Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh drew wide attention Monday when he warned that if Republicans couldn’t get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court, they could kiss the upcoming midterm elections goodbye.
He said that if Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, “gives Democrats enough time, they’ll produce a woman claiming to be Kavanaugh’s secret Russian wife who Trump paid to urinate on that bed in Moscow.”
But the very fact that Democrats have continued to bring accusations out of what Kavanaugh described as the “Twilight Zone” means that prediction may have to be revised, he said.
Limbaugh said Wednesday, “The prediction – and it was very precise – was if the Republicans don’t confirm Kavanaugh, that there’s gonna be hell to pay and they could end up losing the Senate and the House.”
The latest accusation against Kavanaugh comes from a woman named Julie Swetnick, who is working with porn-star lawyer Michael Avenatti.
She claims she attended parties at which there were gang rapes and saw Kavanaugh at one.
If the nomination stalls, Limbaugh had said, the Senate and House would be lost.
“Because Republican voters would simply say, ‘What’s the point?’ But now I may have to revise this because this latest pop-up, Julie Swetnick, put in combination with Blasey Ford and Ramirez and the way the Democrats are acting … I’m beginning to think now that this is going to create one of the biggest backlashes against Washington, and specifically the Democrats, if Kavanaugh’s not confirmed. My first prediction was predicated on the Republicans caving and refusing to defend and fight for Kavanaugh,” he explained.
“My first prediction was based on that, and if that were the perception, if Republican voters think that if Republicans didn’t try and caved to Democrats – or the media, even worse – then they would have trouble in the midterms. But this changes that, or has the potential to change this because now this takes it out of the hands of the Republicans. This is just … This is a tsunami, and it is out of the Twilight Zone. Most Republicans are gonna sit out there and say, ‘Well… (Snort!)’ They themselves are not gonna have suggested strategeries to push this back on this.”
He added: “The anger at this, I think, is going to dwarf whatever anger might have happened. I’m talking about if this latest woman hadn’t shown up and if the Republicans caved and didn’t really try to push back. But this now, it could change that thinking.”
He wondered at the fact women are making claims about rape and assault and “rape trains,” but they cannot even remember the year. And in six FBI exams “and everything leading up to this no evidence of ‘rape trains’ was produced by anybody ever.”
He noted radio shows have been playing his statement for days.
“Now they’ll have to revise it,” he said. “We’ve got a new player in this. This bottom-of-the-gutterm scum!”
He said the reaction is partly because Democrats have gone below gutter level in their attack.
He apologized for the topic of the show, which was being forced by “the Democrats … smack-dab into Smut Central! Right smack-dab into the filthiest, grimiest gutter you can find and whatever is beneath it.”
He said Swetnick’s statement makes clear she is “interpreting the minds of other women at a high school party.”
“What does ‘became aware’ he spiked drinks even mean? It means she didn’t witness it. She ‘became aware’? It means somebody told her. When did somebody tell her? Monday? Last week?”
And he discounted “affidavits” supporting the first accuser.
“They corroborate that she told them the story. They don’t corroborate. There is no corroboration! This would be akin, ladies and gentlemen, to me coming on this program today and saying that I overheard Barack Obama admit that he ordered the FBI to spy on Trump. I can’t remember when or where. Now you can corroborate it for me. I’ve just told somebody. I’ve just told you that I overheard Obama admit he ordered the FBI to spy on Trump, and you can corroborate that. Because you heard me say it. But you can’t corroborate that Obama told the FBI to spy on Trump, and this is the trick that is being played here.”
He said: “There is nothing too ludicrous, there’s nothing too disgusting, there’s nothing too putrid, there’s nothing too perverted that the Democrats will not do to try to smear a person they want to destroy simply because they cannot stand somebody other than one of theirs being on the United States Supreme Court.”
He said the Democrats’ perspective is, “If we have to destroy you and make your little girls cry, if we have to destroy their future and make sure they can never go anywhere without being pointed at by people accusing their dad of being a train-rape setter-upper, then that’s what we’re gonna do.”
Tell Mary Jo ‘we believe survivors’ by Jack Cashill
Political theater: From Kavanaugh to the wall by Erik Rush
Kavanaugh vs. Ford: The truth may lie in an old fable by James Zumwalt
No more Mr. White Guy by Ann Coulter
Ford, Ramirez and a woman named Broaddrick by Larry Elder