RUSH: The other big news of the day, there's a Washington Post story, and it has another famous, anonymous source. We don't know who the source is. And the story says the attorney general, William Barr, has told, quote, unquote, associates that he disagrees with Horowitz's conclusion – it’s the inspector general -- report coming week from yesterday, December 9th. That he, Barr, disagrees with Horowitz's conclusion that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching the investigation into the Trump campaign.
So the story is that Barr disagrees. He doesn't think they had enough information to start the investigation. He thinks it was a spy operation. Now, we don't know if this is true or not, it's the Washington Post. They and the New York Times literally made up things. They literally created sources, made 'em anonymous out of thin air in order to have their own opinions reported as news. And make no mistake, that is what has happened. That's what's become of mainstream media.
It is no longer -- and you know this without me having to say it -- it's no longer about the news. It hasn’t been about the news in I don't know how long. It's nothing but left-wing activism or left-wing opinion that is camouflaged and disguised as news and reporting, so we don't even know if this story is accurate. We don't know who the source is. And intelligence guided by experience, the source may not exist. It could be totally made up. It's just one story out there.
Now, it rings true to a lot of people because -- look, my friends, I don't know how long ago it was. It's been at least weeks that I shared my own personal opinion on this inspector general report, that it was not gonna be anything anybody would be happy about. The inspector general is so limited in what he can do. He can't really even compel testimony. The people he talks to are given two weeks to look at the report and lobby for changes and edits.
And the inspector general is a deep stater. He's one of them. He's a swampist. And I have never thought -- especially -- we were gonna get this report in May. And it's been delayed, and it's been delayed, and we've had one excuse after another to tell us why it's being delayed. There's no reason for it being delayed. We know what happened. And we know that the investigation into Trump did not start in July of 2016. But that's their story, and they're sticking with it.
I saw McCabe, who has been fired from the FBI -- he's now hired by CNN as a commentator -- and I'm thinking this is three weeks ago, maybe even longer, I saw McCabe explaining the justification for and the timeline for the beginning of the FBI investigation into the possible Russian collusion with Trump. And then he retold the George Papadopoulos story.
(imitating McCabe) “George Papadopoulos was in London, and he told a number of people that he was a Trump campaign official. He told a bunch of people that he knew the Trump campaign knew the Russians had dirt on Hillary.” Papadopoulos never said emails, by the way. He said dirt. And McCabe insisted that that's when this began.
Well, we know it began before that. The FBI was running operations on this before the summer of July 2016. The Papadopoulos angle is toward the end of the month. And you know the story is that Papadopoulos was invited to London by one of the FBI informants named Stefan Halper. He's either a Cambridge or Oxford professor. He's best friends with the MI5, former MI5, CIA in London, a guy named Breedlove or Goodlove or Epsteinlove or whatever his name is. He and Halper are dead close, dead tight.
Halper's also worked for some American presidents. He's got a farm in Virginia. So he's wired deeply into this whole FBI, CIA intelligence community, both the U.K., the United States. And he calls Papadopoulos. He's a recent hire in the Trump campaign as a foreign policy adviser. Remember, when Trump gets started in this campaign, he's never done it before.
And he's not fully staffed. And one of the things that, quote, unquote, you just have to do, you have to have advisers in your campaign, you have to have foreign policy advisers, you have to have domestic policy advisers, you have to have this adviser and that adviser. Just the way it's always done. And Trump was slow to staff up.
So Papadopoulos was a guy that had been recently hired to join the Trump foreign policy apparatus. He gets a call from Stefan Halper inviting him to London. Travel is paid for. Hotel accommodations are paid for. I think he was paid $3,000 to give a lecture at some organization. They wanted to get him there. When they got him there is when they told him the Russians had dirt on Hillary. There's another agent involved here named Joseph Mifsud.
Now, Mifsud is also one of the people suspected of, quote, unquote, telling Papadopoulos the Russians had dirt on Hillary. Mifsud is denying it. The Mueller report portrays Mifsud as a Russian agent in order to tie Papadopoulos and Trump to the Russians. The short version of this, after they tell Papadopoulos this, they then arrange for him to meet the Australian ambassador at a London bar, where Papadopoulos tells Alexander Downer -- 'cause right before he goes to the meeting with Downer, Stefan Halper says, “Remember, George, the Russians got some dirt on Hillary. Remember that?”
“Oh, yeah.” Papadopoulos goes, tells this to Downer. Downer's initial reaction is that Papadopoulos is a kook. “What do you mean, the Russians –" but that was just for show. Because after Papadopoulos mentions this, which he didn't know until FBI agents or informants told him this, Papadopoulos didn't know what the Russians had without somebody telling him. It was FBI reps that did. Downer then calls the FBI, former Australian ambassador, big ties to the Clintons, big ties to the Clinton Foundation. And Downer tells the FBI, "Hey, I've got this guy from the Trump campaign that just told me that he knows that the Russians have dirt on Hillary.”
