RUSH: Folks, it is hilarious now that Vindman… This is the most recent witness. This is this a guy you saw on video yesterday in his full, dress Army uniform, and he was walking all over Washington into the Capitol building.
He was surrounded by people, and the image was clear: “Decorated military veteran! Ukraine expert! National Security Council!” It turns out that Vindman was on the call. He was very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very upset at what Trump said. Very, very! He had to tell somebody. Now, we think it was Vindman who told the whistleblower. So it would make Vindman actually whistleblower number 1, except he didn’t blow the whistle.
He transferred the news to somebody else who then called Schiff, who did not hear the phone call. Then the transcript is released and, folks, I cannot… You know what gives up the ghost in this is the transcript has been released and there’s nothing in it that is impeachable, not a thing that is impeachable in it. The whistleblower that blew the whistle never even heard the call. He was given the information secondhand — we now believe by Vindman.
So Vindman is now saying that the transcript that was released did not contain everything he heard. So now Vindman is accusing the White House of editing the transcript and leaving out vital information. I’m gonna tell you right now what this is all about — and do not doubt me. This is an effort to divert attention away from the same people that ran the Russia collusion hoax or coup against Trump. This phone call to the Ukrainian president where he happened to mention investigating Biden was all about getting the Ukrainian president to cooperate with Barr.
The telltale sign of that is Trump’s mentioning of the word CrowdStrike. That’s the independent firm the Democrats hired to forensically analyze their supposedly Russian-hacked server at the DNC. That’s what Trump is doing. That’s what they’re trying to stop. They are trying to make sure Barr doesn’t find anything. They’re diverting public opinion away from themselves. This is a very elaborate and well-laid out cover-up that all of these Democrats and media people are involved in — and, of course, I find it fascinating.
(sniveling) “We’re not supposed to cast judgment on a decorated military person.”
Vindman!
“There he is in his official Army uniform! He’s walking with great dignity throughout the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. He’s on the way to tell Schiff what Trump did. He’s on the way to explain how horrible Trump is and how horrible Trump was on the phone call.” So naturally there are people who are attacking Vindman and his motives, which then draws a response from people. (impression) “We can’t attack a decorated military person! That’s unseemly. Who do we think we are? That’s not the way to go about this. That’s not the way to defend the president, not to attack a decorated military hero and Ukraine expert.”
Well, how does that explain how Michael Flynn was treated, then? Michael Flynn, a decorated military man, great patriot, tremendous service to America, and about all that happened to him was that he was destroyed. He was destroyed. They set him up! He was interviewed by the FBI and didn’t even know he was being interviewed.
Comey has bragged about how easy it was to set Flynn up. Comey’s bragged to his buddies how easy it was. You know how they did it? They sent McCabe and some people, Strzok Smirk, to the White House shortly after Trump had been inaugurated when they figured nobody knew what was going on yet.
And they’re walking through the halls of the West Wing and they encounter people, “Hey, General Flynn, you got time for a couple questions?” And Flynn thinks that it’s official, the FBI, he’s the new national security guy, they’re talking about his upcoming job, when in fact he was being set up. He was being interviewed about his contacts with the Soviet Ambassador Kislyak. And Comey has bragged about it.
The point is, they didn’t think twice about destroying a fine, decorated military hero, Michael Flynn. In fact, they eagerly attacked the effort to destroy him and his family. Mueller, the supposed most honorable man in Washington, no greater integrity, participated in all of this.
Now it’s awfully convenient, we’re not supposed to doubt Vindman because he’s a decorated military man serving his country, great patriot, Ukraine expert, all of which may be true. But notice how the Democrats try to apply blanket immunity to all of their witnesses, and it doesn’t matter who their targets are. If they wear the uniform of the U.S. military, it doesn’t matter, they can destroy ’em, they can seek ’em out, and they can threaten them, they can intimidate them, they can threaten to destroy their families, and they do.
But this thing in Ukraine, they want you to believe that Trump is being impeached because he asked the president of Ukraine to go dig up dirt on the Bidens. And that’s not what the president did. He didn’t ask anybody to dig up dirt. He didn’t ask anybody to make up dirt. The transcript is as clear as a bell.
It is Adam Schiff who claims that Trump asked for information to be made up, to be dug up, but this is about much more than Bidens. This is about thwarting Trump’s effort and William Barr’s effort to get to the bottom of what happened in this investigation of Trump and his so-called collaboration and collusion with Russia.
Ukraine was a central player in the effort to elect Hillary Clinton. And all of these people, from Schiff and the Democrats to every one of their witnesses being dragged forward is there to protect the establishment and divert everybody’s attention away from what they did to try to destroy Trump. And they’ve converted this into some sort of now impeachment hearings.
I think I’ve been right from the get-go that we’re living here in the middle of a gigantic illusion that has and is being created and maintained. That is designed to make people think something’s going on that isn’t. For example, there isn’t any impeachment yet. The vote’s gonna be tomorrow, but wait ’til you hear when we get to the rules that they have established for this procedure.
Whatever this is, it’s not a genuine impeachment. It’s not bipartisan. It’s nothing of the sort. And I think Pelosi has stepped in it big time. I think she’s done things that are gonna do great damage to her own party because she’s kowtowing to the radicals, the real radicals in it.
And while all this is happening, she is going to see to it that this country becomes even more divided and more partisan. It’s gonna become a culture and society more and more roiled. And she wants to get all this done before the end of the year so that they can then take whatever they do and attach it to their presidential campaign in the next year.
But whatever all of this is, it’s got one purpose. To get rid of Donald Trump because he’s Donald Trump. They want to impeach Donald Trump because he won. They want to impeach Donald Trump because he beat Hillary. They want to impeach Donald Trump because he’s president. They want to impeach Donald Trump because he will not resign. They want to impeach Donald Trump because he continues to implement his agenda. They essentially want to impeach Donald Trump because they can’t figure out any other way to beat him.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: See, I think this… Just to me, this is pretty big, ’cause this whole Ukraine phone call/impeachment is a giant debacle. It’s gonna boomerang and backfire on all of these Democrats trying to make this something that it isn’t and wasn’t. “Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman,” who nobody is allowed to criticize, nobody’s allowed to question, because he’s a “decorated Army hero” and a Ukraine expert trying to nail Donald Trump. So hands off!
“Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman attempted to edit the White House transcript of the July 25 call to include omitted words, he testified Tuesday, three sources told The New York Times. The words omitted, per Vindman’s testimony, came in the rough transcript where there were ellipses per the report.” Three dots. “The details included President Donald Trump referencing ‘tapes’ of former Vice President Joe Biden on tape talking about corruption and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky mentioning ‘Burisma,’ the energy company with ties to Hunter Biden.
“Those details about the president’s potential political opponents were included in the whistleblower complaint, but Vindman … tried and failed to update those details on the rough transcript, he testified…” So he admitted he tried to edit the transcript, which — I’m sorry, I don’t care how decorated you think he is — that is not permissible! He’s not in charge of what the White House, the executive branch releases. Look, folks, there can be no mystery here.
Ask yourself a question — and I hope I phrase this in a halfway decent way. For two years, 2-1/2 years we had to endure one lie after another about Trump colluding with Russia. And the objective was to create a series of believable lies that would change public opinion, that would force Trump’s supporters to abandon him. They wanted to reverse the election results. Everything they did blew up on them! There wasn’t any collusion! There wasn’t any obstruction.
They didn’t find one bit of criminal behavior evidence on the part of Trump or anybody in his campaign. Now after all of that — a 2-1/2 year nothing burger — they think they have struck gold with a decorated Army guy and a whistleblower regarding a released transcript of a phone call between the president and the president of Ukraine? Are you kidding? After all of those failures, after that gigantic 2-1/2 year nothing burger, magically they have found something impeachable?
