RUSH: Mike in Salem, Ohio, it's great to have you with us on the EIB Network. How are you doing today, sir?
CALLER: Happy spring, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: Well, listen, I knew it was gonna be a good day. But until I heard your monologue introduction, I had no idea how good it was gonna be. The point of focus that you came up with, the end of the DNC? They've done it before, Rush. Like you said, when we study our history, my big example -- and I've heard no one talk about it -- is the Florida chads. Whenever we win, and they fear that they're not gonna exist anymore, these scandals are created. Like today when you showed... They said, "Do you have actual physical proof? A smoking gun?" "No. No." So I think this is a glorious day.
RUSH: Wait just second. What do you mean when you say "the end of the DNC"? I don't remember talking about the end of the DNC.
CALLER: Well, when you say that they took such a shellacking in the election and you have these hearings, and when they asked Comey at the hearing, "Do you have proof in all these different states that the election was tampered with?" and he said, "No," and then the other guy says, "No," you said, "It's over." But no, it's not over, because they can't let it be over because their base is gonna go away. You know, Trump already carried all this blue-collar voters. If they have any more of their base erode, wait until you see 2018 what happens.
RUSH: Well... Okay, I admit I'm confused. I think what you heard me say was the Democrat base has become so demanding and so expecting that there is evidence that the Democrats are scared to death of the day they have to admit -- when this investigation ends -- that there isn't any. But just to clarify, I don't think anything's ever gonna happen to the Democrat National Committee, and I didn't mean to imply that. But here's what I base this on. By the way, I appreciate, Mike, your comment. He's talking about the monologu in this hour? (interruption)
Oh, in the opening hour. Okay. Glenn Greenwald, who runs a website called The Intercept -- and he's Snowden's buddy. He's the journalist that Snowden turned to to tell his story. Now, Glenn Greenwald is way, way out there on the left. He's left-wing, liberal to the hilt. But he's not one of the conspiratorial loons, and he posted... This is four days ago now, and the headline: "Key Democratic Officials Now Warning Base Not to Expect Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion." Now, I want to put this in a proper timeline, because this story is four days before Comey comes out today and says, "Oh, yeah, yeah.
"We have an ongoing investigation of whether or not there was collusion." This story, quoting Democrat Party officials, says that the Democrats already know there's no such evidence, that their base has been misled, that their base has been given all of these expectations, and that Trump is going to be impeached, that Trump is gonna be rendered illegitimate. Here's the plan: Impeach Trump, put Pence in there, and then scare him out of the Oval Office, and find a way to put a Hillary in. This is what the Democrat Party base literally thinks can happen in the next year, in the next two years.
Here's what Greenwald says, and I'm gonna give you some excerpts from the piece. "From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election -- a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented."
Go back and grab sound bite 23. Look, I want to give you the news of these hearings. I'm gonna intersperse this, because even Greenwald here... Everybody has to report the caveat. There isn't any evidence, folks. I don't know how to say this more powerfully and more profoundly than just to say it. There is no evidence that the Russians or anybody else colluded with the Trump campaign to affect the voting, which is what an election is. An election is people casting their votes and other people counting them. That's what an election is.
A campaign is a different aspect of the election. The election itself occurs on one day and it's where people vote, and then other people count them. And the Russians had nothing to do with that. And everybody in the intelligence community admits that. But they're not letting it go at that, because it's not really about that. Go back to sound bite 23. This is Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the committee, asking Mike Rogers the question: "As of today, Admiral, do you have any evidence that Russia cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of Michigan?"
ROGERS: No, I do not, but I would highlight we are an intelligence organization, not a domestic intelligence organization, so it would be fair to say we are probably not the best organization to provide a more complete answer.
NUNES: How about the state of Pennsylvania?
ROGERS: No, sir.
NUNES: The state of Wisconsin?
ROGERS: No, sir.
NUNES: State of Florida?
ROGERS: No, sir.
RUSH: State of North Carolina?
ROGERS: No, sir.
NUNES: The state of Ohio?
ROGERS: No, sir.
NUNES: So you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence that suggests any votes were changed?
ROGERS: I have nothing generated by the National Security Agency, sir.
NUNES: Director Comey, do you have any evidence at the FBI that any votes were changed in the states that I mentioned to Admiral Rogers?
RUSH: Nope. Nope. Without any hesitation, without any doubt. There's no investigation of that, by the way. There can't be. It didn't happen! It couldn't happen. Obama as much as admitted it and everybody with any common sense knows they couldn't have done it. They wouldn't know what machines to tamper with. They wouldn't know what counties, what precincts. It's not feasible. The only collusion that took place on Election Day was by the voters. Voters in 31 states conspired to defeat Hillary Clinton in a legitimate and fair United States election, which is being undermined today and every day by the American left.
The media, the Democrat Party, and all of their satellites are engaging in a daily effort to undermine the outcome of last year's election. The Russians had nothing to do with it. He says, "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies ... that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which ... there is no evidence.
"And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed." Again: "so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies." That would mean increased subscribers at the New York Times. That would mean increased subscriber circulation at the Washington Post. That would mean higher ratings for CNN, MSNBC. They are benefiting from perpetuating this lie.
They are personally benefiting. Higher ratings, higher ad rates, more ad pages, you name it. But there's something besides that. They are furthering an illusion. They are furthering a lie to undermine an election. That is the endgame here. But Greenwald says they're taking it too far here. "Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. ... Many have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.
"The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, 'In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.'
"But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to 'cast doubt' on 'allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.' 'On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,' he said, adding, 'There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.'
So Greenwald's point here is that key Democrats -- that would be elected officials, members of the House and the Senate -- not all, because some of them are just as wacko as the Democrat base is. But this is a comment on Democrat liberal media and how irresponsible it is, because it's personally benefiting from perpetuating and hyping this story, and in the process it's creating all of these legitimate expectations that the viewers and the readers, the consumers of this news have that Trump's toast.
His point is, they already think it. They already believe Trump's toast. It's just a matter of time now. So on top of that, here comes today's hearings. Now, by the way, the Greenwald story goes much longer. There's much more detail to it. But that's the thrust of it, and it's from four days ago. Four days ago, there's no evidence, zilch, zero, nada. Democrats are worried, expectations way too high, oh, what are we gonna do when our base finds out that there's nothing to it?
Well, here came Comey today, and Comey made it plain that he had gotten permission from the Department of Justice to admit that there is an ongoing investigation. And Adam Schiff, the Democrat ranking member of this committee, didn't look like he had any expectation problems, didn't look like he was worried.
So if there's a faction of the Democrat Party worried -- 'cause they know this is not true. They know this is BS. But at the same time, they probably know and hope that it can work in getting rid of Trump, or if not getting rid of Trump, then neutering him and making him so afraid to govern that he basically just becomes a placeholder. That's also one of the objectives.