RUSH: Last night CNN is back with Dianne Feinstein begging her, "Last time we had you here, Senator, you said you had no evidence -- you've seen no evidence -- of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Well, we brought you back again, and we'd like to know, has anything changed?" Here's how the exchange went...
WOLF: I just want to be precise, Senator. In all, uh... You've had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee. In all the access you've had very sensitive information, so far you've not seen any evidence of collusion; is that right? DIFI: Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper stories. But that's not necessarily evidence. RUSH: There's no evidence! There's no evidence. Let's go back. It was only May 3rd, 16 days ago, Wolf tried with DiFi the first time... WOLF: Do you have evidence that there was in, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign? DIFI: Not at this time. WOLF: Well, that’s pretty -- a pretty precise answer. I know the investigation is continuing. Uh, Senator, thanks so much for joining us. DIFI: Thank you.
RUSH: Right. So there you see Wolf was totally deflated there, totally despondent, totally let down. He thought he was gonna get a bombshell answer from Dianne Feinstein. "Not at this time." So 16 days later Wolf has her back on his show ho CNN. Listen again... WOLF: I just want to be precise, Senator. In all, uh... You've had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee. In all the access you've had very sensitive information, so far you've not seen any evidence of collusion; is that right? DIFI: Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper stories. But that's not necessarily evidence. RUSH: Do you...? This is profound! She admits, "Well, there's no evidence that would establish collusion. There's all kinds of rumors around. There's newspaper stories." Essentially she's -- unwittingly, I'm sure. She's essentially acknowledged that the newspapers are publishing rumors! Except they're publishing these rumors as fact with anonymous sources from current and former U.S. government officials. Still no evidence, folks. Still no evidence. None! Zip! Zero! It's just a bunch of rumors in the newspaper. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Again, back to Dianne Feinstein. Dianne Feinstein says there are rumors! Rumors in the newspapers! So we have now a special counsel. We have... I think it's three, four, maybe five congressional committees investigating rumors. If Ken Starr had been investigating rumors -- if any independent/special counsel had been investigating a Democrat, and that investigation had been going on for over a year and it had produced nothing except rumors -- don't you think Dianne Feinstein would be demanding this Mueller guy not even accept this job, that there not even be a special counsel and to shut this down? Because, my friends, the congressional investigations -- three, four, five of 'em, whichever -- and the upcoming special counsel investigation, don't even such on the big one. You know what the big investigation is? And this is key because the length of time this investigation has been going on... Depending on your start, you could make the case that it has been going on for a year, and it has certainly been going on since July of last year when Comey told us in that July 5th press conference that the DOJ was investigating something, which means Obama knew it, which means they were investigating Trump then. Well, Obama administration was investigating a potential candidate of the Republican Party for president. One of these investigations is the one done by the real intel guys, and I've been calling this the real investigation: The FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. These are the pros. Supposed to be the pros. This is where we have people who tell us that they are even able to read Putin's mind and to divine exactly what he did, when he did it. How could it be possible that they have investigated enough that they can read Putin's mind, but they can't tell us definitively if there's any evidence of collusion between Trump's people and Putin's? Forget the congressional investigations. Those are relatively new. Forget the DOJ. The intel people -- the people that have been doing the unmasking, the people that have been surveilling the Russian ambassador. These people have been going at this for a hell of a long time, and they don't have any evidence, either. There is no evidence! When does that arrive? When does the evidence of collusion finally show itself in this investigation? BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: I'm dead serious. Where is this evidence? We've been at this over a year. I looked it up. There are five different congressional investigations. I'm gonna put this in even better perspective. We have five House and Senate investigations. We have the big investigation that involves surveillance of people like the Russian ambassador. That's the investigation conducted by the NSA and the CIA and the FBI, and these are the pros. These are not a bunch of bumbling congressional investigators. These are intelligence pros. We have CBS, ABC, NBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and they are all looking into this. And look at how many different anonymous sources in just a year. All of the anonymous sources. And despite the number of sources for over a year, folks, we don't have any evidence. We don't even have anything that leads us to believe we're getting close to any evidence. All we have is everything every entity on the left -- the media, newspapers, TV networks, cable networks, websites, you name it. They are all pursuing this, and they all are saying the investigation is ongoing, and they're all talking to former and current government officials. There are people that we've never heard of that are leaking multiple times an hour, not multiple times a day. When you add all of this up, all of the various investigations -- and especially the one by the pros that involve wiretapping and surveillance and maybe even FISA warrants. When you add the congressional investigations, when you add the media investigations, when you tabulate all of the unnamed/anonymous sources -- and then you add it all up to over a year -- and there still isn't even an indication there is any evidence to find? At what point do, say, people in the media who are leading this and their followers in the Democrat Party...? At what point do they start to ask, "Is there going to be any evidence?" At what point do they start asking themselves, "Is there any evidence?" Because, I'm telling you this, these people who are trying to find it are overturning everything they think is in their way. This matters every bit as much to them as what they do to get rid of Richard Nixon. If there is any evidence that the Trump campaign or Trump himself colluded with the Russians, it would have been found. There just too many people looking for it. How many people are paying? How many people have offered gratuities if some real evidence is found? Oh, yes, I know. Keeping the story in the news is the value here. There doesn't have to be any evidence. All there has to be is "the seriousness of the charge." The nature of the evidence -- to more and more media and Democrat investigations -- is irrelevant. But it is not irrelevant to me. Evidence is the nature of the investigation, and there isn't any. For over a year, with the best and brightest and the dirtiest and the sleaziest and the sneakiest people looking for it! They haven't even found anything they think they can make up and pass off as evidence, because it won't hold up. Normally in a case like this where there is such desire to expose Trump for what they're alleging him to be so that they can get rid of him and humiliate and embarrass everybody that voted for him, in some cases there would be something they could make up that would be supported by foundational evidence elsewhere. They can't even do that. Meaning, they don't even have a... They're not close enough to their premise to even make up a tiny little lie that establishes collusion. And they aren't going to find any, because there isn't any. And it's been stated by many people other than me over the course of recent months; Obama has stated the practical impossibility of tampering with a presidential election in the United States. And it is not possible. They'll shift this, like "global warming" became "climate change," "collusion" will become "interference" or "hacking." "Collusion affecting the outcome of the election" will be abandoned and it'll be replaced by "evidence of the Russians attempting to meddle." Of course, they want the investigation to be prolonged and elongated. But at some point... See, don't forget this, Mr. Snerdley. This is a very important point to remember. There are rank-and-file Democrats, but particularly their base, who have been led to believe that this did happen. The rabid lunatics that make up the base Democrat Party voters believe there is collusion, just like they believe there's climate change caused by us. They believe Trump got together with Putin and rigged the election from Hillary. Their media and their politicians have led them to that belief.
I call your attention to the audience at the Colbert show on CBS, when Colbert told them that Trump had fired Comey and they cheered! They cheered. They cheered because Comey was -- they were told to hate Comey. They were told that Comey screwed Hillary. Well, not literally. They were told that Comey sabotaged Hillary's election, that Comey's the reason along with Trump colluding with the Russians, and so when Colbert comes along and announces that Trump fired Comey. (paraphrased exchange) "Yaaaay! (applause) Right on!" And Colbert says, "No !No, no, no, no, no, no! We love Comey now." The audience says, "What? We love Comey? Well, okay, whatever you say. Boo! Booooo!" They have created -- and this is real, because these are the people that accept payments to join protest marches and riots. They have been led to believe. Just like they were led to believe the polling data was correct, they were led to believe that Hillary was gonna win in a landslide. They have been led to believe that Trump colluded with Putin. They're convinced. There's no talking them down. They believe it happened. Democrats in Washington, the media? (scoffs) It's incidental. What they need is the story, the continuation of the charge or the allegation, the ongoing investigation. That's, to them, all they need. But they've created an absolute lunatic and insane, loaded-for-bear army out there. And if there isn't any evidence of collusion, they're gonna have problems of their own. So when I ask, "Are any Democrats starting to worry now that there isn't any...?" They may not be worried for the sake of the investigation. But I'll bet you they are worried over what the impact is gonna be with this lunatic base fringe that's gonna have to be talked down. "Sorry. There isn't any evidence. There wasn't any collusion. The only collusion was the Democrats rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders." No, no. That would tick 'em off too. So I think we have potential for huge backfire here on the media, on the Democrats, 'cause they're not thinking this through. They're the ones with this mindless twaddle. They're the ones undermining the sanctity and the integrity of our electoral process. They're the ones attacking it. They're the ones refusing to acknowledge it. They're the ones refusing to accept its authority. And remember that last presidential debate when Trump would not acknowledge that night that he would accept the outcome of the election. Remember the reaction: "He is single-handedly... Look at Trump. This guy's such a pig! He is wrecking the integrity of our election. Donald Trump: Another reason why he's unfit. "He told us tonight that he will not accept the out." Look at who doesn't accept the outcome. The guilty party here is on the left. They don't have evidence of the primary thing they charge. They don't have any evidence of the primary thing they claim lost them the election. But they're creating millions and millions and millions of people out there who think it is. That's a potentially explosive circumstance that they, the Democrats, might lose control of.