That's what they're saying is the beginning of this investigation. That's an absolute crock. They set that up before it happened, and there were other things going on during the Trump campaign that they were trying to undermine. And all during this time I mentioned yesterday Obama, in April of 2016 and maybe even in 2015, is telling everybody, there's no way the Russians could hack or affect the outcome of a presidential election. It's silly to think so. It's too complex, it's too spread out. The Electoral College would be impossible for anybody to know where to go and what to do. Voting machines are not connected to the internet. It's not possible.
And all that was being done to make sure that after Hillary won, which everybody knew was gonna happen, that her election would not be seen as tainted. It would be totally pure and totally genuine. Well, then she loses. Trump wins. So now they gotta taint his election. So guess what? He colluded with Russia. The idea that this started in July of 2016 with George Papadopoulos -- but that, I think, based on my reading of the Washington Post story, this is what Barr disagrees with, if this story is true. And it's what the inspector general's gonna say makes perfect sense.
The FBI had every reason -- you better be prepared, this IG report is gonna say they had every reason to investigate. You're gonna get ticked off like you haven't been ticked off. Remember, I told you, the IG, this whole segment, they're not gonna be turn on each other here. They're gonna have each other's backs. Even the Struck Strzok Smirk-Pages of the world and McCabes and all these people that fired Comey, people in disgrace, they're gonna be defended and backed up.
The story could well be true. And Barr would be well within his rights to disagree with it. Barr thinks the Trump campaign was spied on. That's why he's got his own investigator and a grand jury doing his own investigation into this. But whether the Post story's true or not, I don't know.
Look, I want to repeat a story for you, because I need to give you as much, quote, unquote, evidence, as much reason as I can to believe the degree to which the Obama DOJ and intelligence community conspired against Trump and the idea that this investigation began 'cause the FBI was minding its own business, one day was shocked to learn that a new hire in the Trump foreign policy apparatus was running around talking about the Russians having dirt on Hillary.
Give me a break. But that's their story, and that's what they're sticking to. And that's what the IG report is apparently gonna say, that that's perfectly warranted as a reason for the investigation setup.
RUSH: Des Moines, Iowa. We are starting here with Bill. Great to have you on the program, sir.
CALLER: Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
RUSH: By the way, Bill, you're in Iowa. Did you hear what Biden said about black people finding the blond hair on his legs when he's in the swimming pool fascinating?
RUSH: Did you hear that?
CALLER: The creepiest thing I've ever heard -- and then last night, I watched all these Democratic strategists (laughing) stick up and saying we "took it out of context." We just listened to it! (laughing)
RUSH: (laughing) It just boggles the mind -- and then the picture of him sucking on his wife's finger at the podium.
CALLER: Oh, we were told, "That's the Bidens just being playful." He is creepy. It is just creepy. I have a quick question for you --
CALLER: -- and this is not attacking my fellow conservatives at all. But as the Russia hoax collapsed in CNBC and CNN's hands like dust, their ratings took a plummet 'cause they kept saying they had the goods for years. Well, then all of a sudden, the Mueller report comes out, Mueller gets in front, and he's a complete dud. He doesn't know what's in his own report. Their ratings dropped. Watching Hannity last night, it felt like he was kind of walking back a little bit. Are you concerned at all that a similar thing...? I've noticed that a similar thing could happen to this report coming out Monday. I just wanted to get your thoughts on: Are we setting ourselves up for the same thing that happened to liberals with Mueller?
RUSH: Now, now, now, now. Let me restate the premise of the question. What old Bill here -- who was admittedly creeped out by Biden talking about how black people love and are fascinated by the blond hair on his legs coming up when they see it in the pool. I don't know how they... (Eh, I don't even want to go there.) Bill remembers that after two years of nightly assurances and promises by everybody on MSNBC that Donald Trump was going to jail, that he had cheated, that he was a traitor.
He colluded with the Russians. The election was illegitimate. Hillary really had won; the Mueller report was gonna establish it. Two years of every night, multiple times a day in the newspapers. Then the Mueller report hits, and guess what? No collusion. And MSNBC promptly lost 1.5 million viewers in prime time. They just vanished. It made perfect sense. That audience had been lied to. Now, that audience is back, which is interesting. I'll explain that in a minute. They've almost recovered that audience.
So what Bill wants to know here is, "Oh, my. Could that happen to Fox? Because Fox has been telling us that all these deep state people are headed for jail for two years. We've been hearing this and that from all these guests on Fox." The only way that -- and you said you're hearing people talk things back. Look, I don't watch enough every night to know. If there have been guests and so forth on Fox promising viewers that the inspector general report is gonna identify criminal behavior and have it referred for prosecution?
(Sigh) Then they're gonna have a problem. If they have just predicted that that's gonna happen at some point but not specifically tied to the IG report, then they're not as vulnerable. But if the predictions have been based on specifically what the IG report is gonna have, I guess that possibility exists. But there's a difference in the two audiences, and I don't think any Fox drop-off would even come close to what happened at MSNBC -- and I'll tell you why, except I've run out of time to do it right now.