And it involves a Trump opponent doctoring or trying to doctor the transcript? And this is what they’ve got? The truth is they don’t have anything. They have never had anything along the lines they’ve been hoping or alleging. They don’t have impeachable behavior. They do not have impeachable events. They don’t have collusion with Russia. They don’t have obstruction of justice. They don’t have anything that they promised this country they had.
Adam Schiff is still saying he has incontrovertible evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. If so, why’s he not using it? Why’s he going after this phone call business? So the American people, after going through a 2-1/2 year setup where everything they were told turned out to be a gigantic series of lies, now the American people are supposed to fall for this transcript of a phone call?
Gotta get rid of Trump because of this phone call business? At what point does this attempt they are making become obvious to everybody? I think we’ve gotten to that point. There’s not a single reputable poll out there suggesting the American people are angry as hell and Trump’s gotta go.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I gotta remind you of one thing, one salient point that I forgot to make when talking about the New York Times story about Alexander Vindman — the unassailable, decorated Iraq war veteran who carries shrapnel in his body still. This is the guy who admitted that he attempted to edit the transcript of the phone call, because he claimed that there were things not in the transcript that were said. So he attempted to edit it! A, that’s a violation. It’s not his job. He doesn’t get to do that.
But here’s the point. If you read to the end of the New York Times story — and this was the case during the entire two years, especially the first year of Trump-Russia collusion. All these stories with these anonymous sources, the intelligence agencies or whatever saying they had Trump here… “Evidence! Sources say Trump did this, Trump did that,” and they were sharing. If you read far enough in the story, you would read one line that attached to nothing.
“So far, no evidence has been shown that would verify these claims.” It was there, but not so that anybody would see it. Well, in this New York Times story about Vindman — who’s unassailable because he’s wearing shrapnel still and he served in Iraq (which the Democrats all hated) and you cannot attack military people (which the Democrats claim to support now and then) … The New York Times article admits — if you read far enough, which most people will not do — quote: “The omitted phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call.”
Allow me to translate: Whatever Vindman was trying to put back in that he claims was edited out of the transcript didn’t change it! It didn’t matter! It didn’t change the way Schiff and the Democrats understood the call. Meaning, it’s not a story! It’s made up! It’s manufactured! It’s part of the illusion! “The omitted phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call.” Meaning whatever Vindman wanted to put back in was not blockbuster. Trump did not leave anything out that was incriminating. There wasn’t anything Vindman was gonna add back in that was gonna nail Trump.
Nothing of the sort.
And yet, look at this gigantic hullabaloo being made about it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: By the way, folks Jim Jordan, Republican from Ohio, said that Adam Schiff yesterday was directing Vindman not to answer certain questions from Republicans. Now, there’s a term for that: Witness tampering. Adam Schiff was telling Vindman — the decorated military hero from Iraq war (that the Democrats hated) still carrying shrapnel from an IED attack (who tried to edit the Trump transcript but didn’t change the meaning of it) was instructed by Schiff, the committee chairman, not to answer Republican questions — and that’s just a sample of what’s been going on in there. There’s even more.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, one thing I did not get to today that I promise we’ll do tomorrow — and it’s gonna be interesting. It’s the rules. We had a call yesterday. “What do you mean ‘rules’? There are already rules for impeachment. It’s in the Constitution!” No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I described what the Democrats — or anybody, the majority in the House — can do procedurally.
And I want you to know what Schiff and Pelosi have planned. They’re gonna let the Intelligence Committee handle this. The judiciary always handles it, but the reason they’re not gonna use judiciary is because that’s where the best Republican spokesmen are: Jordan, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe. They’re not on the intel committee. They will not be part of the Democrats’ plan here. It’s strategic and purposeful, and there’s much more like that that I don’t have time for right now. But tomorrow, we’ll get to it.