Hillary's Intricate Web of Lies and Deceit

RUSH: Let me just tell you, this Hillary Clinton e-mail stuff, I'm just gonna tell you right now, it is so complicated, don't ever, ever think the low-information voter is going to even care, much less try to figure this out. I myself, El Rushbo, blessed with an amazing mind, able to wade through all of the BS and get to the stuff that matters, the stuff between the lines, not even I, ladies and gentlemen, can quickly decipher all of this.

It takes study even for someone like me to figure this all out, and then to try to take that and convert it into something understandable. I mean, I can do it, and I will do it, but I'm just telling you, anybody who doesn't hear me explain this to you is not gonna have the slightest idea. It's gonna be so convoluted and confusing, they're not even going to try to figure it out. It's all gonna come down to whether or not Mrs. Clinton is likable or not.

RUSH: Look at this. From the Washington Free Beacon. The headline: "Unions Pour Millions into Clinton Foundation -- Big labor funneled millions of dollars in dues money to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report." Folks, this confirms my money laundering theory that I have been expressing to you for months now.

"The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), a union watchdog group, traced at least $2 million in donations from multiple union organizations and affiliates. 'US Department of Labor’s union financial disclosure reports reveal that Big Labor gave at least $2,034,500 in union general treasury funds to Clinton Foundations. Union treasuries are funded mostly by compulsory union dues or fees collected from workers who would be fired for refusing to pay.'" (laughing) Yeah. The Clintons even take their money.

"As Mrs. Clinton became closer to her current run for president, donations amounts appear to have increased," says this report. To be clear, there are no donations to her campaign. The whole point here is these are donations to the Crime Family Foundation which is gonna be, in turn, used for the campaign. There's another story. Hillary Clinton was paid millions by the tech industry for speeches.

Get this number, folks. "Out of the $11.7 million that Hillary Clinton has made delivering 51 speeches since January 2014, $3.2 million came from the technology industry, the analysis found. Several of the companies that paid Clinton to address their employees also have senior leaders who have been early and avid supporters of her presidential bid. ... In one of her last gigs on the paid lecture circuit, Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed an eBay summit aimed at promoting women in the workplace, delivering a 20-minute talk that garnered her a $315,000 payday from the company."

Folks, these people are not paying Hillary Clinton $315,000 to give a speech. This is campaign donations disguised as speech income, which means that it's out of the purview of the Federal Election Commission and if some of the money goes to the foundation it's said to be going to charity like fighting AIDS and malaria, like Stephanopoulos claimed he was fighting. Eleven point seven million, 51 speeches in the last 18, 17 months. For a woman who puts you to sleep when she speaks. She doesn't say anything, and she says nothing in the biggest monotone and occasional cackling laugh that the last person would describe as infectious or charismatic, and yet they're forking over 315, $350,000 for a speech.

They're all buying influence down the road. They're all making campaign donations. This money's going to her back pocket. The speech income, we detailed that, much of the speech income doesn't even go to the Crime Family Foundation. It goes right to their back pocket. So we got campaign donations actually going to their back pocket, if you start tracing this. We haven't gotten to the e-mails. We haven't even gotten that web of deceit we have to unwind and untangle and unravel. They go right to the pantsuit's pockets here, these speech fees and so forth.

RUSH: I checked the e-mail during the break. "Rush, the New York Times may not be really that supportive of Hillary. I mean, these stories today." Yeah, yeah, look, I saw these stories. The York Times did run two articles about the latest revelations from Hillary's e-mails but the articles are so confusing it's almost impossible to make heads or tails out of 'em. Don't doubt me on this. Even if these articles at New York Times showed up at Yahoo News, if Harvey Levin decided to do 'em at TMZ, nobody would be able to stay with this longer than 20 seconds. It's that convoluted and confusing.

RUSH: The New York Times even managed to overlook the most newsworthy information in these e-mails, and that's the fact that Hillary had a second private e-mail account while she was secretary of state despite having sworn up and down she only had one. The GOP had to find that out and make news of it. The New York Times just let that skate right on by.

