Speaker 1: Right back on the Big One seven hundred WLW nine
Speaker 1: thirty five, Dan Carroll till midnight tonight. It is the
Speaker 1: Wednesday night edition of the Midweek Crisis. Great night for
Speaker 1: the UC Bearcats as they get the better of Alabama State.
Speaker 1: Not a great night for the Zabor Musketeers as they
Speaker 1: fall to Creighton by forty one. Forty one point loss
Speaker 1: for the Xavier Musketeers, and I thought they had things
Speaker 1: going the other way. So we'll see if coach Patino
Speaker 1: can get them back on track. In the meantime, while
Speaker 1: the UC basketball was game was going on, President Trump
Speaker 1: made an address to the nation, and an address it
Speaker 1: only lasted eighteen minutes. If someone would have had me
Speaker 1: wager ahead of time, I would have wagered that this
Speaker 1: address would have gone way over eighteen minutes. And Daniel Turner,
Speaker 1: a power of the future, is here to is here
Speaker 1: to analyze what Trump had to say tonight. Daniel Turner,
Speaker 1: are you surprised it was only eighteen minutes?
Speaker 2: That I am.
Speaker 3: That's you know, considering this is.
Speaker 2: Prime time and when the President asks for this coveted slot,
Speaker 2: I saw them say, you know, they they they preempted
Speaker 2: this season finale of survivor or something. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is a coveted Yeah, this is a coveted slot. And and.
Speaker 3: You know, I think it was a very impassionate speech.
Speaker 2: It was definitely brief, a lot of charts which I
Speaker 2: thought were interesting. We don't usually see presidents have visual aids,
Speaker 2: but I my general takeaway is I could sense the
Speaker 2: president's tremendous frustration that that not for credit, right, but
Speaker 2: frustration that that we forget about how bad things were
Speaker 2: and where we were as a country just a year ago. Well,
Speaker 2: I mean, the border alone could be a whole hour
Speaker 2: conversation with you, Dan, But but but on energy, on
Speaker 2: on foreign affairs, on uh, the economy, on an I mean,
Speaker 2: just a plethora of issue. Not long ago, we had
Speaker 2: an executive order that required us to drive electric vehicles
Speaker 2: by twenty thirty. Yeah. Right, there was a lot of
Speaker 2: stuff that the President inherited, and I think there was
Speaker 2: a sense of frustration that, yes, everything is not perfect,
Speaker 2: but by golly, remember where we were and it's only
Speaker 2: been eleven months. Stick with me because we're headed in
Speaker 2: the right direction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think if he's in I think they've pretty
Speaker 1: much said what their game plan is going to be
Speaker 1: from here on out going into the midterms, and they
Speaker 1: are going to talk about the economy and economic issues
Speaker 1: and why Trump is better for the economy and that's
Speaker 1: why we need to hold the Republicans need to hold
Speaker 1: the House and hold the Senate. And I put a
Speaker 1: star by this when he put up the chart about
Speaker 1: wage games and how wages are now rising faster than inflation.
Speaker 1: That struck me Daniel Turner as an area where I
Speaker 1: think he can get a lot of t I because
Speaker 1: that is something that is demonstrable. It is something that
Speaker 1: I think most people can get their head around that
Speaker 1: they they're making more money in that right now, and
Speaker 1: it's that it's not immediately going out of their pocket
Speaker 1: because inflation is taking such a big bite out of
Speaker 1: their paychecks. How do you see that?
Speaker 2: I agree with you, And I think when you add
Speaker 2: in those other factors of a reverse migration or remigration
Speaker 2: U that will see less of it of a strain,
Speaker 2: less of a demand on things like housing and on
Speaker 2: things like healthcare, and those costs will start to come
Speaker 2: down as well. You know, we're always dealing with fixed commodities,
Speaker 2: and it's it's something I've been thinking a lot about
Speaker 2: in just an enlarge, thirty thousand foot conversations. Your energy
Speaker 2: is a fixed commodity, and and the question is how
Speaker 2: is it allocated? And education is a fixed commodity. Barack
Speaker 2: Obama said, everyone has to go to college. We're going
Speaker 2: to give you money.
Speaker 3: To do so. But we only have so many seats
Speaker 3: at university. And what happened? The price went through the roof.
Speaker 2: Right, Barack Obama said, everyone has to have health care
Speaker 2: by law. Well, we only have so many doctors and
Speaker 2: so many clinics, and so what happened. Prices went through
Speaker 2: the roof because the demand went through the roof. But
Speaker 2: the supply was fixed. So we're always dealing with fixed commodities.
Speaker 2: And we have a president who is a supply sider,
Speaker 2: as we used to call ourselves on the right, that
Speaker 2: we can increase the supply and bring down costs. But
Speaker 2: we're battling a Democrat party and a Biden administration legacy,
Speaker 2: which is a demand party, which is, how do we
Speaker 2: get people to want more of these things? How do
Speaker 2: we pay them to buy the things that we want.
Speaker 2: There was no effort to increase supply. There was no
Speaker 2: effort to produce more electricity. There was no effort to
Speaker 2: produce more energy. All there was was giving out money
Speaker 2: to force people to buy stuff.
Speaker 3: Well, of course, prices went through the roof as a result.
Speaker 2: So the president has a lot on his plate, and
Speaker 2: we are headed in a good direction. We're not there yet, right,
Speaker 2: there's no I'm not spiking a football, but by golly,
Speaker 2: we are headed in the right direction.
Speaker 1: Well. Towards the end, he said an economic boom is
Speaker 1: on the way, and I think he really laid the
Speaker 1: groundwork for all the things that are going to help
Speaker 1: spur this economic boom. And he talked about energy prices
Speaker 1: and another thing that I thought that was important that
Speaker 1: another thing that people can get their head around is
Speaker 1: mortgage costs and how the cost of owning your own
Speaker 1: home is going to come down. And you talk about affordability,
Speaker 1: especially for young people who've been priced out of the
Speaker 1: housing market mostly because of where interest rates are for mortgages.
Speaker 1: I think if that takes a turn and goes the
Speaker 1: right way, I think that's going to be a pretty
Speaker 1: big nutt right there.
Speaker 2: I have a lot of reason to be optimistic for
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six. Like I said, there's not a I'm
Speaker 2: not spiking the football. But if I look at the future,
Speaker 2: I am fairly optimistic. Most of the tax provisions, the
Speaker 2: economic provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill, don't start
Speaker 2: until January first. I saw a guy on Fox Business
Speaker 2: this morning talk about five percent GDP in the first
Speaker 2: and second quarter. Now that's real optimism, right. But there
Speaker 2: are a lot of things happening in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 2: and then they're even unifying things. The President mentioned our
Speaker 2: two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. There's the Winter Olympics in
Speaker 2: a couple of months. That's a unifying thing. There are
Speaker 2: lots of things happening next year that can give America
Speaker 2: sort of an injection of positivity. I think the Democrats
Speaker 2: they're only alternative. Their only option is to try to
Speaker 2: create tension and frustration. They're looking for a George Floyd incident, right,
Speaker 2: That's why you have all these ice protests. They're looking
Speaker 2: to they're looking for violence, They're looking for anger to
Speaker 2: sow the seeds of discord, because that's how they thrive.
Speaker 2: They thrive in chaos. But there's a lot that could
Speaker 2: unify this country, and quite frankly, if the American people
Speaker 2: have a decent salary and can pay their bills and
Speaker 2: pocket some cash and go on vacation and love their spouse.
Speaker 2: They're not going to care about elections, and that's good, right.
Speaker 2: They're not going to care about fighting.
Speaker 3: For the because their life is fine, and that's the
Speaker 3: way it should be.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: We shouldn't be vesting all of our effort into who
Speaker 2: controls the House and the Senate. The problem with that
Speaker 2: is that we were admitting government runs our lives. But
Speaker 2: if we get our lives back, then, then let all
Speaker 2: those idiots in DC fight and just let me be
Speaker 2: happy and prosperous in my own self sustained autonomy.
Speaker 3: The way our founders envisioned.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you're right. I think there was a
Speaker 1: time in this country, especially in my lifetime, where we
Speaker 1: didn't we didn't concern ourselves with the daily comings and
Speaker 1: goings of what happened in Washington, DC. And I don't
Speaker 1: know if it just because of the availability of all
Speaker 1: that information right now, or we spend so much time
Speaker 1: worrying about you know, is the House going to vote
Speaker 1: on this? Are they going to get the healthcare thing going?
Speaker 1: They're gonna you know, get another budget passed before the
Speaker 1: government shuts down. We used to not worry about all
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff on a on a daily basis,
Speaker 1: and we do now. Did you see how he snuck in?
Speaker 1: Early next year he's going to introduce new Chairman of
Speaker 1: the Fed. Do you think that I think that's a
Speaker 1: little bit he.
Speaker 2: May ask for Jerome's power resignation a little sooner than
Speaker 2: than may. I mean, he definitely is very frustrated with
Speaker 2: with with Jerome Powell.
Speaker 3: No, you know, think of how many obstacles he has.
Speaker 2: I mean, he had a fire that the head of
Speaker 2: the Bureau of Labor Statistics, because this was the woman
Speaker 2: who they had to they had to reverse her jobs
Speaker 2: numbers into the Biden economy by eight hundred thousand. And
Speaker 2: you say that's not an error, right, Like you don't
Speaker 2: get something wrong by eight hundred thousand. It reminds me
Speaker 2: when Pete Buddhaje Edge was told, hey, you spend eight
Speaker 2: billion dollars, how many charging stations did you build? Margaret
Speaker 2: Brennan asked him and he was like, oh, seven or
Speaker 2: eight or eight.
Speaker 3: He wasn't positive that was either seven or eight.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: These these numbers are.
Speaker 2: You should have.
Speaker 3: Numbers are hard and.
Speaker 2: When the when the head of the Bureau of Labor
Speaker 2: Statistics is inflating your economy numbers by eight hundred thousand,
Speaker 2: we have a huge problem.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: You almost wonder what were the real numbers? What were
Speaker 2: the real numbers at the border when they would give
Speaker 2: us fake So he has a lot of government, as
Speaker 2: they call it, the deep state, and Jerome Powell is
Speaker 2: just another one. Half of the FBI is another one. Right.
Speaker 2: There are a lot of bureaucrats in DC. And that
Speaker 2: goes back to my earlier part. My earlier the point.
Speaker 2: If DC has all this power, then they control our lives.
Speaker 2: What he is doing with President tup is doing with
Speaker 2: the Department of Education, we should be doing across the
Speaker 2: board getting it out of DC and giving it back
Speaker 2: to the states. You in Ohio had way more power
Speaker 2: in Columbus than you guys ever will in Washington, DC.
Speaker 2: And if you want education for your kids, you are
Speaker 2: much more likely to get good education if education is
Speaker 2: out of Columbus. But if you have to go all
Speaker 2: the way to DC for your education, good luck, Chuck.
Speaker 3: Right, that's what we should be doing.
Speaker 1: Across the board, putting it back in the states. I
Speaker 1: can't disagree with that at all. From a political sense,
Speaker 1: he I think this is a brilliant move where he
Speaker 1: talked about the Warrior Dividend and one seven hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy six dollars to every member of our armed services,
Speaker 1: which I think, I don't know how that's the first
Speaker 1: I've heard of that he said this. The first time
Speaker 1: people heard about that was about thirty minutes ago. I
Speaker 1: think that's from a political standpoint, I think that's brilliant.
Speaker 1: I don't know how anyone can stand up and be
Speaker 1: opposed to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, one of the numbers about the Department
Speaker 2: of War, I almost called the DoD the Department of War.
Speaker 2: That really frustrates the left are the recruiting numbers, and
Speaker 2: you have to struggle. They have to struggle with the
Speaker 2: fact that if you're a seventeen year old kid and
Speaker 2: you're thinking of joining the Marines, you look at someone
Speaker 2: like Pete Haigsas, and you look at at at at
Speaker 2: at General Kane, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and
Speaker 2: you say, I want to be like those guys, right
Speaker 2: like their their alpha, they're they're patriotic, their they're Biden
Speaker 2: gave us a bunch of of of men dressed as
Speaker 2: women with masks who were telling us about climate change,
Speaker 2: and the numbers of the recruiting numbers dropped right, and
Speaker 2: they looked at look at the terrible withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: You know, that was not a problem. The withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: They stand by it. But if the d O D
Speaker 2: bombs a couple of narco terrorists in the Caribbean, they're
Speaker 2: all up in arms, right, so go go figure that.
Speaker 3: But that's that's something that the left.
Speaker 2: Struggles with, and that's why they hate the military. This,
Speaker 2: this warrior dividend is a lot President Trump's ethos of
Speaker 2: building back to military and then making America strong and
Speaker 2: making America patriotic, and and we started to lose that
Speaker 2: and I think we're getting it back and that's great
Speaker 2: for the country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one hundred percent of the jobs on the Trump
Speaker 1: went to American citizens, which I think is terrific and
Speaker 1: the whole idea. So again, he got a lot in
Speaker 1: there in eighteen minutes. And I don't know it did.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was a TV I was listening to. Did
Speaker 1: it sound like the audio quality was off a little bit? Well,
Speaker 1: how was the audio quality where as you were listening
Speaker 1: to it, my auto quality was fine.
Speaker 3: So maybe maybe he just had had a bad connection.
Speaker 2: But no mind was good.
Speaker 1: And then and then I guess, somewhere is a dollar
Speaker 1: ninety ninety gallon. I know around here, I think we're
Speaker 1: around two thirty five, So a dollar ninety nine I
Speaker 1: would welcome that right now.
Speaker 2: See, I would welcome that too. I think that they
Speaker 2: reported around two dozen gas stations.
Speaker 3: I think the majority of them.
Speaker 2: Are in Oklahoma where the gas has fallen below two
Speaker 2: dollars a gallon.
Speaker 3: That's something really.
Speaker 2: Positive, right because all of our farmers right now are
Speaker 2: getting ready to start thinking about spring, and they're going
Speaker 2: to do so at diesel, which is four seventy five
Speaker 2: a gallon and not eight bucks that it was under Biden.
Speaker 2: And that means that you're planting your crops next year
Speaker 2: is going to be a heck of a lot cheaper,
Speaker 2: which means harvesting those crops will be cheaper, which means
Speaker 2: your food will be cheaper.
Speaker 3: So a lot of.
Speaker 2: The inflation from the Biden era it took a while
Speaker 2: to trip into the economy, and it's going to take
Speaker 2: a while to get squeezed out of the economy. All
Speaker 2: of this is because of government tinkering. And that's again
Speaker 2: the government per government tinkering in the auto industry and
Speaker 2: the energy industry, in the military, in education, dei ESG.
Speaker 2: All of this nonsense, tinkering, tinkering, and all they did
Speaker 2: was create chaos. And it takes a while to undo chaos.
Speaker 1: And all this stuff takes a while to happen. But
Speaker 1: one by one, the the opposition, the Democrats and the
Speaker 1: left are running out of cudgels to beat Donald Trump
Speaker 1: about the head and shoulders with with these these different issues.
Speaker 1: Daniel Turner, it's so great to have you on all
Speaker 1: the time. What do you let me ask you this?
Speaker 1: You mentioned diesel prices. People always ask her this question.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you this question. Wire diesel prices
Speaker 1: so much higher than regular gasoline prices.
Speaker 2: Mostly because diesel we don't we don't refine a lot
Speaker 2: of it, and so diesel prices are high for the
Speaker 2: same reason why a lot of the California blends are high.
Speaker 2: When you have a refinery, refinery can produce lots of
Speaker 2: different products, but every time you want to change the product,
Speaker 2: you know, like, let's just put it simply, you have
Speaker 2: to you have to regulate the machine, calibrate the machine,
Speaker 2: and get it ready to create the new version of it.
Speaker 2: We don't produce a lot of diesel, and so the
Speaker 2: main reason why diesel has expended is because it's a
Speaker 2: number of volume. What we produced the most of is
Speaker 2: regular unleaded, which is why it's the cheapest. But if
Speaker 2: we produced more diesel, right, diesel prices would go down.
Speaker 2: One of the things President Trump I wish he would address,
Speaker 2: and we will try to work with him. From the
Speaker 2: energy perspective, we need more refining capacity. We need to
Speaker 2: refine a lot. We have shut down a lot of refineries.
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom shut down several. We can produce all the
Speaker 2: oil we want, but if we have limited refining capacity,
Speaker 2: we're always going to have that bottleneck. And that's something
Speaker 2: I wish he would spearhead for next year. Build more refineries.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what do you make out of what's happening with
Speaker 1: Venezuela right now?
Speaker 3: I don't want to see boots on the ground.
Speaker 2: You know, we've been through this before in regime change,
Speaker 2: and so I understand what the President's doing. I think
Speaker 2: his ultimate strategy, which maybe I shouldn't be saying on
Speaker 2: the air because I'm giving it away. Sorry, mister President.
Speaker 2: I honestly think this is a China play. Eighty five
Speaker 2: ninety percent of the oil from Venezuela goes to China.
Speaker 2: China doesn't have any domestic oil production. It imports all
Speaker 2: of it. It's twenty something million battles a day. So
Speaker 2: why he has huge sanctions on Iran. Yes, sanctions on
Speaker 2: Iran to protect Israel and stop terrorism in the Middle
Speaker 2: East and terrorism worldwide. But also the majority of the
Speaker 2: Ranian oil sales went to China. The majority of the
Speaker 2: Venezuela and oil sales go to China. I think strategically
Speaker 2: this is kicking China out of the Southern hemisphere. It's
Speaker 2: a little bit of Monroe doctrine, but it is crippling
Speaker 2: China because if they run out of oil imports, they
Speaker 2: will sit down at the negotiating table and take their
Speaker 2: place on the world stage under our boot where they
Speaker 2: belong like little communists. So I think it's a China play.
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, you know what, I think that that analysis
Speaker 1: to me makes perfect sense. If he can choke off
Speaker 1: the main artery of their energy supply, or at least restricted,
Speaker 1: you know, a great deal where to where they're feeling
Speaker 1: the pinch on that, then they are work more likely
Speaker 1: to play ball and and do things favorable to to
Speaker 1: what Trump wants. So I think that's uh, And that's
Speaker 1: what Daniel Turner, That's why I have you on the
Speaker 1: show man, because you see any of those things, you know,
Speaker 1: I can, I can ask you about anything, and I
Speaker 1: absolutely love it. Is Ford done making evs? Now have
Speaker 1: they seen the light?
Speaker 2: You poor forge stockholders?
Speaker 3: Right again, it's a publicly traded company that.
Speaker 2: You always take that risk when you buy stock in
Speaker 2: a company. But but this is where CEOs have to
Speaker 2: face the tax the shareholders. You know, a long time
Speaker 2: we've talked about evs a ton on your program, and
Speaker 2: by the way, you know, at the end of this year,
Speaker 2: I have to remind you how much I love coming
Speaker 2: on your program, and I've enjoyed my years with you,
Speaker 2: and especially this last year. But many times we've talked
Speaker 2: about EV's and I've always reminded your wonderful audience. The
Speaker 2: one company that stayed out from the very beginning was Toyota,
Speaker 2: and they took a lot of flack from the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: but Toyota, which is the world's largest auto manufacturer, said
Speaker 2: we don't see a market future in evs where it's
Speaker 2: going to stick with hybrids and combustion engines. So you know,
Speaker 2: again tinkering. The Biden administration decided they want an EV's.
Speaker 2: They forced it down Ford's throat and look at the result. Chaos,
Speaker 2: pure chaos. Yep, huge loss for Ford. Daniel Turner, as always, man,
Speaker 2: I appreciate the time, I appreciate you being here and
Speaker 2: thanks for the analysis. Great work as always, and I
Speaker 2: certainly hope we can be talking again at least one
Speaker 2: more time before the new year.
Speaker 1: How about that.
Speaker 2: I would love to Dan anytime, but if not, Merry
Speaker 2: Christmas to you and your listeners.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, Bratan, Thank.
Speaker 1: You, Daniel. All the best to you and yours too,
Speaker 1: my friend. I appreciate that. Daniel Turner Power the Future,
Speaker 1: great website. I check it out all the time if
Speaker 1: you want to see what's happening with energy in this country.
Speaker 1: It's just great stuff. Nine fifty four. We got to
Speaker 1: get to a break news coming up at the top
Speaker 1: of the hour, So what is your take on what
Speaker 1: the Trumpster had to say tonight? And also Earlier today,
Speaker 1: the former prosecutor of Hamilton County, Joseph Theaters, was on
Speaker 1: this radio station and defending himself from the current prosecutor,
Speaker 1: Connie Pillach, who would suggest that somehow during his time
Speaker 1: in office that he engaged in behavior that saw an
Speaker 1: innocent man go to prison. Absolutely disgusting, and we're definitely
Speaker 1: going to talk about that as we roll on till
Speaker 1: midnight tonight. Dan Carroll in the Wednesday night edition of
Speaker 1: The Midweek Crisis on seven hundred WLW, seven hundred WLW,
Speaker 1: it's ten oh five. I'm Dan Carroll, that says the
Speaker 1: Wednesday night edition for the Midweek Crisis. Joe Wandell running
Speaker 1: the Big Board in the seven hundred WLW Command Center.
Speaker 1: Front lines are open five to one to three, seven
Speaker 1: four nine, seven, eight hundred, the Big One, talking about
Speaker 1: what Trump had to say tonight and an eighteen minute speech.
Speaker 1: He normally goes longer than that. Look, I'm I'm eighteen minutes.
Speaker 1: I'm perfectly fine with that. I think that is if
Speaker 1: you're you're gonna be on TV, you're canceling people shows
Speaker 1: that they want to watch, can they put up with,
Speaker 1: you know, eighteen twenty minutes? Of the president being on
Speaker 1: I would I would certainly hope. So I talked about,
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of the stuff is stuff we
Speaker 1: heard before when he talked about what was going wrong
Speaker 1: when he took office. Took office, talked about the border, crime,
Speaker 1: the economy, drugs, women or men and women, sports, reminded
Speaker 1: everyone that he won the popular votes, talked about how
Speaker 1: bad Biden was. Now the border is closed, the border
Speaker 1: is strong. It's went from the worst to the best
Speaker 1: in typical Trump fashion. So that was that was some
Speaker 1: good stuff there. Let's see what Mark in Monroe has
Speaker 1: to say. And Mark, you're on seven hundred WLW.
Speaker 5: Hey, Dan, I don't disagree with anything of the eighteen minutes,
Speaker 5: not to comput be compared to the Rosemary Wood eighteen
Speaker 5: minute missing minutes back in the day.
Speaker 1: But anyhow, one by the infamous White House tapes, remember
Speaker 1: remember them?
Speaker 5: Well, yes, sir, okay, I kind of want to shift
Speaker 5: just a little bit here, all right. I caught win
Speaker 5: with Dean bond Joni wanting to call it quits today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Dan Bongino, Yeah, he announced today that he is
Speaker 1: going to step down as Deputy director of the FBI
Speaker 1: in January.
Speaker 2: Well, my concern is his main thing.
Speaker 5: When he was doing his talk radio, he put all
Speaker 5: this emphasis on the pipe bomb thing, and I think
Speaker 5: that he's he's been undermined by the deep state to
Speaker 5: the point where he doesn't want to continue on anymore.
Speaker 5: I think, I.
Speaker 1: Don't know, he's obviously changed his tune on that because
Speaker 1: he was so dead set that there was a lot
Speaker 1: more to it than meets the eye on the pipe
Speaker 1: bombing thing, and he was really leading the way on
Speaker 1: what was happening there. When different pieces of video would
Speaker 1: come out, he would do he would do entire segments,
Speaker 1: and I think he did a couple of shows where
Speaker 1: he did entire shows talking about the evidence that you
Speaker 1: know that was coming forward trying to catch the pipe bomber.
Speaker 1: So he was he and he was pretty incredulous that
Speaker 1: they did. They really had no clue as to who
Speaker 1: this person was. And you know, we've come to find
Speaker 1: out subsequently that the Biden administration, under the FBI, under
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, had phone records that could have put
Speaker 1: the finger on this dude that they wound up arresting
Speaker 1: back in there. They could have done that back in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, had they followed up on on the
Speaker 1: the information that they had. So Dan Bonngino, I don't
Speaker 1: know if he's being comp I would like to think
Speaker 1: that he's been around, he's savvy enough to not let
Speaker 1: that happen. It's going to be interesting to see how
Speaker 1: much liberty he's at to be able to speak frankly
Speaker 1: about his time as deputy director of the FBI. But
Speaker 1: and when the time comes when he's able to tell
Speaker 1: that story, I think it's going to be worth listening to.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, if my opinion, there's a huge question
Speaker 5: mark that hangs over to head of this whole thing.
Speaker 5: And I know that, Yeah, I used to listen to
Speaker 5: his radio program, so I give him stack, you know,
Speaker 5: put stack in his integrity part of it. So there's
Speaker 5: something that really looms large and uh behind the scenes
Speaker 5: on this whole thing. So I guess kind of like
Speaker 5: what you're alluding to, we're going to get to see
Speaker 5: how this whole thing pans out. But even as a
Speaker 5: whole I think our Department of Justice again beyond the end,
Speaker 5: you know, we failed with the Obama treaton thing, and
Speaker 5: I don't know where we're going to go with this
Speaker 5: COMI thing. But if we can't come up with convictions
Speaker 5: and the Department of Justice. And again, maybe there's where
Speaker 5: I'm putting my finger on this thing. Maybe he's just
Speaker 5: frustrated he's not gain in any ground with you know,
Speaker 5: like like I said, with convicting any of these people.
Speaker 1: Maybe it is, Maybe it is a sense of frustration.
Speaker 1: Maybe it is he's just putting his throwing his hands
Speaker 1: up because he's not he sees a clear direction and
Speaker 1: he's for whatever reason, not able to follow that. So
Speaker 1: I don't know how you know, again, I don't know
Speaker 1: how candid he's going to be able to be when
Speaker 1: when he steps away, and I'm guessing he's going to
Speaker 1: go back to doing all the media stuff he was
Speaker 1: doing before, which I think will be great, and he'll
Speaker 1: he'll have, uh, he'll have a lot to talk about,
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. Mark. I appreciate the I appreciate
Speaker 1: the phone call tonight.
Speaker 2: Mark, thank you, thank you, thank.
Speaker 1: You very much. And you know, I mean everything he's saying.
Speaker 1: It It goes to the trust that we have in
Speaker 1: these institutions. And why do we question what the FBI,
Speaker 1: what the Department of Justice, what investigators are saying about
Speaker 1: what happened with the with the pipe bomber. Why Why?
Speaker 1: Because for so long the FBI let itself be compromised
Speaker 1: and weaponized and let itself be controlled by political forces.
