RUSH: So, this was pretty good too. I’m watching the Republican counsel interview Marie Yovanovitch, and he’s asked her (paraphrasing), “So the Javelins, they were very important?” She said, “Oh, yes, yes! Very important for the defense of Ukraine.” “Can you explain why the Obama administration decided not to provide them?” “Oh, well, wuh, wuh, oh… I think their determination just had it made.” “But President Trump did provide them?” “Ah, gee, caught again, damn it.”
So when this previous hour ended and I stood up… I always stand up at the end of the hour. I was headed into the kitchen for some refreshments and to do some stuff, and just as I’m ready to unhook my audio IFB, Mr. Snerdley says, “You do realize that you are the only commentator in American media today who doesn’t find Marie Yovanovitch a sympathetic figure? You do realize this, don’t you?” I looked at Mr. Snerdley and I smiled.
I said, “Damn straight, I understand that.” Can I ask you, why did you make that observation before I react to it? (interruption) Oh, okay. Snerdley said, “Well, because it’s so stark. I’ve been watching cable news all day and I don’t care who they go to. Everybody talks about she’s ‘sympathetic’ here. She’s looking good there. You’re the only guy. You’re the only guy.”
I know, I know, I know. People on our side are talking about how she’s a sympathetic figure. Can I ask a question about this? Folks, somehow, I have escaped — thankfully so — what I consider to be the imposition of wimpiness on our culture. Somehow, I have. This woman, she is an ambassador. She’s part of the United States foreign service. She’s not a wallflower, okay? Why portray her as a wallflower? She’s an ambassador. She’s been standing up supposedly representing American interests against a bunch of thug dictators in Ukraine.
But beside that, I have stood by, and I have watched this culture soften and become touchy-feelie, and I guess on college campuses, that’s okay. And if you want to do that at work, that’s fine. When you’re talking about defending this country, we are a great nation at risk in a very dangerous world, and we need not look at this as an exercise for wallflowers. But what does it take? What is required for someone to be a sympathetic figure?
Now, I don’t use these terms loosely. If somebody is going to be said to be a sympathetic figure, that means something very specific to me. I’m the mayor of Realville. I am Mr. Literal. I’m not part of a Washington, D.C. crowd that makes judgments on people the way they come across on TV. I don’t know Marie Yovanovitch. All I know is that she’s part of the cabal trying to take out Donald Trump. Okay?
So what is it that makes her sympathetic? She served the nation for 30 years makes her sympathetic? No. “Sympathetic” means you feel sorry for her. It means you empathize with her, okay, what do you feel sorry for her about? What is it that makes you empathize with her? The use of the term “sympathetic” is loaded. It is calculated. It is designed to create an impression that this is a wronged, mistreated, violated woman. And she’s not.
Christine Blasey Ford was said to be a sympathetic figure, too, wasn’t she? Boy, she played the part better than Yovanovitch. And I don’t know if Yovanovitch has played a part. I think it’s being assigned to her. But Blasey Ford (doing impression), “Oh, I am terrified to be here. I was raped and left on the side of the road 50 years ago (sobbing) and still haven’t gotten over it. I want the guy who did it! I want the guy who did! I don’t remember who or where or how I got home.”
That is a sympathetic figure? (interruption) I’m exaggerating like Schiff exaggerates. It’s my show. I can do what I want to do. No, I’m being serious about this. They are attempting to run a coup on Donald Trump. There’s not a one of them that’s gonna get any sympathy from me, folks. I’m sorry. I’m not going to fall for it. I’m not going to play the game, and I’m not going to say so just to make it look like I’m sensitive so that you’ll listen to me later.
You know, half of the people on TV who don’t agree at all with what this woman is saying don’t have the guts to say it. They’ll start out by saying, “That’s a really sympathetic figure. Oh, really formidable! This woman, you can tell she’s devoted!” It’s all to make sure that they don’t get any criticism. It’s all about soft-selling it first to make yourself look like you’re sensitive and aware rather than getting to the nub of things.
