RUSH: I want to ask you a couple of questions to ponder just as human beings here. Take politics out of it as much as you can when dealing with my questions. It’s impossible to totally do it, but I just want to ask: How many of you, as human beings, are capable of doing what this woman in Northern California has just done? For example and specifically, you’re minding your own business. You’re living your life. You went to high school with people. You worked with people and all that.
You are a renowned left-wing activist. You wear vagina hats on your head when Donald Trump’s elected president. No, in fact, let’s not do that. You’re just an average, ordinary person. You don’t do any of that, even though this woman did. My first question is: How many of you would knowingly attempt to derail the life and career of someone you peripherally knew 35 years ago? How many of you would do that? Now, I don’t know what the law of averages is. I’m sure with as many people in this country as there are that there’s a lot of creeps and a lot of vindictive people.
I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but how many of you would…? Do you realize how often this happens with the Democrat Party and conservative judicial nominees? But how many of you would do it? You didn’t know somebody well. You didn’t date them. They didn’t break your heart. They didn’t do anything to you that you can really… I mean, you can’t remember where it happened. You can’t remember even specifically what happened.
This person that you are actively trying to destroy has been in public life for years, and not once in any of those occasions where his name has been mentioned publicly have you done anything to try to stop or derail it. But then this man happens to become a Supreme Court nominee. How many of you would do this? How many of you would either make up a story and send a letter? Which leads to my second question. My point is decent people just…
This is not how people act. This is not how people think. I know there’s a lot of vindictiveness and I know there’s a lot of people that seek revenge. But that usually derives from knowing somebody well enough that whatever they did genuinely angered you or hurt you or harmed you. But this is peripheral. What kind of person does this — and then after doing it, doesn’t want to follow it through? I’m now seeing excuses being made for the fact that she doesn’t want to appear at the hearing that Grassley has invited her to speak to.
“Well,” the excuse is, I, “look, I — I wouldn’t want to appear. I wouldn’t want to have to face those questions. I wouldn’t want to have to face those klieg lights. I totally understand this woman not accepting the invitation,” I’m hearing people say,” and just because she doesn’t accept the invitation appear doesn’t mean that she’s lying and making it up.” Okay. So we’re told by this woman’s lawyer that she does not have to corroborate her allegation. It’s not up to her.
We have got to prove she’s lying. She does not have to prove she’s telling the truth. That stands justice on its head. The next thing we’re being told is “It’s perfectly normal for an accuser to not want to be part of the process of getting rid of her accused. It’s perfectly normal that she wouldn’t want to appear before these senators! It’s perfectly normal she wouldn’t want to appear. I wouldn’t,” they’re saying. “I wouldn’t want to do.” Well, not only would you…
How many of you would get yourselves involved in this situation in the first place, unless you are a dyed-in-the-wool political activist? My second question is a little bit more basic. Is it really this easy? Is all you have to do to derail the career of an acknowledged-as-great human being and justice…? Is all you’ve got to do is send a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein? Is that it? It’s that easy?
We’re to believe that all somebody has to is sent a letter, an anonymous letter — well, a letter requesting anonymity — to Senator Dianne Feinstein, and that alone can derail the life and the reputation and the career of a decent human being? Is it really that easy? Do we want it to be that easy? Not only is all you have to do is send a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, but that you will automatically be taken seriously and that you will automatically be believed. If that’s all it takes, we could start a letter writing campaign to Senator Feinstein today!
Could we not?
I mean, we’re being asked to really swallow a lot here, folks. We’re being asked to believe quite a bit. These kinds of things just don’t happen in the real world except when Democrats are involved and the Supreme Court’s involved. And, by the way, you know, there’s a dance everybody’s doing to avoid hitting the bull’s-eye here. (interruption) What do you think the bull’s-eye really is here? What do you think has the Democrats so paranoid, so frightened, so agitated, so animated and motivated to stop this guy? What is it?
(interruption)
Well, yeah, but why? I know they don’t want him on the court. It’s one word. It begins with an A. This is all about abortion. It is about nothing else as far as the left is concerned. They want to be able to continue uninterrupted with their behavior when it comes to abortion. Sex without consequence, life without consequence. They are scared to death that a Republican or a conservative majority is going to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Now, there are other concerns too. I mean, just the fact that a majority conservative court is enough.
Nobody’s talking about it. That’s how you know that that’s what this is really about. They cannot allow anything to happen to Roe v. Wade — and it won’t. That’s what’s crazy about it! It won’t. But is it really just this easy? That’s all you have to do. A letter from somebody that can’t even remember where or when or for sure with who some allegation, some activity happened. That’s all it takes. How many of you would do this? My point is, this isn’t normal, folks. This is not how the normal segment of the people in our country live and operate.
And yet it defines, shapes, influences the way Washington, D.C., works. And it’s just another add-on as to why so many people are so fed up and disgusted because all it takes is a letter that Dianne Feinstein didn’t even act on immediately. And then when she did announce it, she announced it because her colleagues were gonna leak it, and the person that wrote the letter supposedly didn’t want her name used, didn’t want anything done with this? Well, then why send the letter in the first place?
Do you think they have given one iota’s thought to the impact this is gonna have on Brett Kavanaugh’s life, his wife, his two kids, all of the people with whom he comes in contact? He coaches little girls in softball and basketball or whatever. He does incredible amounts of charitable work for the needy and the homeless. You think they have the slightest concern over the fact that they are trying to destroy a career and a life and a future? I can tell you right now it’s not even crossed their minds.
Except to the extent that if that happens, it’s justified because this guy’s a conservative judge, and he deserves it! He deserves to have an excrement sandwich as his life every day. That’s how they look at all of this. But it really got me today when I found the woman’s lawyer claiming, “It’s not up to us to corroborate our charge.” (chuckling) It’s not? “No! We don’t have to corroborate anything!” As I said, this is just textbook. This is Harry Reid calling the press and saying, “I have a friend that told me that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid his taxes in 10 years.”
And the press said, “Well, who’s your friend? Where’d you get this? How long ago?”
Reid got mad at them. Dingy Harry got mad. “What do you mean? What are you asking me for? You need to go ask Romney why he hasn’t paid his taxes in 10 years!”
The press said, “Oh, yeah! You’re right,” and they did.
They left Harry Reid and they started chasing down Romney, wanted to know why he hadn’t paid his taxes in 10 years. All it took was somebody, a phantom, anonymous letter to Harry Reid claiming that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years — when, in fact, he had. Now we’ve got a letter to Dianne Feinstein that arrived this past July. Nothing was done with it because the Democrats tried to keep Kavanaugh off the court using everything but it.
But now it’s desperation time.
Plan B.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I just checked the email. Many of you are very concerned. Let me read a sample here. We had, “Dear Mr. Limbaugh. When you just said, ‘We’ve all done this. We’ve all done this since high school and so forth and so on,’ you better clarify what you mean. I know you were talking about underage drinking and playing spin the bottle and playing around. Yeah, but you didn’t mean that we’ve all held girls down against their will like this.”
Of course because I don’t believe that happened. That’s the whole point here. We’re just supposed to believe what she says because she said it and she doesn’t have to corroborate it? Well, I’m gonna choose to believe Kavanaugh, folks, that it didn’t happen! That he doesn’t remember it happening, that he thinks it’s a case of mistaken identity. I don’t believe it happened! That’s what’s driving me on this.
I don’t believe it’s what happened. Maybe… I got another email. “Rush, have you stopped to think that maybe this woman really liked Kavanaugh and felt rebuffed and she’s simply taking all this time to get back at him for rejecting her?” Oh, gee. How can we possibly know any of this? And if she doesn’t have to corroborate any of it, then she can allege anything, and we’re supposed to accept it and try to disprove what she’s saying.
And then she will not accept the invitation to come talk about it. Now, I don’t even think that I have to make this clarification because this is my point. None of you would believe that I would come here and admit to engaging in behavior such as that charged by this woman. But we all, in high school, did things. We drank when we shouldn’t. We snuck around our parents. This is part of growing up — and I’m talking about the innocent kind. Don’t anybody confuse things here.
Kavanaugh didn’t do what she’s alleging. That’s what I choose to believe — using intelligence guided by experience, by the way. Let me ask this. Why is it not controversial to believe what she says but very controversial to believe his denial? ‘Cause that’s what I choose to believe here — and if nobody has to prove it, then what is the point? I take it back. He has to prove that it didn’t happen. Do you realize how impossible that is? That’s why our criminal justice system does not require that the accused prove it didn’t happen.
You accuse?
You allege?
You have to prove it or you’re gone.
Now, in the real world, as I pointed out — in court — a strategy might be, because juries are juries. Your lawyer might say, “We’re gonna have to find out who really did this and we’re gonna have to prove they did it as a means of getting your innocence. Even though they don’t have a case beyond circumstantial, we may still have to do this ’cause juries are affected by prosecutors.” I understand all that. But under the rule of law, the accused has to prove. And for them to come out and say that she doesn’t have to corroborate anything? Fine. I’m gonna choose to accept Kavanaugh that this didn’t happen because that’s not what decent do.
Pure and simple right?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So there’s this Looney Toon on ABC, Matt Dowd, Matthew Dowd. He used to be a strategerist for George W. Bush. Now he’s gone left. He said, “If Republicans don’t believe a thousand scientists on climate change, why would they believe one woman from Palo Alto?” (laughing) These people… What a strange way to try to get people to believe you. This is absurd. All of it’s absurd.
Related Links