Speaker 1: And a story that came out a day or so ago,
Speaker 1: and this was John Solomon, just the news. As the
Speaker 1: FBI raised doubts that a search warrant for Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: Florida estate met probable call standards, the Justice Department under
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, pushed to expand their search's scope, refused to
Speaker 1: cooperate with Trump's attorney, and discounted the agent's concern about
Speaker 1: the optics of the raid. According to new emails turned
Speaker 1: over to Congress, the new evidence at surface may have
Speaker 1: more than political impact, As a top congressman warns, it
Speaker 1: may give Trump calls to sue for civil liberty violations
Speaker 1: or prompt prosecutor years to pursue a criminal investigation. This
Speaker 1: is going to go down as a dark chapter in
Speaker 1: American history, and President Trump may have recourse now to
Speaker 1: be able to see damages at some point in time,
Speaker 1: said Representative Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin. The new emails were
Speaker 1: turned over to Congress after Attorney General Pam Bondi and
Speaker 1: the FBI director Cash Bettel, declassified them. They show that
Speaker 1: the Summer raid that the FBI in the summer of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two raised repeated objections to raiding Trump's Mar
Speaker 1: A Lago home in Florida, expressed doubt that there was
Speaker 1: sufficient probable cause to believe the then former president had broken
Speaker 1: the law in handling classified documents. The memos also show
Speaker 1: that the bureau's Washington Field office and its agents were
Speaker 1: pead tried to find alternative solutions to a contentious rate
Speaker 1: of the property, including having a reasonable conversation with Trump
Speaker 1: lawyers and limiting the search the search warrant to avoid
Speaker 1: private areas of the estate. However, the Biden era Justice
Speaker 1: Department brushed aside these suggestions, expanding both the scope of
Speaker 1: the warrant and refusing any further discussion with Trump's personal lawyer.
Speaker 1: And so they've got the email documents to show this
Speaker 1: is exactly how it was all going down. So you know,
Speaker 1: they want to hold their hands up and say, wow,
Speaker 1: we didn't have anything to do with this, It was
Speaker 1: all on the up and up. Well, no, we we
Speaker 1: knew it wasn't from the very beginning, and we knew
Speaker 1: that there were those in the FBI. I mean, thank
Speaker 1: god that said we this, this is wrong. We don't
Speaker 1: have the evidence does not support this idea of rating
Speaker 1: mar A Lago. But the Justice Department, who the FBI
Speaker 1: answers to, and I guess you know, the FBI leadership
Speaker 1: at the time, it didn't have enough wherewithal to be
Speaker 1: able to shut this down. That and and and and
Speaker 1: the idea that they wouldn't speak with Trump lawyers, the
Speaker 1: idea that they wouldn't say, look, we've got a problem here,
Speaker 1: we need to get this worked out for a former
Speaker 1: president of the United States. Because I remember talking about
Speaker 1: this at the time that that was typically the way
Speaker 1: that these things were handled, that the lawyers get to
Speaker 1: If the Justice Department has an issue with something, you
Speaker 1: contact the lawyers, you figure things out. You don't go
Speaker 1: in raid the home, start rooting through the underwear drawers
Speaker 1: of Malani and Trump, and raided in the bedrooms of
Speaker 1: Trump's son. The memos also show the bureau's Washington Field
Speaker 1: office and its agents repeatedly tried to find alternative solutions
Speaker 1: to the contentious raid. The Justice Department originally wrote the
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyers on May eleventh of twenty twenty two, requesting
Speaker 1: that the former president return all classified documents in his possession.
Speaker 1: The deadline was set for May twenty fourth, but after
Speaker 1: the deadline passed, the attorney wrote back, claiming the Justice
Speaker 1: Department had said that the deadline was flexible. The Justice
Speaker 1: Department said there would be no extension. In response, the
Speaker 1: attorney said the Justice Department would either have to compel
Speaker 1: compliance or try to reach an accommodation. The FBI believed
Speaker 1: that was entirely reasonable to try and reach an agreement
Speaker 1: with Trump's lawyers for the return of the documents. So
Speaker 1: there was huge disagreement in there. But again, the people
Speaker 1: who were in charge, the people who make the decisions,
Speaker 1: the people who answered to Joe Biden and Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: top people, they were the ones who said no. They
Speaker 1: were the ones who, according to these emails, made the
Speaker 1: call and said that we were going in. I don't
Speaker 1: care what the Field Office says. Let me think about that.
Speaker 1: And this is all coming to light now, and there's
Speaker 1: a lot more this kind of stuff that's been going
Speaker 1: on that that we've known about for a long time,
Speaker 1: and so we keep having the politicization of these different
Speaker 1: institutions and these the I mean, it just it pains
Speaker 1: me to say and I've and i've I've made this
Speaker 1: clear that the the FBI this one great institution, and
Speaker 1: cash Betel is I think he's doing what he can
Speaker 1: to try and restore the dignity and try and restore
Speaker 1: the trust that the FBI had for so many decades.
Speaker 1: But that's a that that's a that's a big hill
Speaker 1: to climb. And the way this thing in with Brown
Speaker 1: University is being handled, I think most of that is
Speaker 1: on the local cops and we'll we'll see what happens there.
Speaker 1: But yeah, Dan Bongino stepping away announced it today that
Speaker 1: he was going to step down in January as deputy director.
Speaker 1: I mean, really wasn't there all that long. I think
Speaker 1: it's going to wind up being what seven eight months,
Speaker 1: maybe nine months when it's all said and done. So
Speaker 1: it'll be interesting to see what he has. And I
Speaker 1: saw the what he put on his X feed about
Speaker 1: putting that out, and he just said to he thanks
Speaker 1: to the President. And you know, it was very classy
Speaker 1: about it. Didn't point fingers in anyone, nothing, nothing like that.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's had to stay tuned and see
Speaker 1: what see what Bongina has to has to say about that.
Speaker 1: The other thing I wanted to get into tonight was
Speaker 1: Connie Pillage, the Hamilton County prosecutor. And she earlier a
Speaker 1: few days ago, I think it was late. I think
Speaker 1: it was Friday. Last week, she dismissed a murder case
Speaker 1: from nineteen ninety five, and this was the capital murder
Speaker 1: case against Elwood Jones. And she wrote that the decision
Speaker 1: follows month's long review of evidence and court filings, which
Speaker 1: reveals several issues, including a lack of physical or forensic
Speaker 1: evidence linking Jones to the murder, modern medical testing that
Speaker 1: excluded him as a suspect. And I've read as many
Speaker 1: stories as I can about this. I don't know what
Speaker 1: medical testing she's talking about. That's what she has said.
Speaker 1: She has said that there is modern medical testing that
Speaker 1: excludes this guy as the murderer of rote to Nathan.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, you know, this was what's a date
Speaker 1: on this? That doesn't matter, But Pillage announced the she
Speaker 1: dismissed the nineteen ninety five capital murder case against Dulwood Jones.
Speaker 1: Review was conducted in response to a twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: decision by Hamilton County Common please Court Judge Wendy Cross,
Speaker 1: overturning the Jones conviction, granting him a new trial. The
Speaker 1: previous prosecutor had appealed across his decision. On December fourth,
Speaker 1: twenty five, the Highest Supreme Court affirmed the appeal. I
Speaker 1: did not take this extraordinary step lightly, Pillage said, But
Speaker 1: after reviewing the evidence, I'm not convinced that mister Jones
Speaker 1: killed wrote to Nathan, and so so here's what she
Speaker 1: threw in on this. Jones was convicted of the nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety four death of Nathan in the Blue Ash Motel
Speaker 1: spent twenty seven years on death row. She said her
Speaker 1: review addressed several critical issues. A lack of physical and
Speaker 1: forensic evidence linking Jones directly to the murder, insufficient follow
Speaker 1: up on multiple witness statements pointing to alternative suspects. Modern
Speaker 1: day medical testing excludes Joan as a suspect, prior failure
Speaker 1: of the prosecutor's office to provide the defense with a
Speaker 1: large volume of investigatory material before trial. And so it
Speaker 1: was that statement that got to our former Hamilton County prosecutor,
Speaker 1: Joe Dieters, who is now on the bench of the
Speaker 1: Ohio State Supreme Court. And so he wrote a letter
Speaker 1: at Connie Pillage. And that letter is posted on the
Speaker 1: seven hundred WIWX site, and if you want to read
Speaker 1: it for yourself, I suggest you do. And he starts
Speaker 1: the letter out saying that he is writing. He wants
Speaker 1: to be clear about the capacity in which he's writing.
Speaker 1: He's doing as the if so is the former prosecuting
Speaker 1: attorney of Hamilton County as a citizen. And I covered
Speaker 1: Joe Dieters for years when I was a reporter at
Speaker 1: Fox nineteen, interviewed him, got to know him. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: we're not buddies. We're not we don't hang out, but
Speaker 1: I got to know him a little bit. There was
Speaker 1: never a hint of anything that was Joe Deeters did
Speaker 1: everything in that office by the book. And trust me,
Speaker 1: there are plenty of political opponents who would love if
Speaker 1: they had the chance to take him down, if they
Speaker 1: possibly could. I mean, he ran that office with the
Speaker 1: highest amount of integrity. And he wrote a letter to
Speaker 1: Connie Pillage and he wrote, I've watched the in full
Speaker 1: of the press conference in which you dismissed the case
Speaker 1: against Elwood Jones. During that conference, you publicly proclaimed that
Speaker 1: Jones had been cleared of the murder of Miss Nathan,
Speaker 1: asserting that your decision was based on modern day medical
Speaker 1: testing that excluded Elwood Jones as a suspect. He then
Speaker 1: went further. You publicly impugned the integrity of former members
Speaker 1: of my office, suggesting they cheated, and falsely implied that
Speaker 1: thousands of pages of evidence had been withheld from the defense.