RUSH: I have Stephen Hayes here at the Weekly Standard, and his effort to put together all of these differing stories on Hillary's e-mail, and he calls his piece "The Worst Day of Hillary Clinton's Campaign, so far." Let me ask you a question. Let's acknowledge that yesterday was the worst day of Hillary's campaign so far. What does that mean? She's still the presumptive Democrat nominee. She's still got a D by her name. That's gonna equal a certain number of electoral votes no matter what, owing only to party loyalty. And make no mistake, that's how big time election and political professionals look at elections.

You and I would love to believe that candidates go out and get votes based on issues. It used to be that way. But now the consultants have gotten a hold of everything and they get hold of their candidates and they say, "California's lost, forget that. But Arizona could still be if you have the right message for Hispanics." And so a message that could be a unified message about America in general and at large gets watered down, tailored to group here, group there, demographic group over there and geographic group over there.

You end up with a mixed message that is impossible to understand and decipher, and it's all based on the electoral map. Consultants look at the electoral map and assume that many states are just out of reach, they're off the board such as California, New York. No matter who the Democrats run, they're gonna win those states. That's the feeling, no matter who they run they're gonna win those votes. No matter what.

As long as the Democrat has a D by their name, it doesn't matter what they do, it doesn't matter how stupid they are, it doesn't matter what their policies are, they're gonna win those states. That's the active thinking of today. Imagine if Ronald Reagan had bought into that. Ronald Reagan won 49 states, two landslide elections, 1980 and 1984. Proving that all of this that has become standard operating procedure today actually misses the point.

I may be naive. I've always thought issues is the way to campaign. I've always thought it is possible. If it were not possible to change people's minds, how were there ever a group called the Reagan Democrats? Right now we write off, the Republicans write off I don't know how many states that equal at least 200 electoral votes, they just write 'em off because of the map, because of population, and because of the belief it doesn't matter. As long as there's a D by the candidate's name, the candidate's gonna win those states, and New York and California are the best examples.

What they're saying is Hillary Clinton could commit crimes in open and it wouldn't matter because she's got a D by her name and she's gonna win those states nevertheless. That's what their belief is. And if you believe that, what can your campaign possibly be? It has to be narrow, it has to be tailored and targeted, and it has to be a message that is not unified for everybody in the country. I don't know. There's something about just conceding states. I know at some point you have to know your limitations. I understand all this.

I understand the odds of a Republican winning New York or California are little, but there's more going on than just the national election. They're down-ballot elections. I mean, it doesn't have to stay, California doesn't have to stay in Democrat control in perpetuity. The Republicans could run people for office, state and local level, and get some votes away from the Democrats and weaken their hold. Could do that. It ought to be done. But I don't know if it is being done with the attitude that we just concede this state and concede that state because it's just the Democrats own it.

Again, they're the professionals and I'm not. I'm just sharing with you my reaction to the way this all goes down. 'Cause when I see a headline, "The Worst Day of Hillary Clinton's Campaign, so far." So what? What it does mean? Has her campaign been hurt by what happened yesterday? What is the worse day of Hillary Clinton's campaign? Is she embarrassed, is she humiliated, does she feel she's gotta go out and make a public speech to change whatever perceptions peopling have by her campaign? No, I don't think she's bothered by any of this. And by the way, the worst campaign so far day, when you're still a year and a half away from the election, what does it matter anyway? But despite that we'll go through this in an effort to try to explain to you this entire e-mail mess that she has.

RUSH: Before we wade into this Hillary Clinton mess and the supposed worst day. And this isn't a criticism of Stephen Hayes. Don't anybody send him an e-mail 'cause if I get a reaction I won't see it because my e-mail's shot.

RUSH: The worst part of all of this is the Clintons just bore the heck out of me anyway, as I have made clear from the beginning of the most recent Hillary campaign. Ah, man, this is just -- I don't know what. Anyway, greetings, and welcome back. Great to have you. Rush Limbaugh, behind the Golden EIB Microphone. Telephone number is 800-282-2882.

Now, I don't want anybody to think that I am criticizing Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard, because I'm not. He has a story today that's titled, "The Worst Day of Hillary Clinton's Campaign, so far," in which he explains this convoluted e-mail situation that Mrs. Clinton is in. Well, no, that's not even right. This convoluted e-mail situation of Mrs. Clinton's, because she created it, and she created it to deceive. She created it to be able to hide. She created to be able to do stuff that nobody would ever see, because she's doing stuff that's questionable. There is no doubt about this.

So the New York Times has these two stories today that I guarantee you if you read them you're going to be more confused afterwards than when you began. The things that you would think they would focus on as really big they gloss over, and in fact there's actually a third Clinton story, the five wonderful things about Hillary you may not know, that go along with these two e-mail stories about how sneaky and deceptive she is.

So here's how Hayes attempts to put this together. Not only was yesterday the worst day of her campaign, "She’s had a series of bad days since she announced her presidential bid April 12. But Monday was the worst of them." Okay, look, I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but I don't think she's had a bad day. How do we measure that? Because the press is doing things? She hasn't been hurt yet. Can't cite polling data or any of this.

RUSH: So Stephen Hayes closes with "Hillary Clinton has more bad days ahead." How is it manifesting as a bad day? Bad day with who? I know if you're in the Drive-By Media and this stuff happens and in your universe in this world this looks bad, but I can't imagine that, you know, the real target of any of this stuff, if it's gonna matter, it's gotta somehow reach the low-information crowd. I can't even imagine. I don't even see them even knowing any of this. (interruption) In the old political world, this stuff would destroy. It still would if this were a Republican. This would destroy someone. The Republican would resign.

If you'd had a Republican secretary of state that did this with a separate server, a private server and all this, and selling access, they'd be in jail, for crying out loud. But people just don't look at Democrats as criminals. The Democrats care about the poor and the downtrodden, the hungry and the thirsty, and they don't care. I don't know. But you're damn right about that. Any Republican, even before we get to these two stories in the New York Times today, a Republican secretary of state who sets up a private server for the express purpose of selling access, especially on the come, on the basis of I'm gonna be president someday. I'm selling access now for when I become president.

And there are tens, hundreds of millions of dollars in the foundation collecting this money that's been collected, all to buy influence. Damn right whoever that was, if it was a Republican, would already be on trial, in jail with a cell right next to Bernie Madoff.

Anyone who constantly nods her head at one who’s asking a question already has her response set on automatic.

The Clintons are exempt from civilized behavior. Their sycophants will march behind them like good little zombies, and say, “Yes, yes, yes.”, No matter what they did. If Vince Foster’s body were at the White House, a zombie would show up and move it somewhere... Wait a minute... Maybe that explains it. “We can’t have that nasty corporeal smell here can we?”, the zombie might say...

3 posted on 05/19/2015 1:43:19 PM PDT by BigEdLB (They need to targelationt the 'Ministry of Virtue' which has nothing to do with virtue.)

Now, NY and CA are only the beginning: there are 247 electoral votes for HRC before the other guy can start his tabulations. That’s what the American people are: Clinton sycophants and shall always be.

4 posted on 05/19/2015 1:45:46 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Liberals keep winning; so the American people must now be all-liberal all the time.)

Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, non-inevitable, seemingly entitled, over-confident, secretive person who will do anything to win, represents the past, and is out of touch.

5 posted on 05/19/2015 1:46:59 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Hillary: polarizing calculating disingenuous insincere ambitious inevitable entitled over-confident)

Good observation.

There are so many mannerisms with Hillary (and 0vomit) that give them away. For most of us, it’s just the uneasy, creepy feeling they convey and sometimes it’s hard to put your finger on exactly what triggers it.

8 posted on 05/19/2015 2:34:53 PM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)

Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, non-inevitable, seemingly entitled, over-confident, secretive person...

You left off CORRUPT!!

The die hard Hillary supporters applaud her for avoiding the press and instead, taking it directly to the “people”. I guess the “people” are the rich movers and shakers who want favors and who are willing to fork out $300K for 20 minute speeches and host small Shrillary gatherings of rich elitists in their multi million dollar mansions. Definitely not what we previously considered the “people”.

What a disconnect...

10 posted on 05/19/2015 7:31:23 PM PDT by randita (...Our First Lady is a congenital liar - William Safire, 1996)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.