Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rush: Hillary “Needs to be Investigated, She Needs to be Indicted, and She Needs to be in Jail”

Rush: Hillary “Needs to be Investigated, She Needs to be Indicted, and She Needs to be in Jail”

“Hillary Clinton demanding that Trump — you talk about sour grapes, this is a woman that’s been rejected by the American people twice, rejected by her party in 2008.”

Rush Limbaugh tore apart failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton last night on The Story with Martha MacCallum last night over her remarks at the TIME 100 conference.

Hillary claimed it’s “clear” in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report that President Donald Trump obstructed justice, but Rush had some decent reminders for the failed candidate.

Here is what Hillary said:

HILLARY: There’s enough there that any other person who had engaged, ummm, in those acts, umm, would certainly, uh, have been indicted. The whole matter of obstruction was very directly, uhhh, sent to the Congress. I mean, if you read that part of the report, it could not be clearer.

Limbaugh responded:

RUSH: You know, this is the irony. Hillary Clinton is who tried to rig a presidential election, Martha. Hillary Clinton and her pals in the Obama Department of Justice and the FBI, they are the ones who colluded with the Russians. They are the ones that gave us this entirely, totally bogus Steele dossier.

For Hillary — you talk about irony — for Hillary Clinton to be talking about impeaching Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton needs to be investigated, she needs to be indicted, and she needs to be in jail, and many of her co-conspirators in this whole sordid affair, which amounted to nothing more than a silent coup to overturn the election results of 2016. Hillary Clinton demanding that Trump — you talk about sour grapes, this is a woman that’s been rejected by the American people twice, rejected by her party in 2008.

She had to rig the primaries against Crazy Bernie in 2016 to get the nomination. She is the last person who ought to be listened to about what ought to happen to Donald Trump. She hasn’t accomplished anything anywhere near what Donald Trump has accomplished. She is in no position to sit here and say what she saw in the Mueller — well, she can say it, she’s an American. But she doesn’t have any credibility on any of this as far as I am concerned. And I’m not alone there.

I don’t think they colluded with Russians, but they knew the Russians tried to interfere and did nothing about it to protect our election.

However, Limbaugh is correct when he said Hillary has no credibility. As much as I want her to go away, every time she opens up her mouth, it gives us a moment to laugh and give thanks that she isn’t president.

Also, in Mueller’s report, he wrote that there isn’t enough evidence when it comes to obstruction. He wanted to leave that up to Congress. Trump ranted about actions that would be obstruction of justice, but people around him shot down the ideas.

I mean, if we’re going to go after people for saying something in the heat of the moment, a lot of us would find ourselves in court.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

There’s enough there that any other person who had engaged, ummm, in those acts, umm, would certainly, uh, have been indicted.

All I could think of was:

“mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most indictable of us all?”

I am not a big Rush fan, but he nailed it!!

“I don’t think they colluded with Russians, but they knew the Russians tried to interfere and did nothing about it to protect our election.”

There sure is a lot of evidence that they did collude, but we keep curiously truncating the story by excluding the glaringly obvious role the British intelligent services played in this. For instance, when John Brennan demurred from his adamant claims by citing that he was misinformed, he was almost certainly referring to his British intelligence sources. The path always leads to the British and their Russian connections.

And the Mueller report itself points to clear Russian interference while exonerating ALL Americans of being involved. We know about the Facebook ads e.g. and that Mueller filed indictments against a dozen Russian agents. Are those among the reported 14 “secret indictments” not disclosed in the report?

The Russians ARE up to their eyeballs in this. But so are the British and many on our side far beyond only the Clintons and Obama.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Pasadena Phil. | April 24, 2019 at 10:32 am

    “The Russians ARE up to their eyeballs in this.”

    Without Democrats help, the Russians would not have accomplished squat.

    I bet the Russians did a psychological profile of Hillary and predicted she could be used, so was Hillary an unwitting tool for the Russians?

I understand that one can be punished for obstructing an investigation into an alleged crime even if the investigation ultimately determines that no crime was committed, but, that’s pretty thin soup to power an impeachment.

Impeachment remains a political (not judicial) process, and, it’s pretty obvious that practically all U.S. presidents have stretched their authority at times to the edge of, and sometimes beyond, the boundaries of the Constitution.

In any case, it’s been said that if you take aim at a king you’d best fell him on the first shot …

Her “lack of credibility,” though real enough, is hardly a criminal offense. Deliberately putting classified material on a leaky server, however, is the sort of thing people are in jail for right now. And if American law means anything at all, she should be in jail with them. The evidence for this crime seems to be as solid as anything they’ll ever have. But nothing’s happening. For the concept of the rule of law, this is disastrous.

Sometimes things are stretched a bit one way or another, due to the prior history of the offender. After WW2, Vichy collaborationst Pierre Laval—a particularly oleagenous politician—was shot; but his fellow collaborationist Philippe Pétain—revered as the general who salvaged the French army after the disaster of Verdun, in a previous war—was sentenced to house arrest. Hillary has no stockpile of ageing virtue to offset her crimes.

    mailman in reply to tom_swift. | April 24, 2019 at 11:11 am

    How about this.

    Say a foreign Government somewhere wanted something confidential or important from the US Government without having to go through the official channels. Easiest approach would be for someone to talk to Clinton “offline” to make it known what they are after and then for some shady “charity” to then make a sizable donation to the Clinton foundation. Then all Clinton had to do was put the information on her server and then the Foreign actor could access it.

    Crazy right? I mean thats just a crazy conspiracy theory that no one would believe right…or at least thats what our left wing liberal betters want us to believe in spite of them believing for the last 2 years that Trump was a Russian asset!

    Barry in reply to tom_swift. | April 24, 2019 at 3:14 pm

    “…a particularly oleagenous politician—was shot…”

    “Hillary has no stockpile of ageing virtue to offset her crimes.”

    So, we shoot her, right? 🙂

inspectorudy | April 24, 2019 at 9:49 am

“I don’t think they colluded with Russians, but they knew the Russians tried to interfere and did nothing about it to protect our election.”

Wow! You must not be up to date with your research. The FBI and other agencies used shills to entrap Trump campaign workers by accusing them of having Russian connections. The Soviet source of the “Pee tapes” has stated that they were not real and told many people that, including Mueller. But between Nellie Ohr and Steele they used many Russian fabrications in the dossier on behalf of hillary and her campaign. If this isn’t collusion then what would it be? Remember that she and her party paid for the whole thing.

Congress is hypocritical about foreign influence [Russia and others] in US elections. So what? We do the same with Israeli elections, Ukraine elections, etc. Apparently they can’t try to influence us, but we can try to influence them. As they say, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    Milhouse in reply to walls. | April 24, 2019 at 5:37 pm

    The constitution doesn’t protect foreigners who aren’t currently in the USA, but the fundamental rights it protects are those unalienable ones with which the Declaration of Independence says all men have been endowed by their Creator. That includes Russians. So while Congress may have the legal authority to ban them from trying to influence US voters, it has no right to do so.

Lock her up!

“There’s enough there that any other person who had engaged, ummm, in those acts, umm, would certainly, uh, have been indicted.”

Hmmm. Where have I heard those words before? Where oh where?

“Need” is irrelevant. You can’t get to her without gutting the DoJ which made the decision not to charge her, and then hid behind James Comey’s press conference to conceal that fact during a long, long investigation of the would-be and then actual President. Only a determination that handing out immunity and making the call that intent is required for a charge labeled “negligence” (something never before heard of in law, to my understanding) was wrong, and that actual human beings, prior DoJ prosecutors, were at fault for determining so, can result in Hillary’s case being re-opened and prosecuted in spite of the immunity given out, which will result in her immediately seeking to quash them on the grounds Comey unjustly smeared her and denied her a fair trial.

Now, is going straight through the DoJ a bad idea? I would personally say no. But the DoJ doing this to itself for what would be deemed a “partisan” cause is unlikely to the extreme.

    Barry in reply to JBourque. | April 24, 2019 at 3:19 pm

    “Now, is going straight through the DoJ a bad idea? ”

    Sure, as bad an idea as investigating murder and charging the guilty with the crime.

    Why would you even ask? Of course it is a good idea to find and punish those guilty of attempting to subvert US law.

      I’d “ask” with a rhetorical question because it’s a lot more work than it sounds like out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth, not to disrespect him. Also, I’d say they didn’t attempt to subvert the law. They succeeded in style.

        Barry in reply to JBourque. | April 24, 2019 at 10:38 pm

        Well, it’s an attempt until proven guilty, but I take your point.

        In case you aren’t watching closely, it’s coming. It may be slow, but it is on the way.

        I will just note that diGenova said tonight on Fox that Brennan will not need one lawyer, he’ll need five….

        AG Barr isn’t ignoring this.

Don’t forget that Glenn Simpson’s (Fusion GPS) wife worked with Hillary at the Rose Law firm. It’s all Hillary all the time.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | April 24, 2019 at 4:15 pm

FYI

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!
4:04 AM – 24 Apr 2019

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1121006942502182913

Virtue signal a little more for us, MC. Yikes.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend