complicit? They know — at least Gergen does. They know that they’re damping their reputations. See, the press has a lot to lose. The press has market share, subscriptions, advertising rates, jobs. The press has a lot to lose here. The Democrat Party not so much. The Democrat Party’s deranged base, though, does not spend money subscribing to the New York Times or the Washington Post in great numbers. The Democrat Party base show up and vote, but they’ve got nothing to lose with this depravity. But the press does, and Mr. Gergen knows it.

Here’s Jane Mayer, who co-wrote the story in the New Yorker with Ronan Farrow. She’s on the Today show today with the cohost Savannah Guthrie. The question, “Your reporting makes clear that Deborah Ramirez was candid about questions about her own memory,” meaning she doesn’t remember much, and she admits that she wasn’t sober for much of this party, “obviously her sobriety at this college party. The White House has zeroed in on a New York Times story, saying they can’t confirm any of this. “It seems like the New Yorker didn’t find anyone with firsthand knowledge, either. Is there corroboration?”

So here you have a media person telling another media person who wrote the story, “Hey, nobody can corroborate what you wrote. Is there any?” and here’s the answer.

MAYER: Don’t have to read tea leaves. We’re right out front about it, and they’re saying, “We found no eyewitnesses who would confirm it.” Um, we, uh, found somebody who remembers hearing about it at night or the next day. Um —

RUSH: Okay, stop it. That’s all I… Stop the tape. Why did the story run, then? If one of the authors says, “We’re right out front about it saying we found no eyewitnesses who could confirm it,” then why did it run? Well, we all know the answer to that. It ran to provide cover for Democrat senators to cancel the hearing on Thursday. Now it’s gotten too murky, too messy, too dangerous for poor Dr. Ford! She can’t be expected to show up now in this circus.

She’s not gonna testify Thursday. Make book on it, folks; it isn’t gonna happen. This story also gives Democrat senators the excuse to claim, “All right. This is it. We’ve got another allegation — and since women don’t lie, and since conservatives have no presumption of innocence, he’s guilty. He needs to withdraw! Trump needs to withdraw the nomination.” That’s what the purpose of this story is. No eyewitnesses — and that’s just the tip of the iceberg about things wrong with this story. No eyewitnesses, and yet it ran. Why?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Anita Hill didn’t have any eyewitnesses, either, ladies and gentlemen, even though she claimed Thomas said the pubic hair on the Coke can and the Long Dong Silver stuff in front of the entire committee. Even though there was no evidence and no eyewitnesses, she still laid it all out for the committee. So the point is the woman doesn’t need evidence. That’s what’s being done to the rule of law by these people. They don’t need any evidence. The Democrats… There will be a new video from Hollywood actresses.

“We believe Ramirez! We believe Ramirez! She’s telling the truth,” even though the New York Times and New Yorker say they couldn’t find a single witness. See, it doesn’t matter. The nature of the evidence? No biggie. Seriousness of the charge? Everything. All this is to provide cover for Democrats and the media to demand Kavanaugh just quit and go kill himself. That’d be the best. “Just get out of here. Just leave us alone. You have no business being on the Supreme Court and you’re not gonna be as long as we have anything to do with it.”

That’s their attitude.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here