On his talk radio show Thursday, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh addressed the latest news from the mainstream media about the final report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and in the process enjoyed another opportunity to demonstrate just how "predictable" the "Drive-by Media" has become.
Attorney General William Barr's summary of the Mueller report KOed the "collusion" narrative and landed a devastating blow to the Democrats' dream of toppling Trump with an obstruction of justice charge. After a couple of weeks of "no collusion" and nothing from Mueller's camp pushing back on Barr's summary, suddenly The New York Times and The Washington Post both report that unnamed sources say that some in Mueller's camp feel that Barr's summary downplayed the findings in the report. This development, said Rush, was totally predictable — in fact, he notes, he did predict it.
"They’re making it too easy. They’re making it look like it’s not hard to do," Limbaugh said to start off the segment. "I predict that they’re gonna do something, and they do it. This New York Times story that Mueller’s team is not happy with the way Barr is representing their summary, it’s all a crock, folks! It’s secondary and tertiary sources. It’s not even people that are on Mueller’s team that are doing the so-called leaking!"
"I predicted this the day after the report was released, and especially when the Democrats started complaining that the Barr summary was incomplete, we need to see the whole thing," Rush continued. "I asked the simple question: If Barr’s lying about it, why aren’t Mueller and his people going public with the fact that Barr’s lying about what’s in the report? Guess what? That’s what the New York Times and CNN are trying to do today. And the Washington Post. They’re trying to make it look like Mueller’s team is upset with the way Barr is presenting his summary and there’s more damaging stuff in there than what Barr has alluded to."
Limbaugh then points out what he says is the glaring problem with the Times' report: The sources "are not members of Mueller’s team. These are associates of members of Mueller’s team. In other words, it’s not Mueller, and it’s not Weissmann, and it’s not Strzok Smirk or any of the other actual members of Mueller’s team. These are like friends of Comey, you know, from Bible study that are out leaking. It’s so utterly predictable."
Limbaugh then provides some of his trademark analysis of the Times' "bombshell" report, starting with the headline: "Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed."
"No. That’s not what’s in this story," said Limbaugh. "What’s in this story is associates — two people! In fact, if you read the New York Times’ 1,500-word bombshell report on this, you know what you’ll see? Two sentences, 1,500 words. Two sentences about what their anonymous sources claim. And here are the two sentences. You ready? ....'Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s' — What’s this Robert Mueller III? See, anything to elevate the status of these participants.... 'Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to,' anonymous and probably made-up, 'government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.'"
"'The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging –' So we don’t know why they think it’s more damaging than what Mueller has said. They just are leaking that it is! '– although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation.' A-ha! So they’re going to zero in here on Trump’s obstruction."
"I told you this," Rush reiterated, adding, "I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the alleged obstruction in this report has to do with Trump constantly calling it a witch hunt."
Transcript via RushLimbaugh.com