Speaker 1: You compounded these accusations by portraying your actions as a
Speaker 1: necessary correction to alladge past miss conduct, invoking the creation
Speaker 1: of a conviction integrity unit as justification. And that's another
Speaker 1: thing that Connie Pillage has has going on here, but
Speaker 1: we got to get I'm going to continue this on
Speaker 1: the other side of the break the letter that Joe
Speaker 1: Dieters wrote to Connie Pillage, and if you did not
Speaker 1: listen to him earlier today as he and Mark Petemeyer
Speaker 1: were on the Bill Cunningham Show, I suggest to go
Speaker 1: back to the podcast and listen to that, because that
Speaker 1: was a compelling thirty minutes of radio, the likes of
Speaker 1: which you do not hear every day. So I highly
Speaker 1: suggest that you go back and give that a listen,
Speaker 1: but we'll continue on with this. Your phone calls as well.
Speaker 1: Five one three, seven four nine The Big One Wednesday
Speaker 1: night edition of the Midweek Crisis on seven hundred WLW. Yeah,
Speaker 1: back on the Big One, seven hundred w l W
Speaker 1: ten thirty seven We roll till midnight tonight, five three
Speaker 1: hundred the Big One. I'm talking about Joe Dieters. He
Speaker 1: was on the Bill Cunningham Show today responding to Connie Pillach,
Speaker 1: who decided that look is she looked at it. She
Speaker 1: looked at it. She decided that Elwood Jones didn't commit
Speaker 1: this murder. Back in nineteen ninety four, of Ruugh wrote
Speaker 1: a Nathan at the Embassy Suites in Blue ash.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: She her her job is to pursue justice. So Joe
Speaker 1: Dieters wrote a letter to her. He was in You
Speaker 1: heard a SoundBite from him on the during the news
Speaker 1: to the bottom of the hour when he was on
Speaker 1: with Cunningham earlier today and he he writes that he
Speaker 1: talked about how he watched her entire news conference where
Speaker 1: she dismissed the case. And then this is what really
Speaker 1: upset Joe Deaders more than anything else. He says, you
Speaker 1: went Further, speaking to Ms. Pillage, you publicly impugned the
Speaker 1: integrity of former members of my office, suggesting they cheated,
Speaker 1: and falsely implied that thousands of pages of evidence had
Speaker 1: been withheld from the defense. You compounded these accusations by
Speaker 1: portraying your actions as necessary corrective to allege past misconduct.
Speaker 1: These assertions are not only outrageous, they are false, reckless,
Speaker 1: and profoundly damaging. They constitute a gross disservice to the
Speaker 1: people of Hamilton County and an unjustified attack on honorable
Speaker 1: public servants. First, you claim that modern day medical testing
Speaker 1: excluded Jones from the murder is demonstrably untrue. You stated
Speaker 1: that because miss Nathan had hepatitis, Jones would necessarily have
Speaker 1: contracted it had he been the perpetrator. Yet the defense's
Speaker 1: own paid expert testified that there was only a thirty
Speaker 1: three percent chance that Jones would have contracted hepatitis even
Speaker 1: if he were the person who beat her to death.
Speaker 1: A thirty three percent probability of transmission is not exclusion.
Speaker 1: Either you do not understand the meaning of that term,
Speaker 1: or you knowingly made a false statement or made a
Speaker 1: statement that was patently false. Your reference to thousands of
Speaker 1: pages withheld evidence is likewise a red herring. After the
Speaker 1: defendant exhausted every available state appellate remedy, his council sought
Speaker 1: additional records in federal court, specifically police runs to the
Speaker 1: hotel and a questionnaire circulated by Blue Ash Police Department
Speaker 1: to hotel guests. These materials contained no exculpatory evidence whatsoever.
Speaker 1: They consisted of paper, nothing more, no facts, no forensic revelations,
Speaker 1: no information that would have altered the outcome of the case.
Speaker 1: The Federal District Court explicitly found that these materials would
Speaker 1: not have affected jones conviction. The Sixth Circuit Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals unanimously affirmed that conclusion. If you have not read
Speaker 1: that opinion, you should have. The claim you advanced publicly
Speaker 1: is baseless. I was a prosecutor ultimately responsible for the
Speaker 1: decision to seek Jones's indictment. At no point did my
Speaker 1: office cheat, as you so casually and irresponsibly allege. Mark
Speaker 1: Petemeyer is among the most respected prosecutors in the history
Speaker 1: of Ohio. Your statement about him and others were slanderous, unjustified,
Speaker 1: and wrong. If you are committed to transparency, I suggest
Speaker 1: you explain the following facts to the public. How many
Speaker 1: individuals possessed a master key capable of opening the locked
Speaker 1: door to rode to Nathan's hotel room that morning. The
Speaker 1: answer is for how Jones sustained the infected wound to
Speaker 1: his hand, an injury consistent only with striking a human mouth.
Speaker 1: How the distinctive walkie talkie in Jones's possession the murder
Speaker 1: weapon was supposedly used by someone else, a question never answered.
Speaker 1: How Miss Nathan's unique piece of custom jewelry ended up
Speaker 1: in the toolbox in the trunk of Jones's car, which
Speaker 1: the defense claimed, without a shred of proof it was
Speaker 1: planted by law enforcement. You also stated that Miss Nathan's
Speaker 1: family was merely disappointed by your decision, that that characterization
Speaker 1: borders on insulting. They are furious you may well have
Speaker 1: violated Marcy's law in the manner in which this decision
Speaker 1: was handled. Elwood Jones is no innocent victim of circumstance.
Speaker 1: He's a career criminal with prior arrest for aggravated burglary,
Speaker 1: assault on a police officer, multiple assaults on civilians, and
Speaker 1: domestic violence. He served prison time for aggravated burglary and
Speaker 1: was released on parole, committed another aggravated burglary and returned
Speaker 1: to prison. You have chosen to release Jones after thirty
Speaker 1: years of incarceration based on mercy or policy considerations. That
Speaker 1: would have been your prerogative as an elected official. Reasonable
Speaker 1: people could disagree, but it would have been within your authority.
Speaker 1: What is unforgivable is attempting to justify that decision through
Speaker 1: falsehoods and by maligning the reputation of dedicated public service
Speaker 1: or public servants. I should say, you stated that you
Speaker 1: struggled with this decision for months. If that is true,
Speaker 1: why did you never once consult the prosecutor who litigated
Speaker 1: this case for more than twenty five years. You spoke
Speaker 1: with defense counsel and even sent them a screenshot of
Speaker 1: your motion, yet you've never contacted me, not once. I'm
Speaker 1: aware that you never tried a murder case. I do
Speaker 1: not know whether anyone on your staff has ever served
Speaker 1: as first chair in a death penalty prosecution. There is
Speaker 1: no shame in seeking guidance or experience when confronting matters
Speaker 1: of this gravity. I expected better judgment from you, respectfully,
Speaker 1: Joseph ted Eaters and I don't know how you I
Speaker 1: don't know how you say it better than that Ken
Speaker 1: and Mason. What say you?
Speaker 6: Dan, I'm very familiar with that case. I've known Choe
Speaker 6: Dieters for almost sixty years. We played baseball together. As
Speaker 6: he's one of the most outstanding human beings that's ever
Speaker 6: lived on this earth, one of the most honorable men.
Speaker 6: And pitt Meyer is one of the greatest prosecutors of
Speaker 6: all time. And this was purely a political decision. Dan,
Speaker 6: She's pleasing her voting block, That's all she's doing, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, is Connie Pillich really need to enhance her
Speaker 1: bona fides with the Justice Project or these other groups
Speaker 1: that seek to uh, you know, release those from prison
Speaker 1: who have been wrongfully convicted? Does does does she really?
Speaker 1: I mean, she's she won the office, she's the prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Now does she really need to have this unit that's
Speaker 1: going to go out and seek justice for all these
Speaker 1: who are wrong? Is she going to continue to malign
Speaker 1: the honesty and integrity of the work that Joe Dieters
Speaker 1: did and Mark pete Meyer and others in that prosecutor's office.
Speaker 1: I mean, I look when Joe Deeters, Joe Dieters bent
Speaker 1: over backwards to ensure public integrity and public trust in
Speaker 1: that office, in that hamlet, and it was probably the
Speaker 1: finest prosecutor's office in the state of Ohio and probably
Speaker 1: in the country during the time that he ran that office.
Speaker 6: I Dan, you and I have as much experience as
Speaker 6: Connie Phillish does trying cases in court. Yeah, she has none.
Speaker 6: She has no experience of any kind in the statement
Speaker 6: Joe made that the fact she never contacted Joe, she
Speaker 6: never contacted Pittmeyer.
Speaker 1: How do you not How do you not, even if,
Speaker 1: even if you're on the other side, which she is on,
Speaker 1: of the political aisle, How do you not have the
Speaker 1: professional integrity to contact the prosecutors of that case and say, look,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at this, here's what I found. Tell me
Speaker 1: where I'm wrong. How do you not challenge your own assertions?
Speaker 1: How do you not challenge your own conclusions on a
Speaker 1: case of this magnitude? Don't you want to be right
Speaker 1: when you decide that someone who's convicted of murder, of
Speaker 1: taking this woman away from her family, who is on
Speaker 1: death row, and you're you know, tried by a jury
Speaker 1: and all the courts of appeals, the district courts, all
Speaker 1: these other courts that have looked at the during the
Speaker 1: appellate process. Don't you want to be right if you
Speaker 1: alone are going to make this decision. Don't you want
Speaker 1: to have your theories tested and with stand scrutiny. But
Speaker 1: apparently Connie Pillage did. She spoke to the fuse attornies
Speaker 1: and never contacted Joe Dieters Ones. Unbelievable.
Speaker 6: Well, Elwood Jones in his attorneys thought this for twenty
Speaker 6: five years, Dan, and never were they able to get
Speaker 6: anybody return reverse the decisions. The evidence was compelling, that
Speaker 6: was overwhelming. You know, the man killed the lady, there's
Speaker 6: no doubt about it. And the disservice they've done to
Speaker 6: her family also, can't I can't imagine the anger and
Speaker 6: the frustration they must be feeling. And Dan, as I said,
Speaker 6: this is purely a political move on Connie Pillich's part,
Speaker 6: that's all. It is a political move. She doesn't know
Speaker 6: one iota of the case. Dan, I'm sure you know
Speaker 6: ten times what she knows about this case with Elwood Jones.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean I didn't. I didn't cover this case
Speaker 1: back in the day, So I mean I know what
Speaker 1: I read about it. I've heard Joe Deeters talk about
Speaker 1: this case multiple times on the Cunningham Show. Mark Petemeyer
Speaker 1: was on with in the Studio with Cunningham and Joe
Speaker 1: Dieters today and all you have to do is listen
Speaker 1: to them talk. And they are look, if if they
Speaker 1: had a shred of doubt that this guy didn't do it,
Speaker 1: then he would not be on death row today. And
Speaker 1: and they they, I mean they they used every bit
Speaker 1: of the forensic capabilities and the technology that they had
Speaker 1: back in the mid nineties to see to it that
Speaker 1: justice was done in this case. And then I saw
Speaker 1: Colin and Connie Pillach on TV earlier today and she's
Speaker 1: talking about, well if if someone goes to prison and
Speaker 1: they didn't do it, well that's not justice for that
Speaker 1: family either. Well, you know you're right about that. That's
Speaker 1: a true statement. But to to not contact Pete Meyer
Speaker 1: and not contact Joe Dieters on this, and and and
Speaker 1: and at least challenge what they know on this, it's
Speaker 1: a sin. It's a sinal weakness. It's terrible.
Speaker 6: It's you know, this lady is going to turn out
Speaker 6: to be a disaster.
Speaker 2: Dan.
Speaker 6: I've already heard comments stuff going on downtown that uh,
Speaker 6: it appears a lot of people were unhappy with unequal
Speaker 6: justice being applied in the courtrooms and Cincinnati right now,
Speaker 6: you know, and uh once again, you know, her prosecutors
Speaker 6: are catering to her voting block. It's just it's amazing.
Speaker 6: And I think then we were all afraid that things
Speaker 6: like this would happen, you know, they would turn justice
Speaker 6: up on its up on its ear. I mean, we
Speaker 6: have a completely democratic, you know, set of politicians now
Speaker 6: downtown and this city it's in trouble, it really is.
Speaker 6: And I mean, I Connie Pillage, I would wag your
Speaker 6: guests Dan with you that ninety five percent of people
Speaker 6: that voted for didn't know who she was. She just
Speaker 6: tended to have a D by her name. You know,
Speaker 6: they could have.
Speaker 1: She's run, She's run for several different offices over the years.
Speaker 1: I actually I interviewed her once when I was at
Speaker 1: Fox nineteen and uh, I forget I think she might
Speaker 1: have been running for state rep back at the time.
Speaker 1: But uh, I found her extremely distasteful then, just based
Speaker 1: on that one interaction that we have.
Speaker 6: You know, I admire her service to the country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she was country.
Speaker 6: She served comtry and I admire for that, But she
Speaker 6: has no legal background of any kind to run the
Speaker 6: position she's in. You know, it's like, you know, me
Speaker 6: going in and operating on someone's heart. God helped that
Speaker 6: poor guy.
Speaker 2: I mean, not a good idea.
Speaker 6: That's kind of what she's doing. I know, as a prosecutor,
Speaker 6: she's having people heading up the field of prosecution and
Speaker 6: she has no idea what she's talking about, what she's doing.
Speaker 6: You know, I'd like to be a fly on the
Speaker 6: inside her wall when she's asking people, what is that?
Speaker 6: What am I supposed to do? What is Marcy's law?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 6: What I mean? She probably is unaware of half the
Speaker 6: stuff going through office on a daily basis. She's probably
Speaker 6: had prosecutors that are teach her what's going on, and
Speaker 6: she's supposed to be the leader.
Speaker 1: Well, it's insane at the very least in my opinion.
Speaker 1: She owes Joe Dieters and she owes Mark pete Meyer
Speaker 1: a sincere apology for what she said about them, And
Speaker 1: you know, this notion, it just it just is to me,
Speaker 1: it is absolutely jaw dropping that she would not consult
Speaker 1: with them on a decision of this magnitude This is
Speaker 1: just absolutely draw. I mean, she's a prosecutor. They were
Speaker 1: the prosecutor. I mean in that sense, are are Aren't
Speaker 1: they on the same team? Are they? Are you telling
Speaker 1: me that Joe, Joe Deaters was not interested in justice?
Speaker 1: Are you you know? Are you telling me that that
Speaker 1: Joe Dieters ran a slip shot operation at the Hamilton
Speaker 1: County Prosecutor's office. I mean, remember when Tracy Hunter was
Speaker 1: was going through her difficulties and she wound up the
Speaker 1: court and what did he? What did Joe Deeters do?
Speaker 1: He he went out and he got two of the
Speaker 1: of the very best defense attorneys that he could find,
Speaker 1: one one one day here in in Hamilton County, the
Speaker 1: other one in Claremont County. And he got uh and uh.
Speaker 1: He went and got these two defense attorneys to prosecute
Speaker 1: the case. Defense attorneys he who had no skin in
Speaker 1: the game, to make sure that the prosecution was above
Speaker 1: board and honest as possible. That's the way Joe Dieters
Speaker 1: ran his office. So I mean, I mean, you talk
Speaker 1: about trust, you talk about integrity, you talk about high standards.
Speaker 1: I think all those things are being compromised now under
Speaker 1: the leadership of Connie.
Speaker 6: Pillage Well, and that to get judge you're talking about
Speaker 6: Tracy Hunter. She was truly mentally affected by something. She
Speaker 6: was not all there and the things she did were
Speaker 6: as bad as any judge it's ever been in Cincinnati ever.
Speaker 6: I mean the way that the length she went to
Speaker 6: free her brother of trouble was so criminally criminally corrupt.
Speaker 6: I mean, and to this day, I imagine she's probably
Speaker 6: in Connie Pilch's office every day trying to get completely
Speaker 6: cleared of everything.
Speaker 1: Well, it'll be interesting. It'll be interesting to see if
Speaker 1: any local reporters, when they have a chance to talk
Speaker 1: with Connie pillach Well, will challenge her with any of
Speaker 1: the any other things that Joe Dieters had to say.
Speaker 6: She'll have no comment, She won't address it, Dan, and
Speaker 6: unfortunate and the media won't won't harass her about it either.
Speaker 6: Bill Cunningham and you will be the only people in
Speaker 6: town really speaking up against her.
Speaker 1: Ken has always been we got to run. I always
Speaker 1: appreciate you listening, and I appreciate you picking up the
Speaker 1: fun Dan, great show Ken from Mason, Thank you very much. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so again comes to this conclusion. You know all these judges,
Speaker 1: all these pullet processes, everyone who's reviewed this case for
Speaker 1: twenty five years. Connie Pillach comes along says, you know what,
Speaker 1: he didn't do it. You gonna dismiss the case. All good, unbelievable,
Speaker 1: And while she's doing it, she takes a swipe at
Speaker 1: two of the very best, if not the best, that
Speaker 1: Hamilton County has ever seen. Ten fifty five. We got
Speaker 1: to get to a break. More of your phone calls
Speaker 1: coming up. Five one, three, seven, four, nine, seven thousand, one,
Speaker 1: eight hundred, The Big One on seven hundred WLW. Back
Speaker 1: on the Big One, seven hundred WLW eleven O seven.
Speaker 1: We roll till midnight tonight. It is the Wednesday night
Speaker 1: edition of the Midweek Crisis. Phone lines are open. Five one, three, seven, four, nine,
Speaker 1: seven thousand and one, eight hundred, the Big One, Come on.
Speaker 1: Ala Harris is out there continuing the book tour and
Speaker 1: going on any podcasts that'll have her. She's she's all
Speaker 1: over the place, and now the reports are is that
Speaker 1: she is laying the groundwork, laying the groundwork for another
Speaker 1: run at being president of the United States. That's just fantastic.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty five isn't even over yet and already they're
Speaker 1: talking about who's going to be next, who's going to
Speaker 1: who's going to be the candidate in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: Axios reports that Harris has made has made clear to
Speaker 1: potential twenty twenty eight rivals that she is working to
Speaker 1: keep another White House campaign viable, even as concerns persist
Speaker 1: among Democrat donors and party officials about her electoral prospects.
