Thursday, January 19, 2017

History revisionism, and the Trump team's first big mistake?

Rush Limbaugh believes he knows what Democrats are trying to do. On his show he talked about:
This is about what ends up what you do a Google search some years ago from now, “2016 election.” This is what they’re trying to establish, that the whole thing was a fraud, that nothing about it was legitimate, that the Democrats didn’t lose, that the Republicans won because of Russian cheating. And they want this established as similar to how they have revised history of the 1980s. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work, that none of Reagan’s economic policies did anything but make the poor poorer and the rich richer. And you could think of countless other examples of history revisionism.

...By making the case that Jeff Sessions, the new attorney general, can’t investigate anything here because he has a conflict of interest, what they’re hoping is that somebody like Senator McCain or Senator Graham will agree with it on the basis, “Hey, so what if old Jeff has to recuse himself? It isn’t any big deal. Jeff, go ahead and recuse yourself, and it’ll show the nation how we’re willing to work with the Democrats and how we’re willing to work with them to get to the bottom of one of these most controversial things.”

...Now, you haven’t heard about any of this in the news. This is why you listen to this program. The news is not talking about any of this. This is stuff you haven’t seen anywhere precisely because it’s happening behind the scenes and it doesn’t involve the public.

...They (Democrats) signed this letter — all nine of them on the committee — demanding that Sessions say that he will recuse himself from any investigation of efforts by Russia to interfere in the election. I think this results from (sad say) the first significant strategic error the Trump team has made. That strategic error was having Senator Sessions say that he would recuse himself when it comes to any Hillary investigation. Now, this all came about during his confirmation hearings, because during the campaign, Trump is out there saying that he would investigate Hillary, and she should be in jail, she shouldn’t be running.

So the Trump team and Sessions at his hearings had Sessions admit or acknowledge that he would recuse himself, ’cause the Democrats made a big deal of this in the hearings when they were interrogating Sessions. “Beauregard,” they said, “would you recuse yourself if President Trump requires an investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s emails?” And he said, “Yes, I would.” “I will recuse myself, Senator,” he said. And I think that’s the first big strategic error, and I’ll tell you why. You do not give an inch with these people. You never presume they have moral authority to tell you how to operate.


You never acknowledge that.

You never acknowledge that you have any kind of a problem compared to them. Never. But they did, and I don’t know who was the adviser. It may well have been Trump; don’t know. It doesn’t matter now because it happened. I think it was a rare sign of weakness. And the Democrats have exploited it immediately by virtue… It was that admission by Sessions and the Trump team that Sessions would recuse himself from any investigation of Hillary that then prompted Obama and the Democrats to announce this inspector general investigation into Comey!

...But Sessions recused himself. The Democrats don’t see that as a sign of fairness, cooperation, bipartisanship. They see it as a sign of weakness. It’s like dripping blood into a water tank with a great white shark in it. If you happen to be in the tank, too, you’re dead. The shark gets a sense of the blood and if you can’t get back in the cage, it’s sayonara. And that’s exactly what happened. I think the Trump team made a strategic error here in acknowledging that Sessions would recuse himself.

And that is why the left is demanding even more Sessions recusals, and I think there’s a lesson here. You know, I’m just a guy on the radio, but I’m gonna tell you: Never give an inch to the Democrats. I know Trump is not ideological. He doesn’t see them the way you and I do. He doesn’t see the left as a bunch of liberals, and then being liberals does not inform him of who they are. He’s learning. I mean, he’s being victimized by them every day. They’re trying to destroy him. He sees it. And, for example, he sees what CNN’s doing running fake news and all that. How much he associates that with an ideology, I don’t know.

I wish that he had more of an ideological awareness, understanding, and agreement with this. But it’s not a fatal flaw here. He still understands they’re bad people. He still understands they’re out to destroy him. He knows this. And what’s he’s got to figure out — and maybe he knows it — is just don’t give an inch. You cannot. They didn’t win, folks. They didn’t win anything. They have been repudiated. They have been shellacked. They’re running fake polls. They ran some fake polls yesterday on Trump’s approval, and a new round of fake polls today on Obama’s approval.

You know, look at Loretta Lynch. During the campaign when the Hillary investigation was still ongoing, what does she do? She gets on Bill Clinton’s plane. Actually, he gets on hers. Bill Clinton lands in Phoenix, somebody says, “Loretta Lynch is here.” He says, “Hey, get me over to that plane! Get over to that tarmac. I got talk to Loretta.” She gets on the plane with Clinton and they talk about who knows what, supposedly “grandkids.” She doesn’t have any. And she didn’t recuse herself, did you notice? No, no, no, no!

...WikiLeaks is a great example, this Chelsea Manning thing. Look what’s happened here. When Chelsea Manning leaked all these documents giving away American secrets, military and national security, they cheered! And they cheered Assange. And they cheered WikiLeaks! The Democrat Party — your Democrats, your American left — thought it was the greatest thing on earth, and they cheered this Manning character, and they thought he was brave and courageous because, in their minds, the United States is the problem in the world.
And so this guy giving away American secrets and committing treason? That’s an act of courage. They liked Snowden when he did what he did. Well, they’re gonna come back and rue the day, ladies and gentlemen. They might regret having made WikiLeaks so famous. It may have cost them Hillary’s presidency. They build WikiLeaks up. They make WikiLeaks out to be something super-secret great thing. WikiLeaks inviolate! WikiLeaks infallible! If WikiLeaks had the documents, they loved Manning.

And now all of a sudden after that, they have to now run around and start saying that WikiLeaks is a bunch of frauds tied to Putin. And all we need is somebody pointing this out. They’re the biggest phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock ‘n’ rollers around. They’re frauds, the left, the Democrats. There’s no reason to give them a moist rag when they step in a pile of excrement! There’s no reason to give them what they want. They lost! They need to continue to pay the price for the damage that they have done to this country the past eight years.

And part of paying the price is for the things they broke to get fixed and for the American people to discover a newfound prosperity, a renewed sense of freedom and liberty, and an upbeat optimism, which should be part of the American existence that they destroyed (on purpose). They broadcast pessimism. They create pessimism. They create pessimism in every walk of life that they can and set themselves up in government as the solution and the answer to your pessimism.

...A investigation to find out what Putin…? I’m telling you, folks. You know, there are people out there saying, “Rush, you gotta very careful. The Russians did hack us.” The Russians hack everything all the time. So do the ChiComs. They’re trying to make a specific allegations that this election turned on what the Russians did, and it did not.
Read more here.

No comments: