RUSH: Maybe I shouldn’t be, folks, but I am so frustrated and irritated today that I am gonna have trouble reining in my emotions here. Well, not my emotions. I’m gonna have trouble making sure that I don’t shout. This whole business with the New York Times and Brett Kavanaugh, well, what’s frustrating is that everybody’s surprised by it! Everybody thinks the New York Times has made some kind of gigantic error. “My God, Rush, can you believe what the New York Times –” Yes! I totally believe what the New York Times did!

They’re trying to smear us. They’re trying to destroy us each and every day. They’ve been doing it for more than two and a half years. But just look at this last two and a half years alone. The coup! The New York Times ran lie after lie after lie five times a day for two and a half years, that Trump was a traitor, that Trump was a treasoner, that Trump was a colluder with Russia. Not a shred of evidence! It was never true! Has anybody said, “Wow, do you believe what the New York Times did?”

Why does the New York Times have any credibility left at all? They’re not journalists anymore. They’re nothing but left-wing activists. Even Andrew Sullivan has had to sadly come to this realization. There’s no journalism at The New York Times. The New York Times is nothing more than activism leading the Democrat Party.

Anyway, greetings, folks, I’m glad to have you here. See, I’m gonna have trouble with this. Snerdley came in today, “Rush, I grew up reading the New York Times. I can’t believe what they did.” I looked at him, “You can’t believe what they did? This is what they do every day! There’s nothing unusual about this. They lie about us. They lie about conservatives every day. I predicted when Kavanaugh was confirmed that this was gonna keep happening. I’ll go back and play you the sound bite if you want.

“Well, why would the New York Times risk their reputation?” Their reputation is not damaged on their side of the aisle. You think CNN is gonna stop reporting what the New York Times says? You think any editor at MSNBC, Washington Post, LA Times, you think they’re gonna doubt the New York Times going forward? Hell, no! Whatever the New York Times says they’re gonna repeat it! And if the Times has to correct it, then fine, let ’em correct it, we’ll move on.

As far as I’m concerned, all bets are off. This two and a half year coup that the New York Times led in conjunction with Obama administration officials has eliminated any possibility on my part that I will ever be surprised by what they do. Now, if you have been living in a cave and don’t know what this is about, it’s not complicated.

There are a couple people with a book, and they want to sell the book. And in the book there’s somebody that remembers that Kavanaugh did some bad sexual stuff to a woman, just happens to remember it. So they’re running with it as though it’s a brand-new, actually proven story. They knew that the woman about whom this story is can’t remember it. The woman has no memory of it happening. This is in the book that they’re promoting, and the New York Times knew it. They just left it out of the story.

Now they’re trying to say, “Oops. We screwed up. We’re sorry.” They didn’t screw up anything! They’re trying to destroy the man like they’re trying to destroy Donald Trump, like they’re trying to destroy everybody in opposition to the American left today. Have any of the presidential candidates who glommed onto this story, have they pulled back on it? Have they said, “Oops, sorry, we didn’t know the Times story was false?”

No. They’re still running with it. They’re demanding that Kavanaugh be impeached. Because this is mission accomplished. I knew it was bad. I knew it was bad when I started getting emails from friends of mine, “Rush, even Morning Joe is ripping the New York Times.”

The Morning Joe is our barometer now? It’s worse than I thought. A show that nobody outside Washington watches is our barometer now? So if Morning Joe is criticizing New York Times, we somehow are winning? Count me out. We have got such a screwball definition of winning. When one irrelevant media outlet criticizes the New York Times we think progress?

I got another note from a friend. “Rush, even with our low expectations for the Times, this is really amazing what they did to Kavanaugh.” No, it isn’t! It is not amazing. It’s predictable! It’s not amazing. It isn’t surprising. It should have been expected and greeted when it happened accordingly.

My friend says, “Imagine a story so shoddy and suspect that even the Washington Post wouldn’t touch it.” Well, how many times has the Washington Post done stuff like this that the New York Times didn’t touch? They trade off. The point is that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist, a serial rapist, a sexual abuser is out there now. And lest anybody not have figured out what this is all about, let me tell you.

It’s about two things. The word “impeachment” because now the Democrat presidential candidates are demanding Kavanaugh be impeached even though the Times has, quote, unquote, corrected their story and they have included the fact that the woman doesn’t even remember it. But are the Democrat candidates pulling back on their call for impeachment of Kavanaugh? No. They’re demanding another investigation because it’s got the word “impeachment” in it, and that leads to Trump.

The next thing that’s gonna happen — well, there’s two — one of two things, maybe both. They’re trying to scare, intimidate Kavanaugh into voting with the libs on the court as a means of stopping this, which will not work. More than likely what’s gonna happen here, the purpose of this is to discredit everything Kavanaugh does from this day forward on the bench. Let me explain to you how that’s gonna happen.

The Supreme Court has a ruling on guns, the Supreme Court has a ruling on abortion, the Supreme Court has a ruling on anything, and the majority is conservatives, and Kavanaugh joins the conservatives. Every story about Kavanaugh, “Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court justice who sided with the majority here, is often accused of sexual abuse and rape over the course of his college life.” That’s gonna be in every story reporting on Kavanaugh’s every ruling. Mission accomplished, is what this is!

This isn’t embarrassing for the New York Times! They’re in their editor’s newsroom rubbing their hands together and saying, “We did it again!” Have they lost any subscriptions? Have any left-wing, lunatic base members been so outraged and offended by what the New York Times did to Brett Kavanaugh that they’re canceling? “No, Rush, no, but what about their reputation?” Their reputation! Can you tell me why do they still have one after 2-1/2 years of lying through their teeth every day about Trump colluding with Russia?

Reputation? When did they last care about that? They’ve been living off a representation they don’t deserve for at least 2-1/2 years if not longer, and they’re not bothered by it. Have they apologized for getting any of that wrong? Have they apologized for misleading their audience, their readers into believing that Trump colluded with Russia? No! They’re still trying to find evidence for it. Okay. So Mueller bombed out; the Obama DOJ and FBI guys bombed out.

Now Nadler’s trying to get it. They haven’t given up on any of this. They don’t feel sorry about it. They haven’t done a mea culpa. They haven’t asked forgiveness. They haven’t tried to correct the record. As far as the New York Times is concerned, Trump is still not fit to be alive, certainly not fit to be president — and they’re gonna not stop until they are able to get him out of office, one way or the other. They’re also sending a signal to any other conservative judge, “You don’t want this. You don’t want us reporting on you.

“Don’t accept the nomination. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg passes away and there’s an opening on the court and Trump calls you, don’t accept it, ’cause this is what we’re gonna do to you.” This is all part of a plan that is designed to intimidate, scare, frighten conservative judges into not taking the gig. It’s all about making Kavanaugh maybe even want to quit the gig. It’s all about destroying Kavanaugh like they’re trying to destroy Trump each and every day, and there aren’t very many people who have as thick a skin as Trump does who could put up with this.

I’m sorry, folks. I can’t join the chorus of people shocked and saddened by what the Times has done here ’cause I’m not shocked by any of it, and I’m not saddened by it. I’m ticked off that everybody seems to think the Times screwed up here! It just tells me how hard the job going forward is going to be in continuing to educate people about the media, who they are today, what their objective is, and how they don’t do news. There isn’t any news in journalism today because there isn’t any journalism in the upper echelons of Drive-By Media.

This is just absolutely classic. All over CNN, “Democrat Presidential Candidates Demand Investigation of Kavanaugh…” Wait, wait, wait, wait. The New York Times has issued a correction. The woman involved doesn’t know. They can’t confirm the story. “Doesn’t matter! Kavanaugh is still a reprobate. We need him out. We need a further investigation.” They’re doubling down on it. They got the original report, which is all that matters. The “correction,” as you know, nobody pays attention to it. Nobody hears it. It doesn’t have nearly the weight as the original story.

The New York Times knows this. They’re selling a book, and it worked like a charm. I got up yesterday morning, I look at the Drudge Report, and there it is. “Kavanaugh raped somebody else,” whatever the details were. I didn’t even click on the link. I knew exactly what it was. Bogus, made up. They’re still ticked off that Christine Blasey Ford blew it! They can’t believe that they were on the way to getting Kavanaugh kicked out, making sure he wasn’t confirmed, and Blasey Ford blew it by trying to act like a 16-year-old when she was on the witness stand. (impression)

“I’m so… (mewling) I’m so… I’m so… I can barely see the sunlight (sobbing) the way I’m feeling! (wailing) Bret Kavanaugh’s…” It didn’t work, and so they’re back at it again. And you know what? Can I tell you what’s even crazier? I haven’t commented on this ’cause I’ve been holding it in reserve, but Kavanaugh’s had a couple of rulings here that have been with the left. Kavanaugh’s had a couple of you Supreme Court rulings that joined the liberals, and it caused a lot of people to raise their eyebrows. Not me, ’cause I know what’s going on.

I know what Washington conservatives do. They sue for peace. Okay, the media, the left, Washington establishment tried to destroy Kavanaugh. He doesn’t want that. He wants these people to least accept him! So he throws them a couple of bones, rules with them, and it may have been his genuine legal thinking anyway. But it didn’t matter, did it? The fact that Kavanaugh has ruled with the libs twice still hasn’t gotten that Washington Post Style section puff piece, has it? No! The New York Times is out trying to destroy him again.

“Hey, Rush, did you see that Morning Joe’s even ripping the New York Times?”

“No, I didn’t see that. That’s big, huh? Morning Joe’s ripping the New York Times?”

“Well, yeah, it means it’s really bad.”

“Really bad, eh? Really, really bad out there, eh?”

Again, I ask… This is outrageous what they did to the guy and what they’re doing to him. But this is, what, a one- or two-day thing? It’s been 2-1/2 years, folks, of flat-out lying, making it up — false, phony quotes from anonymous, probably nonexistent sources — assuring the people of this country that their last presidential election was illegitimate because Russians meddled in it and succeeded in reelected Donald Trump.

For 2-1/2 years! Where is the outrage today over that? You know, Mollie Hemingway and some people over at The Federalist website had a great piece today on this whole Kavanaugh thing saying the media must be held accountable for what they are doing to Kavanaugh. They must be held accountable for all of it, for lying about Trump putting kids in cages, for lying about Trump and his travel ban, for lying about Trump on virtually everything they report on the guy.

There isn’t any media accountability. I don’t know how you do it, other than cancel the subscription to ’em and they don’t care about that. The New York Times is sitting there with an audience you could put in a thimble and it’s not changing the way they go about their business. So how do you hold the media accountable? One of the ways you hold ’em accountable is to wake up and understand that it isn’t media. It’s left-wing Democrat Party activism!

We’ve got audio sound bites to back some of this stuff up, quotes from all kinds of people saying, “This is really bad. Kavanaugh’s gotta go,” even after the New York Times issues its, “Oh, I’m sorry. We failed to include that the woman doesn’t remember anything like this.” If the woman doesn’t remember anything, how did this become a story? Well, because some “credible source” told the New York Times it had happened to her. Fine. But the New York Times knows that she doesn’t remember it.

Therefore, she can’t confirm it. Therefore, it didn’t happen, in the world of journalism. But in the world of left-wing activism where all you need’s an allegation? Why, it happened! So the New York Times is not apologizing for the story. They’re apologizing for leaving out something that may not even be relevant as far as they’re concerned. The woman involved can’t remember. “That’s how bad it was! That’s how traumatic it was. She can’t even remember it.” That’s gonna be the play going forward.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The guy behind this story is a guy named Max Stier. His name is spelled S-t-i-e-r. The Washington Post, when they get around to writing about that, mentions that this is the impetus. Max Stier is the guy behind the story. He’s behind the whole thing. And guess what? He was at Yale with Kavanaugh. (Gasp!) “Wow, Rush, he must have inside information.” Well, let me tell you what nobody is reporting, even though they know this. The New York Times knows this. The Washington Post knows this.

Max Stier, who is behind this latest bogus attempt to paint Kavanaugh as some serious sexual abuser, was working for Clinton when Kavanaugh was on the Starr investigation. So Ken Starr is investigating the Lewinsky thing, which led to Clinton losing his law license because he was lying under oath and suborning perjury (trying to get other people to lie). Max Stier, who went to Yale with Kavanaugh, was working for Clinton during the Starr investigation on which Kavanaugh was an investigative member. You think there isn’t a little payback going on?

And the media knows this. But they don’t report that because they purposely do not want any of their readers to think that Max Stier might be motivated here by something other than truth, other than the facts of the story. And then we come to find out that the woman cannot even remember the event. I tell you, this is totally a media story. It’s completely a teachable moment, and it does reinforce for me maybe how impossible it is to finally achieve the level at which people just instinctively doubt what the New York Times says.

I mean, there’s clear enough evidence to do so. But the media is “the media,” and everybody’s grown up thinking that what’s in the newspaper is the truth. Journalists are playing off that, living off that for I don’t know how long. All I can tell you, folks, is that I am not surprised. I’m not disappointed. I’m not in the group that thinks, “Why would the New York Times do this? Why would they knowingly print something so egregiously wrong, knowing there was evidence?” Because the point is not whether it’s true! The point is whether it works as a smear!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This guy Max Stier, my friends, he won’t even publicly say what he supposedly has told others. He’s living out there in the world of anonymity. You have to look long and hard to find out that this guy has a direct connection to Kavanaugh from the old Starr Report days. PJ Media has it, but CNN’s not gonna be talking about it, and the Washington Post isn’t gonna be talking about it. You have to dig that out yourself.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to stick with the Kavanaugh stuff here for just a few more minutes and we’ll get to your phone calls. I want to take you back to October 9th of last year. October 9th, 2018. This is the day that Kavanaugh took the oath as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Normally when you get to the ceremonial swearing-in, you follow the script and all of that is in the past. It’s not to be referenced again. The fight is over; everybody acknowledges that the result is the result and we’re moving forward. Except that’s not the way it is anymore! The Democrats are not stopping.

The fight’s not over to them. The Democrats are openly promising to impeach Kavanaugh. They’re openly promising to continue to investigate Kavanaugh. They are openly talking about the packing the court if they win the House of Representatives, to nullify the power Kavanaugh has as the fifth so-called conservative justice on the court. They’re not pulling back at all. This isn’t anywhere over.

RUSH: I told you this October 2018, almost a year ago. And so the New York Times comes out with their story over the weekend based on this book that a couple of females are trying to sell, and it is what it is. There’s no mystery. The point of the sound bite was in the old days the political parties would have their fights, including elections.

And then the fight would end. The nominee would be confirmed or not, the election would take place, Republicans would win or not, and after that, you move on. Everybody would acknowledge, okay, case closed, we move on, and we fight the next time. Except that’s not how it’s done anymore on the Democrat side. No fight is ever over, no loss is ever permanent. If you doubt me, do you think they’ve accepted the election results of 2016 yet? They haven’t. Donald Trump’s not a legitimate president. He colluded. He stole that election. He cheated with Putin. Hillary got screwed.

They are still trying to reverse the election results. They got within a whisker of succeeding in this silent coup to overturn the election results, being led by the New York Times. So the Times runs their story. We have here a montage of Democrats and Democrats in the media talking about impeaching Kavanaugh over this fake news over the weekend in the New York Times.

HODA KOTB: Under fire, calls to impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh…

TOM LLAMAS: Democrats running for president calling to impeach Kavanaugh…

MARY BRUCE: The calls for Kavanaugh to go are now growing.

ARLETTE SAENZ: …calling for his impeachment…

KELLY O’DONNELL: If the House were to impeach him, then it would go to the Senate.

KENDIS GIBSON: Such a high bar in order to try to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

ROBIN ROBERTS: …calling for impeachment…

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Impeach Justice Kavanaugh.

AYMAN MOHYELDIN: Impeach Justice Kavanaugh?

ANA CABRERA: A growing number of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are calling for Kavanaugh to be impeached.

JULIAN CASTRO: He should be impeached!

KYUNG LAH: This has some precedent, in 1805, Associate Judge Samuel Chase on the Supreme Court was impeached by the House.

RUSH: There’s precedent, 1805, folks, there’s precedent for getting rid of a Supreme Court justice. Now, these comments, the vast majority of these comments were made after it was learned that the woman in the case who was supposedly raped, abused, or whatever, has no memory of it. You think there’s any embarrassment on the part — these are a combination of Democrats and Democrats in the media.