Speaker 1: I mean, her electoral prospects back in the Uh the
Speaker 1: early days of the twenty twenty four race were so
Speaker 1: bad that she dropped out before the first primary. And
Speaker 1: I saw a little, a little clip of this, uh,
Speaker 1: this podcast she was on and I and the guy,
Speaker 1: I forget exactly how he phrased the question, but he
Speaker 1: essentially asked her if she was just really just a
Speaker 1: DEEI hire. She got all indignant about that. No, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. Some people have have said that she was
Speaker 1: the very best, the most qualified, most qualified person who
Speaker 1: ever run for ever run for president. Absolutely amazing. Uh. I. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: there's a new poll out there that says Acasio Cortes
Speaker 1: Alexandria Ocasio Cortes is ahead of jd Vance for twenty
Speaker 1: two twenty eight hypothetical twenty twenty eight presidential race, Alexander
Speaker 1: Alexandria Okazio Cortes beats Vice President j d Vance by
Speaker 1: two points fifty one the forty nine percent. The New
Speaker 1: York Democrat congresswoman known as aoc edges the likely Republican
Speaker 1: nominee fifty one to forty nine percent. But I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, the next race is until twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: How can you possibly how can you possibly have any
Speaker 1: polls that there are no polls that mean anything right now.
Speaker 1: So we were talking earlier tonight about Donald Trump speaking
Speaker 1: to the nation. That was at nine o'clock Eastern time.
Speaker 1: Right before that, though, the House of Representatives passed a
Speaker 1: GOP healthcare bill without extending the enhanced COVID era Obamacare subsidies,
Speaker 1: which are set to expire on January first. Mike Johnson
Speaker 1: said Wednesday the bill will reduce premiums for all Americans
Speaker 1: by an average of at least eleven percent, and that's
Speaker 1: just the beginning. He said, there will be much more
Speaker 1: to come, more ideas than the first part of next
Speaker 1: year to bring down the cost of health care. And
Speaker 1: what the bill did in addition to that, tonight, is
Speaker 1: it increases the quality of care and access to care.
Speaker 1: He further slammed Democrats for attempting to weaponize healthcare without
Speaker 1: a real solution and continue to shovel taxpayer dollars onto
Speaker 1: a broken system. So that begs the question, is Mike
Speaker 1: Johnson telling the truth when he talks about this healthcare bill?
Speaker 1: And you may recall the last time we debated a
Speaker 1: healthcare bill, we had Obama NonStop talking about healthcare. And so, yeah,
Speaker 1: you've heard the montages before. This is probably the most
Speaker 1: complete one, and it's Obama and Obama and Obama, Obama
Speaker 1: at the State of the Union, Obama campaign rallies, Obama
Speaker 1: on television appearances, and if you've forgotten what that debate
Speaker 1: was like when Obama was selling out selling Obamacare. I mean,
Speaker 1: this montage is almost three minutes long, but it really
Speaker 1: drives home this. This the way he sold this and
Speaker 1: others around him, is why we are where we are
Speaker 1: today on issue of health care and why I just
Speaker 1: had to read that last story because of the constant
Speaker 1: lines that Obama told about this and this is a
Speaker 1: little refresher on what he was selling back in the day.
Speaker 1: And Joe Wadell. Let's hear cut number two. We will
Speaker 1: keep this promise to the American people.
Speaker 7: If you like your doctor, you will be able to
Speaker 7: keep your doctor period. If you like your healthcare plan,
Speaker 7: you will be able to keep your health care plan period.
Speaker 7: If you like your doctor or healthcare plan, you can
Speaker 7: keep it. Nothing in this plan will require you or
Speaker 7: your employer to change the coverage of the doctor you have.
Speaker 7: The only change you'll see are falling costs as our
Speaker 7: reforms take hold. If you like your healthcare system and
Speaker 7: your doctor, the only thing reform will mean to you
Speaker 7: is your healthcare will cause us less. I will not
Speaker 7: sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits,
Speaker 7: either now or in the future. It is a cost
Speaker 7: that will not, I repeat, will not add to our deficits.
Speaker 7: There will be a provision in this plan that requires
Speaker 7: us to come forward with more spending cuts if the
Speaker 7: savings we promised don't materialize. Because it is paid for
Speaker 7: and curbs the waste and inefficiency in our healthcare system,
Speaker 7: this bill will help reduce our deficit by as much
Speaker 7: as one point three trillion dollars in the coming decades,
Speaker 7: making it the largest deficit reduction plan in over a
Speaker 7: decad well actually reduce the deficit by four trillion dollars
Speaker 7: over the long term, healthcare reform must be and will
Speaker 7: be deficit neutral in the next decade. We have built
Speaker 7: in the law all sorts of measures that in the
Speaker 7: years to come, health care inflation, which has been rising
Speaker 7: about three times as fast as people's wages, is finally
Speaker 7: going to start slowing down. Will eliminate way fraud and
Speaker 7: abuse in our healthcare system, but will also take on
Speaker 7: key causes of rising costs, saving billions while providing better
Speaker 7: care to the American people. Reducing the waste and inefficiency
Speaker 7: in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.
Speaker 7: We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid
Speaker 7: for by finding savings within the existing healthcare system. The
Speaker 7: only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of
Speaker 7: billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as
Speaker 7: unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies subsidies
Speaker 7: that do everything to pad their profits.
Speaker 1: Will start reducing the.
Speaker 7: Waste in the system for unnecessary tests to unwarranted insurance subsidies,
Speaker 7: so that over time. Americans are going to save money.
Speaker 7: Amilies will save on their premiums. Businesses that would see
Speaker 7: their costs rise if we do not act will save
Speaker 7: money now and they will save money in the future.
Speaker 1: Save this gud. This goes on for about another minut
Speaker 1: and a half. And this was Obama and Grabian was
Speaker 1: the one that put that that montage together. And if
Speaker 1: you see it, they're all from different events every time,
Speaker 1: every and then and then for it seemed like for
Speaker 1: two years, that's all Obama talked about the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: Of course we know it is the Unaffordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: And I especially love the part where he's talking about
Speaker 1: the fraud, about how it's built into the system that
Speaker 1: there's not going to be any fraud that I mean
Speaker 1: this this bill is so air tight that they really
Speaker 1: are going to caught. And then that's how they're gonna
Speaker 1: I mean that that's one of the main components of
Speaker 1: how this bill is going to be so efficient and
Speaker 1: save so much money because they are really going to
Speaker 1: cut down on the fraud. Well House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan and the Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith,
Speaker 1: Energy and Commerce Committee chair Brett Guthrie are talking about
Speaker 1: a Government Accountability Office report revealing the staggering level of
Speaker 1: fraud that occurs thanks to Obamacare subsidies. The Government Accountability
Speaker 1: Office released a report on the massive levels of fraud
Speaker 1: that come with the Advanced Premium Tax Credits and Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act, or Obamacare, subsidy to health insurers to lower
Speaker 1: the monthly health insurance premiums. Democrats shut down the government
Speaker 1: for weeks over the looming end of the year expiration
Speaker 1: of the Enhanced Premium Tax Credits, a more generous version
Speaker 1: of the tax credits that the left leaning party boosted
Speaker 1: through the Biden era Coronavirus stimulus pack the America Rescue Plan.
Speaker 1: Democrats continued the subsidies through the so called Inflation Reduction
Speaker 1: Act that will expire at the end of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: The GAO, as part of its analysis, conducted covert operations,
Speaker 1: which included fictitious identities that flood ensures with unjustified sub subsidies.
Speaker 1: It found that one hundred percent of the fake applications
Speaker 1: were approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Speaker 1: as recently as twenty twenty four, with ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the fraudulent applicants continuing to receive coverage in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: So why is it that seemingly every government program that's
Speaker 1: ever been conceived has such a huge element of fraud
Speaker 1: and waste? It is? I mean, that's a question I
Speaker 1: would like to throw out there. Is it possible to
Speaker 1: have a single government program that isn't just riddled with
Speaker 1: fraud and ripoffs and overspending and unaccountable spending every time
Speaker 1: you turn around and look. I would never be able
Speaker 1: to figure out, how do you how do you set
Speaker 1: up a grift that's going to rip off Obamacare? I
Speaker 1: don't know how to do it, but there's plenty of
Speaker 1: other people can figure out how to do it. Let
Speaker 1: me see if there's this is the Brightbart story on this.
Speaker 1: For years we were told we keep our plan, keep
Speaker 1: our doctor premiums, we go down. None of it happened.
Speaker 1: New report confirms what we already knew. Under Obamacare, hardworking
Speaker 1: Americans saw their premium skyrocket, health care choices shrink, all
Speaker 1: while fraud benefited insurance companies. Obamacare was built on lies
Speaker 1: and broken promises that hurt families and drove up costs.
Speaker 1: Or Jordan said in a statement to Breitbart. While Democrats
Speaker 1: defend waste, fraud, and abuse, Republicans are taking action to
Speaker 1: lower health care costs protect care for all real living Americans.