But it is my impression, my belief that there need to be certain circumstances which have to exist in order for someone to be a sympathetic figure. Don’t you have to believe that somebody is really doing her dirty? Don’t you have to believe that someone is being really mean? Don’t you have to believe that she is being wronged and mistreated in order for her to be a sympathetic figure? If she’s a sympathetic figure, oh, it’s so bad what’s happening to her. What’s happening to her? She’s a star witness in an effort to overturn the 2016 presidential election. If Fox News wants to feel sorry for her for that, they are welcome to it.
Don’t you have to believe that some mean-spirited, predator-type brute is after her, trying to get her, trying to harm her, trying to punish her? Don’t you have to believe that she’s really, really being mistreated in order for her to be a sympathetic figure? “No, Rush, you don’t get it. That’s not what we mean by sympathetic.” Yes, that’s what sympathetic means. If you mean by using the word “sympathetic,” she looks so innocent, then say that.
But don’t tell me she’s sympathetic because there isn’t anything sympathetic here. If you want to say she looks innocent and harmless and honest, whatever, say that, but don’t use sympathy. Sympathy is designed to manipulate people’s emotions. It’s designed to use her to actually say something about Trump. That’s why I’m not going to fall for it. By calling her sympathetic, you are automatically agreeing that Trump is a mean-spirited S.O.B. predator who has mistreated her.
So I’m not going to fall for the notion that she’s sympathetic, just like I didn’t fall for the notion that Christine Blasey Ford was sympathetic. Christine Blasey Ford was used, and participated knowingly, in an attempt to derail the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
A lot of people are going to say that Marie Yovanovitch is a sympathetic figure because it’s just the easiest way to show you support a woman. Why don’t you think Schiff isn’t going to let a woman question her? So Mrs. Stefanik, the Republican woman congresswoman, wants to ask her some questions. “Nunes can’t allocate any of his time to you.”
She doesn’t want another woman asking her questions because there goes the whole idea that there might be some sexism here. Because if Trump is involved, there has to be, right? Now, you might not think this is any big deal. I am an etymologist. I am a student of words. I am a student of the usage of words and how they are selectively used to manipulate the emotions of people.
It’s very easily done, very easy to do, and it is being done here. By declaring that she is a sympathetic figure, you’re automatically conferring upon her total credibility and honesty without examining what she’s saying. You’re giving her a pass by calling her a sympathetic figure. By saying she’s a sympathetic figure, you can’t challenge her. She gets a free pass. She’s a sympathetic figure. And yet, ladies and gentlemen, she was let go in May, two months before the phone call the whistle-blower lied about, two months before the phone call Schiff lied about.
May I read to you from a transcript? I have here the first call with Trump. Zelensky, the new elected president about whom people are raving. He’s not corrupt like his predecessor. Zelensky said he agreed with the decision to recall ambassador Yovanovitch 100%.
Trump had told Zelensky, “Yeah, the former ambassador from the United States, the woman, she was bad news. People she was dealing with in Ukraine were bad news, so I just want to let you know that.” Zelensky responded by asking the president, quote, “I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us. It would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the ambassador to the United States from Ukraine…”
He went on to say, “I recall her name was Yovanovitch. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous president and she was on his side. She would not accept me as the new president…” Okay, this is not going to be brought out today by Schiff.
But Trump’s and our new ally in Ukraine — a new elected president, who had nothing to do with investigating Trump and trying to deny him the victory in 2016 — claimed that Ambassador Yovanovitch was not on his side, that Ambassador Yovanovitch preferred the previous corrupt president who had just been defeated in an election. He’s telling Trump that he’s glad to hear that Trump is going to move her out of the position because she was not being helpful to him. Well, it sounds to me like we had a rogue ambassador then.
We had a rogue ambassador who was trying to undermine the newly elected president of Ukraine, at least this is what he said to Trump on the phone call, and nobody yet is accusing the new president of Ukraine of committing an impeachable offense. I’ve got the transcript right here. He said, “I recall her name was Yovanovitch. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%.”
In other words, Trump, without even knowing what this president thought, acknowledged that Yovanovitch might not be the right woman for the job, is going to get rid of her. This guy says, “I’m glad you said that. Her attitude toward me was far from the best. She admired the previous president. She was on his side. She would not accept me as new president.” Wait a minute, now. See, I thought ambassadors, I thought really great diplomats… Is it her business who the Ukrainian people elect?
So, she doesn’t like the new president so she’s sitting around maybe being an obstacle that the new president has to go through in dealings with the United States. And Trump doesn’t want any obstacles. He wants to make deals with this new guy. It is a new day. It’s a new Ukraine. It’s a new relationship.
Again, the Republican counsel right before this hour started (paraphrasing), “Were the Javelins very important?”
“Oh, yes, the Javelins were crucial, very important for Ukraine to be able to defend itself.”
“Can you explain why the Obama administration did not provide them?”
“Uhhh, well, I think at that time the, uhhh, the decision…”
“But then the Trump administration ended up providing them?”
“Yeah, yeah. Caught again. Damn it!” (“Where are the Democrats helping me out here?” she’s saying to herself.) So I’m sorry, if I’m supposed to see her as a sympathetic figure, I don’t. If you want me to tell you she looks honest and sweet and harmless and, fine, I’ll go along with that. But sympathetic means something very specific.
It means somebody is doing her dirty. It means somebody is mistreating her. It means somebody is trying to get away with hurting her really badly and it’s making us feel very sorry for her. Well, I’m sorry. I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for this cabal that’s attempting to overturn the election in 2016. String me up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is Schiff. This is Nunes attempting to… What’s the term? He’s “yielding back” some of his time to Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican, New York. This is when Pencil Neck would not allow that to happen.
NUNES: I know, Miss. Stefanik, you had a few quick questions for the ambassador. I yield to you, Miss. Stefanik.
STEFANIK: Thank you, Mr. Nunes.
SCHIFF: (banging gavel) The gentlewoman —
STEFANIK: Ambassador Yovanovitch, thank you for being here.
SCHIFF: The gentlewoman will suspend! The gentlewoman will suspend!
STEFANIK: What is the interruption for this time? It is our time.
SCHIFF: The gentlewoman will suspend! You’re not recognized!
NUNES: I just —
SCHIFF: Mr. Nunes, you are minority counsel —
NUNES: I just recognized Miss —
SCHIFF: Under the House Resolution 660, you’re not allowed to yield time except to minority counsel.
STEFANIK: The ranking member yielded time —
SCHIFF: The gentleman — gentleman —
STEFANIK: — to another —
SCHIFF: (sputtering) Nope! Nope! Nope!
STEFANIK: — member of Congress.
SCHIFF: No! (banging gavel) Nope! (banging gavel) that is not accurate.
STEFANIK: That is accurate.
NUNES: You’re gagging (chuckles) the young lady from New York?
STEFANIK: Ambassador Yovanovitch, I want to thank you —
SCHIFF: The gentlewoman will suspend!
STEFANIK: — for being here today.
SCHIFF: You are not recognized, uhh —
STEFANIK: This is the fifth time you have interrupted members of Congress —
SCHIFF: The gentlewoman (banging gavel) is not recognized!
STEFANIK: — duly elected members of Congress.
SCHIFF: The gentlewoman will suspend!
