RUSH: The Las Vegas massacre has now reached the full politicization stage as a motive continues to be elusive. There are people however who don’t think the motive is elusive. There are people who think the motive is known and because it’s not preferred by certain personages and affiliations, that it is not being announced.

There are two ongoing theories of motivation that I have been able to determine are the, quote, unquote, most popular. One of them is that the guy is, in fact, a Never Trumper or that his girlfriend is. There’s a lot of mysteriousness, mystery about this babe. Things that have been alluded to about her that still remain not nailed down, such as she is highly influential, held great sway over the guy, and is herself a political radical of sorts, or knows people who are.

So one of the theories is that this guy was targeting Trump supporters with the prejudicial belief that a country-western concert would draw and attract mostly Trump supporters. There are others who believe that the guy had become radicalized by militant Islam.

There is a video out there. You remember shortly after Trump was inaugurated all of those women that took to the streets of America wearing those vagina hats, except they didn’t call them vagina hats. They called them the pussai hats. Well, Pamela Geller has found a video and done some still shots where she thinks the guy, the shooter, was wearing one of those hats at an anti-Trump rally.

I’ve looked at it, and I do not know. From what I see, I couldn’t confirm it, but there are others that are trying to make the case, and that the girlfriend was there very nearby and also in the shots, and she was holding anti-Trump signs or what have you. He was wearing a pink vagina hat, if it’s the same guy, and so because of that there are people who think, “See, this guy, this guy was anti-Trump, Never Trumper, radical leftist or what have you.”

The sheriff has alluded to the fact that the shooter may have been radicalized. Just kind of a throwaway line. Let’s go to a couple of sound bites. The sheriff is Joe Lombardo. He had a press conference last night in Las Vegas. During the Q&A a reporter said, “Can you tell the current whereabouts of Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend?

LOMBARDO: All I know is the Philippines, and we are in conversation.

REPORTER: Is she a suspect?

LOMBARDO: Currently she’s a person of interest.

RUSH: So is she a suspect? No, she’s currently a person of interest. Another reporter, “You talked about motive, Sheriff Lombardo. You talked about premeditation. You want to learn why he did what he did. Can you tell us the number of interviews you’ll have to do that? How many interviews is it gonna take before you get to a motive? You talked about reviewing cameras, videos, computers. Who do you want to talk to?”

LOMBARDO: You’re probably saying, “Well, Jesus, Sheriff, it’s 2017, how come it’s taken so long for you to evaluate that?” Because it’s evidentiary. There’s chain of custody issues associated with that. We have to ensure we’re dotting the Is and crossing the T, because you know there’s criminal defense attorneys out there, right? And there’s this thing called the Constitution. We have to ensure that we’re abiding by that and we ensure — I don’t know if we have possible future prosecution. You know, you heard me say that we’re comfortable that we have the suspect in custody, but something more may come of that investigation. And I want to understand the motivation that you describe, okay, to prevent any future incidents. You know, did this person get radicalized unbeknownst to us?

RUSH: See, he just throws it out there at the end there. Everybody, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait just a second. What do you mean by that, did this person get radicalized?” Also, “You heard me say we’re comfortable we have the suspect in custody.” The suspect’s dead, right? So who’s he talking about here? Or is that a slip of the tongue, or am I missing something? We have the suspect in custody.

Now, I know he’s speaking in generalities when he says, “Well, it’s evidentiary, and I’m not gonna tell you what evidence we got here ’cause I don’t know where this is going.” Obviously they don’t have anything dead solid that they want to hang their hats on, but we have been told every time it’s come up, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Nope, nope, ISIS is wrong, they have nothing to do with this.” They have been saying so with ontological certitude.

You know, it’s amazing. This happens, 59 dead, over 500 wounded, within hours, “This is not militant Islamic terrorism.” Go to Benghazi. “What we saw here was not militant Islamic terrorism. It was a riot because of a video.” These people — I’m not talking about the sheriff — these people don’t have a lot of credibility here, especially Hillary Clinton who’s speaking in continued bromides right out of the Democrat Party playbook with nothing unique and nothing individual.