RUSH: Bristol Connecticut. This is ESPN territory. Matt, it’s great to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Great to talk to you and —

RUSH: What is there to do there? What is there in Bristol besides ESPN? I’ve been there. I’ve been to Bristol a bunch of times, but never for any length of time. What’s there besides ESPN? I’m not trying to insult it. I’m just curious.

CALLER: (chuckles) Honestly, not much. It’s a pretty small town.

RUSH: Do you work at ESPN?

CALLER: No, sir. I’m in construction, and the three hours a day that you’re on flies by. Thank you for that.

RUSH: Ah. Well, thank you, sir, very much. Great to have you with us.

CALLER: Question I had for you. Another part of the Mueller statement that I don’t believe you touched on yet is that he concluded that the Russians were responsible for the DNC hack. Was that ever proven?

RUSH: No.

CALLER: As far as I know, it wasn’t.

RUSH: No. And, you know, that is… You’re right. That is one of the fundamental, just accepted articles of faith, and it has yet to be established the Russians did that. What we’ve been told is that Russia and Russian agents and people made to look like the Russian GRU hacked the DNC server and did whatever they did with it and so forth. But we don’t know that. The FBI has never been allowed to see those servers or network servers. They hired a local outfit or domestic outfit called CrowdStrike to do the forensic exam of the computer network.

And they just reported that somebody who looked like Russians came in and hacked. But remember, the thing about this that’s really key to remember, is some people have done some analysis of the data transfer from that network and they found it could not have happened online. The speeds with which the data — the hacked data — was transferred, could only happen if you had a thumb drive or an external drive attached to the server. It could not have happened over the internet. The speeds were too great.

CALLER: That’s exactly why I asked, because I’ve heard that on your show. Is that in the report as such where it’s a conclusion or did he just say that?

RUSH: I think there is a… I don’t know about the report, but it probably is. There’s just a longtime presumption, assumption from the get-go that the Russians hacked the DNC server in an attempt to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. I mean, that’s how this was originally portrayed and positioned. But nobody’s ever seen the servers!

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: Other than CrowdStrike. It’s an article of faith to accept what they say about it.

CALLER: Okay. Thank you. I didn’t think it was proven yet, and that’s why I wondered.

RUSH: Well, there’s another aspect to this too that’s quite interesting, and it’s this: The NSA had some hacking tools stolen. These tools that were stolen are quite sophisticated. They are hacking tools that can be made to look like foreign actors. For example, these are United States NSA-designed computer hacking tools, programs, whatever, and they can be made to look exactly like Chinese hackers or Russian hackers or North Korean hackers. That stash, that tranche of computer hacking tools was leaked/stolen from the NSA — and much of it is still out there.

I think they’ve recovered some. I’m not sure if we know who the thief was. But that becomes relevant in this, too. It could well be — and we don’t know. It could well be the Russians are being set up as the hackers. The Russians that Mueller indicted… Somebody’s gonna have to correct me if I’m wrong. But the Russians that Mueller indicted, I think, are the Russians that bought some ads on Facebook. I’m not sure that the Russians Mueller indicted are the people he claims hacked the DNC network. I’ll have to double-check that. I know some of the Russians he indicted are the people that bought $150,000 worth of ads on Facebook after the election.