I don’t detect any embarrassment. I don’t detect any concern. I don’t detect any one of these people worried that they are spreading fake news. No, because the objective has been met. The New York Times ran a story trading off their credibility as journalists, which they’re not anymore. But not only was Christine Blasey Ford right, but there were other women that are just now being learned about and coming forward, except they can’t remember anything.

So you see the narrative was established when Blasey Ford’s allegations went public, and that narrative is still alive and kicking. Kavanaugh is a sexual pervert. Kavanaugh is a misogynist. He hates women. He rapes them. He abuses them. He mistreats them. He’s a misogynist.

“I can’t believe the New York Times would do this, Rush. What about the stain on their reputation?” The New York Times is celebrating victory over this, folks. There isn’t any shame or embarrassment in there because there was no journalism here. Do you think they’re gonna lose any subscribers? Do you think any of the lunatic base that relies on the New York Times to feed them hate every day are gonna be upset that the Times got this wrong?

No. That group of people thinks that Kavanaugh is a reprobate, that Blasey Ford was right, that somehow the Democrats blew it in not getting rid of Kavanaugh. The New York Times is being applauded today by its primary base for continuing the fight to get rid of this guy. The Democrat Party base is not expecting journalism from the New York Times. The New York Times is an attack death squad, as far as they’re concerned. That’s its purpose.

The New York Times exists to take out enemies of the left. This was a great, great move over the weekend by the Times as far as they’re concerned. If anybody thinks the New York Times is worried, if Mr. A. G. Schultzburger, the latest in the family to become the publisher, the guy running the place, if anybody thinks there’s any embarrassment in there — I mean, after the executive editor, this Dean Baquet guy said (imitating Baquet), “Yeah, well, you know what? We kind of blew it here on the Russia thing. We thought we were gonna get Trump that way, but now we’re gonna go after Trump on racism.”

And now they’re doing a whole project on how the founding of the country was not 1776. No. The founding of the country was 1619. Just because the New York Times said? You tell me the journalism in that. There isn’t any. Mr. Snerdley, did you hear that even Morning Joe was criticizing the New York Times? Did that make you feel good when that happened? Did that make you feel like we’re winning?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s audio sound bite sound bite number 7. I just have a couple more here. This was last night on CNN’s Newsroom. They’re talking to Ronald Brownstein, who used to be at the LA Times and used to be at the… He’s just another Democrat in the media now. The question he got, “Is it smart for these Democrat candidates to make the leap to call for the impeachment of Kavanaugh so quickly after this story hits?”

BROWNSTEIN: There is virtually unanimous agreement among Democrats that Justice Kavanaugh perjured himself on a variety of counts, uh, during his confirmation hearing, and I do not think it is at all inconceivable that if a Democrat is elected president in 2020 — Democrats hold the House and win the Senate — that they will begin at least to examine this!

RUSH: So you see, the plan has already been formulated. They’re gonna impeach Kavanaugh if they win the White House. They’re just gonna get rid of him. This is all part of that! I mean, here’s Ron Brownstein, Democrat in the media. “Oh, yeah, if the Democrats win the House, the presidency, and maybe even the Senate? Yeah, yeah! Damn right. The guy perjured himself,” which he didn’t, “and we’re gonna impeach him!” So this New York Times story is all part of a previously conceived strategy, folks.

This is not random. It coincides with a couple of people with a new book. The left wants to help these two authors make some money so they’re promoting the book. But it’s all part of the grand strategy to impeach Kavanaugh. They want to get rid of him. If they win the White House and all this other stuff in 2020, their objective is to investigate and convict as many people Trump nominated as possible. They’ll go after judges in addition to Kavanaugh.

They’ll go after cabinet officials that Trump appointed if they think they can get ’em on criminality. They’re gonna do everything they can to erase as much of the Trump presidency as they can. So this isn’t a random journalism story where the New York Times got too eager and just failed to uphold the sacred principles of journalism. This is part of a grand strategy here. Do you think Harry Reid feels bad that he lied about Mitt Romney not paying his taxes? Do you remember this story?

Harry Reid calls a press conference; the media dutifully show up. Harry Reid says, “A friend of mine told me that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid his taxes in 10 years!”

The media said, “Who? Who is this friend of yours?”

Harry Reid says, “That’s not the question! You need to go ask Romney why he hasn’t paid his taxes in 10 years.”

What’d the media do? They walked out of Harry Reid’s office and they went over to Romney.

“Hey, you didn’t pay your taxes for 10 years! Why not?”

Romney said, “What?”

“Yeah! Harry Reid’s got a friend who says he knows that you haven’t paid your taxes in 10 years. Can you prove to us that you did?”

“Well, uh, I’ve released my tax returns. Uh… (sputtering).”

So for the rest of the campaign, in addition to Romney not liking dogs because he put his own dog on the roof of the family station wagon for a family vacation — and he didn’t care about the wife of an employee dying of cancer because of health care concerns — he hadn’t paid his taxes for 10 years. Now, do you think Harry Reid cares? Harry Reid was ultimately asked about this, ’cause it was eventually discovered that it was a lie, that Romney had paid his taxes.

Of course, all this was learned after the election. Romney had paid his taxes. It was all made up. So the reporters dutifully went back to Harry Reid and said, “What about that story? You told us that Romney hadn’t paid his taxes in 10 years; it turns out that he did.” Do you know what Harry Reid said to reporters? “We won, didn’t we?” So don’t anybody think that there’s anybody at the New York Times feeling the slightest bit of guilt, concern, worry over practicing shoddy journalism.

You won’t find it. You won’t find any guilt. You’re just gonna find a bunch of people slapping themselves on the back for mission accomplished, ’cause now that’s all the media’s talking about: Impeaching Kavanaugh. The presidential candidates are demanding Kavanaugh’s impeachment. “Wait a minute! The woman says that she doesn’t…”

(impression) “Doesn’t matter! We know that Kavanaugh did it from the first time, from Christine Blasey Ford! We know Kavanaugh. We know who he is. He’s a liar. He’s a perjurer,” and that’s the narrative. Meanwhile, we’re all caught up in (impression), “Wow, can you believe what the New York Times…?” That still stuns me that people can’t believe that the New York Times did this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Grab audio sound bite number 21. Look, I told you I was gonna drop this and then they keep making my case. These Democrats come along and keep proving my point. Now, if you go back to the hearings, the Kavanaugh hearings, there was a deranged, angry, man-hating senator from Hawaii named Mazie Hirono. She said that men’s jobs were just to shut up now. Just to shut up and get out of the way. Men need to just shut up now. So she was on MSNBC today (the Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington show).

The question was, “Amy Klobuchar is standing apart from several fellow presidential candidates saying, ‘We have to wait. We have to see the documents on Kavanaugh that the New York Times report doesn’t have all the essentially ingredients.” The Times has said the woman involved here doesn’t remember the incident. This… It is so full of holes that there’s not enough here to run a legitimate news story, folks, and that’s why this isn’t one.

So Amy Klobuchar is the one Democrat candidate who has said (paraphrased), “Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. Before we start talking about impeachment, we need to confirm this.” So Andrea Mitchell’s asking Mazie Hirono, senator from Hawaii, “Is Klobuchar right? We know the reports went to the FBI and that ‘supplemental investigation,’ so-called, and they didn’t investigate further. So what do you do now?”

HIRONO: What do we do now, is what I called for, which is for the House to begin an impeachment inquiry. So during the time of the Kavanaugh hearings when these allegations came to light — especially the one of, of course, Dr. Ford, but Debbie Ramirez, her attorneys let the FBI know that there were 25 potential corroborating witnesses, none of whom the FBI talked to in their so-called supplemental — what I call sham — investigation. These are not normal times. So I would ask the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of whether or not Kavanaugh lied to Congress, specifically to the Judiciary Committee.

RUSH: Okay. So what is the point? You want to know, “Rush, what’s the point?” The point is that we’re not talking about journalism here, folks, and objecting to this as bad journalism is not gonna get the job done. We’re not talking about the New York Times went off the rails as a journalist organization. We’re talking about perhaps the leading edge of the spear here in the Democrat Party attack apparatus. This, I believe, is a coordinated-timeline attack.