RUSH: So Schiff is the authoritarian. Now, these were the rules Schiff put in place. The Republicans are trying to demonstrate the unfairness of the rules. They know. Nunes knows he cannot yield his time to Stefanik. He makes Schiff bug out his eyes and look like the authoritarian figure that he is. “The gentlewoman will suspend!” It is all part of their effort to make this seem for what it is. It’s a one-sided sideshow disguised as an impeachment hearing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Eric in northern Arizona. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: I think the Republicans are locked out of the sham that’s going on in Congress right now. We all know this is an organized coup. Why aren’t Schiff and Nadler and Pelosi being rounded up as traitors? Obviously, they are domestic enemies of the state. We are just validating it by even participating in this fiasco that’s going on.
RUSH: I get the point. The point is, that by showing up, we’re accepting the premise. The problem is, that if they walked out, then there would be no refutation whatsoever. Nunes and Jim Jordan on the last two days of hearings have made some really, really powerful points in opposition, and they have had, I think, a significant contribution to shaping the media narrative.
Remember, the first day of this on Wednesday was an absolute disaster and had the Republicans not about there and allowed this thing to go wherever it went with no opposition, no steerage, that would not have been good. I understand the premise of not accepting the premise. I understand the strategy, but for this there’s more of a necessity to blunt this. And I think they are doing a good job of it. Look, I got buried in the stack here much of the evidence of the low TV rating. It was 13 million viewers total among all of the networks.
It was paltry. It was not nearly enough to have any impact on public opinion of this issue at all, and the Democrats know it. There were fewer members of the country… The audience was smaller for this than for Comey’s testimony and much smaller than the audience for when Mueller showed up and admitted that he didn’t know what was in his own report. So as frustrating as it is, this is something they can’t avoid.
I watched this take place today, like everybody I was jotting down, making mental notes, thoughts. This really is a focus group. What we’re watching here, the American audience, the focus group, and these people are basically attempting to forge public opinion. They haven’t presented evidence of any impeachable offense. In fact, the first two witnesses were asked point-blank, “What is the impeachable offense of the phone call?”
They had nothing to say. There was dead silence. One of those witnesses (paraphrasing), “Well, I just want everybody to understand I’m not here for that. Well, I’m not here — I’m nonpartisan, and I have no interest in the outcome. That’s up for you people to decide.” So what the hell are you there for? If you’re not there, these are impeachment hearings, what the hell are you here for? “Uhhh, I don’t know, but I’m a diplomat. I’m not here for that. I don’t know about impeachable offenses. I couldn’t tell you.”
Anyway, this lawyer, Goldman, the extent of his questioning of Yovanovitch — and it’s because they tried to portray her as a sympathetic figure. (paraphrasing) “How did you feel when Trump said…?” “I was devastated. Oh, was very threatened.” “And how did you feel when Trump called the prosecutor a good guy?” “Oh, I… I… That, that… Oh, so disappointed.” “And how did you feel when Trump said that about you?” “Oh, I — I…”
The answer is, I don’t care what anybody says about me. I’m a diplomat, for crying out loud. (doing impression) “I don’t know, it was very — I felt…” “How did you feel when Ukraine officials told you that Trump was going to have Rudy beat you up?”
It was silly. How did you feel? We’re in impeachment hearings and we’re asking a witness who was not even around any of the events that are responsible for this, was being asked how she felt?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Hey, by the way, has Donald Trump ever abandoned an ambassador for dead — one under attack? Well, Obama did. Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi. Now, there is a sympathetic figure. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. There is a sympathetic figure. If you want a sympathetic figure, there it is — and, of course, what did Mrs. Clinton say? “What difference does it make now?” This is really so, so outrageous what is happening. I’ve tried to keep my anger in check and tried to look at this in not a lighthearted way, but…
I’m not going to fall for these people’s trick of taking this life and death serious, because they’ve got nothing, folks. And I’m telling you, the Democrat candidates running for president have got to be pulling their hair out! Nobody can even remember what they are talking about. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Bernie has said, “She will have a significant role in my administration.” Have you seen what happened since she endorsed him? The bottom has fallen out of Crazy Bernie since he got her endorsement. Fauxcahontas? There is a rebellion against her. All this dog and pony going on.
Related Links