It’s all part of the overriding Democrat Party strategy to get rid of Donald Trump and to punish anybody that he appointed or that he worked with for all kinds of reasons. A, to get rid of the vestige of anything to do with Trump, and to try to create a reality where Trump really never existed. “This was just some mistake. The 2016 election shouldn’t have happened.” They’re just trying to rewrite history, and at the same time they’re sending a message to any other judges that Trump might choose, “You might not want to do this, because we’re waiting here to destroy you.”

That’s a big part of this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is NPR’s Morning Edition today, and the failing Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris was asked about this New York Times story on Kavanaugh.

HARRIS: Someone should investigate that, because the fact that something has not been proven, it doesn’t mean it didn’t occur, right? (snickers) But if you don’t investigate it, if it hasn’t been investigated, then there’s not been a full airing of the issue.

RUSH: Hasn’t been investigated! Are you telling me that Christine Blasey Ford’s story and this one have not been investigated? See how this works? Somebody who cannot even remember the night, the woman involved…? There’s a guy here that claims that Kavanaugh… Look, I haven’t been explicit on this, because even this show has standards that the New York Times doesn’t. But there’s a way of dressing this up.

Apparently, what happened is that Kavanaugh walked into a Yale frat party with his male member exposed, and ran into a woman named Ramirez and said, “Hey, hold this!” She doesn’t remember it happening. The New York Times knew that she doesn’t remember it happening. And then there’s another version of this with this guy Max Stier — who defended Clinton during the Starr investigation where Kavanaugh was part of the team, the Starr team — and he claims that he has seen Kavanaugh act this way with women at other events.

But he’s got no evidence for it. So all these Democrat candidates are now demanding that Kavanaugh be investigated and impeached. Investigated? That’s all there has been ever since Blasey Ford came forward! The FBI has done background checks after background checks. So you see, this isn’t… As was the case with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, this is not about the nature of the evidence, folks. It’s about the seriousness of the charge.

“The charge is so serious! Yeah, it’s that Kavanaugh walks around exposed at drunken Yale frat parties! He did it all the time. Everybody knew about it! Except this one time, he walked up to this woman, Ramirez, and said, ‘Here, hold this!’ But nobody saw it, and the woman can’t remember it — and the New York Times knew that and left it out.” And everybody’s saying, “Can you believe what the New York Times did? This is so beneath them!” (laughing) No, it’s not. It’s exactly who the New York Times is! It’s exactly who the Washington Post is. It’s exactly what CBS, ABC, NBC are. Ditto, CNN.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mr. Snerdley, did you hear that even Morning Joe was criticizing the New York Times? Yeah. Yeah. It must have really been bad then. Wow. That’s a home run when Morning Joe criticizes the New York Times.

Mike, San Antonio, Texas, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. It is indeed an honor to talk to you. You’re the best thing on the radio since Paul Harvey. I’ve got you on five radios in the home so I don’t miss a single syllable of your verbal dissertations.

RUSH: Well, that’s incredible. I appreciate that. Five radios. That’s great.

CALLER: You know, I’ve heard people in the past, that people like yourself, people of fame, they’re public figures, they’re kind of not allowed to sue, but in this case with Kavanaugh and this BS Times report of sexual assault, I think the guy should be on the offensive and sue the Times for libel or slander to the tune of eight digits.

RUSH: I don’t think it would go anywhere. That’s my whole point. I would love to be wrong about this. It’s so hard. I mean if anybody’s got standing to take action like that it would be Trump. I can’t think of anybody who’s been lied about more, mischaracterized, slandered, libeled, you name it. It happens so many times a day that we’ve lost track. Kavanaugh, as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court suing the New York Times for slander, he’s the essence of a public figure.

And, of course, when you take an action like this there’s this thing called discovery. It’s not worth it, in a lot of public figures’ estimation. It just isn’t worth it. So the recourse is to just hope that truth prevails at some point and that you have a slew of defenders willing to take on the attack. And Kavanaugh clearly has a sizable number of friends in that regard. I appreciate the call.

Read original