Speaker 1: The GAO report is troubling smoking gun shows how this
Speaker 1: broken system, shielded by Democrat policies, has led to the
Speaker 1: federal government shoveling tens of billions of tax dollars to
Speaker 1: insurance companies through identity fraud and calls healthcare costs a
Speaker 1: skyrocket for all Americans. The GAO report found fifty eight
Speaker 1: thousand social Security numbers that received the APTC. These tax
Speaker 1: credits matched Social Security Administration's deaf data, So that's fifty
Speaker 1: eight thousand people who were dead. We're getting these subsidies
Speaker 1: and ripping off Obamacare. Seven thousand people had Social Security
Speaker 1: numbers that were dead before coverage began, meaning the applications
Speaker 1: used social Security numbers of dead people. Ninety four million
Speaker 1: dollars in tax credits was sent to a health sent
Speaker 1: to health insurers on behalf of deceased people. So just
Speaker 1: that part of the scam, or one scam alone, ninety
Speaker 1: four million dollars I know, ninety four million dollars dollars
Speaker 1: doesn't sound like a lot. But that's only part, only
Speaker 1: part of the ripoff that was going on through Obamacare,
Speaker 1: and are talk about tens of billions of dollars. While
Speaker 1: Obamacare fraud is being confirmed by the Government Accountability Office
Speaker 1: and other outside reports, patients are suffering. They face higher
Speaker 1: health care costs, denied claims, delayed care when their providers
Speaker 1: struggle to verify which insurance is valid due to these
Speaker 1: fraud schemes. So yeah, I mean all that crap from Obama,
Speaker 1: and we talked about it at the time, that all
Speaker 1: these promises he was making and the way Obamacare was
Speaker 1: going to be set up, it couldn't work. And now
Speaker 1: we're living that nightmare. Raphael, how are you doing tonight?
Speaker 6: Pretty? I'm pretty good.
Speaker 2: Brother Dad.
Speaker 1: What's going on? You're getting off of work?
Speaker 6: All right?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Hopping in the car. And I caught the little
Speaker 4: little kid big h you know, the Obamacare and then
Speaker 4: fraud and Jim Jordans. I heard those three and I
Speaker 4: was like, oh boy, here was GoGet. Now what were
Speaker 4: you reading from?
Speaker 2: Dan? You did? Was that Breitbart?
Speaker 4: Some for Breitbart?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Breitbart put this out there. The well, the government
Speaker 1: accountability I've got the government Accountability report right here, but
Speaker 1: Breitbart published the article based on this report. But no,
Speaker 1: I mean when it comes to let me say this,
Speaker 1: when it comes to Jim Jordan, when it comes to
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan, I agree with you. I laugh at that
Speaker 1: because Jim Jordan is a little bit like like Lindsey Graham's.
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham has talked for years about how he's going
Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of this, that and the
Speaker 1: other scandal and never does a damn thing. Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: has been investigating crap up on Capitol Hill for how
Speaker 1: many years now, and uh, I've never seen I've never
Speaker 1: seen one of his investigations resulting anyone being purple walked
Speaker 1: of view.
Speaker 4: I thought I saw Jim Jordan in the vault when
Speaker 4: Heralda went down there and I composed the vault. I
Speaker 4: think Jim Jeorde was down here. I remember seeing a
Speaker 4: yellow tie. But anyway, he.
Speaker 1: Talks a good game, but he's all talk. He's very
Speaker 1: very slim on the action.
Speaker 2: He's Jim Jeorde.
Speaker 4: What could you say, but Dan, Now, when your boy
Speaker 4: Elonna Khan Musk, when he was up there doing the
Speaker 4: whole fraud check in and everything like that and you know,
Speaker 4: going through the irs Rose and everything and getting his
Speaker 4: two hundred and fifty million dollars back that he donated
Speaker 4: to the campaign. But the must have stayed on board
Speaker 4: to uncover this rampant fraud through Obama Care.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he said, I guess, I guess he didn't get
Speaker 1: to o'bobby. I mean he got to a lot of
Speaker 1: other fraud, so he claimed he.
Speaker 4: Did, but I he was just getting his paybag. Then
Speaker 4: when from the money he donated Campaig, he just wined Darry.
Speaker 4: He got all that back, and then he said, okay, guys,
Speaker 4: I'm done. But now you know, I know you got
Speaker 4: other callers too.
Speaker 1: I know I got news coming up. But I saw
Speaker 1: today that that they just recalculated Elon Musk's net worth
Speaker 1: and it's like in excess of six hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: five billion dollars. So you know Whatay two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty mili to him, that doesn't mean crap.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I have to drop in the bucket, you know,
Speaker 4: I have to play a power.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well you got six that out there, but uh Rafael,
Speaker 1: we gotta run. I appreciate the phone.
Speaker 4: Okay, hey, hey Dan, when I talk to you again.
Speaker 4: You got to tell me about this land grab in Venezuela,
Speaker 4: like we got to get the land. That's what I
Speaker 4: heard Don John say. But we'll talk about that another day,
Speaker 4: all right, Raphael.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the appreciate you listening. Appreciate the phone call.
Speaker 1: Eleven twenty six, one hundred WIW seven hundred WILW eleven
Speaker 1: thirty seven, Dan Carroll till midnight tonight. Phone lines are
Speaker 1: open five one, three, seven, four, nine, seven thousand, one
Speaker 1: to eight hundred. The big one. The state of California
Speaker 1: issuing the Trump administration. The Department of Transportation is withholding
Speaker 1: thirty three million dollars in federal funds. The funding was
Speaker 1: tied to commercial vehicle safety programs in the state's decision
Speaker 1: not to comply with federal English proficiency requirements for truck drivers.
Speaker 1: And we have seen just one horror story after another
Speaker 1: in recent months of illegal aliens who come into the country,
Speaker 1: go to California or other states and obtain a commercial
Speaker 1: driver's license, and they're not able to speak English, and
Speaker 1: they cause all kinds of murder in Mayhem out on
Speaker 1: the highways. In May, the Department of Transportation reinstated the
Speaker 1: English language rule for commercial drivers. Is there anything that
Speaker 1: you can think of that is more common sense than that?
Speaker 1: If individuals are going to be driving big rigs around
Speaker 1: this country, should they not be able to read, understand,
Speaker 1: and speak English. It just seems like the one of
Speaker 1: the most common sense things that I can think of.
Speaker 1: But yet California, Pennsylvania, and New York they don't think so.
Speaker 1: Those other states have all been warned by the DOT
Speaker 1: about the potential for losing federal funds if they fail
Speaker 1: to address issues with CDLs. The Department of Transportation Secretary
Speaker 1: Sean Duffy defended the move to take that money away
Speaker 1: from California. He says over nine five hundred truck drivers
Speaker 1: were removed from service since May for failing English proficiency checks.
Speaker 1: Think about that. Think about all the big rigs that
Speaker 1: you pass up on a daily basis when you're driving around.
Speaker 1: If you're listening to me on the radio right now,
Speaker 1: you may be just feed away from a big rigs.
Speaker 1: Is that drivery illegal? Does that driver speak English? Does
Speaker 1: that driver know what they're doing? Department of Homeland Security
Speaker 1: put this press release out today today yet another avoidable
Speaker 1: tragedy caused by the Biden administration and sanctuary policies. The
Speaker 1: illegal alien who couldn't speak English causes deadly multi vehicle
Speaker 1: pile up in Tennessee under Biden era work authorization. The
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Secure Department of Transportation announced that an
Speaker 1: American was tragically killed due to a Chinese national with
Speaker 1: a commercial driver's license who failed the English proficiency test.
Speaker 1: After the crash on Tuesday, December ninth, this dude Huong
Speaker 1: h U A and g rear ended a semi tractor
Speaker 1: trailer on I forty going westbound. How many times I've
Speaker 1: driven on that stretch of Highway I forty through Tennessee,
Speaker 1: causing a chain reaction crash that led to the death
Speaker 1: of Carrie Smith injuring two others long This Chinese national
Speaker 1: was distracted by a video on his phone at the
Speaker 1: time of the crash. So you can find one of
Speaker 1: these stories almost every single day, and at least they're
Speaker 1: doing something to try and shut it down. Over at
Speaker 1: NewsBusters dot Org, my buddy Curtis Halkin, other members on
Speaker 1: the staff, Bro David Brosel, Brett Baker. Over at MRC NewsBusters,
Speaker 1: they've come up with their worst quote of the year
Speaker 1: and the worst quote of the year goes to Matthew
Speaker 1: Dowd And this was Matthew Dowd in the immediate aftermath
Speaker 1: of the Charlie Kirk shooting. And for this he was
Speaker 1: fired from MSNBC, which I think it's called ms now,
Speaker 1: but here it is the worst quote of the year. Joe,
Speaker 1: let's hear cut number one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and again emphasize what you just emphasized.
Speaker 8: We don't know any of the details of this that
Speaker 8: we don't know if this was a supporter shooting their
Speaker 8: gun off in celebration or.
Speaker 2: So, we have no idea about this.
Speaker 8: But following up what was just said, he's been one
Speaker 8: of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this
Speaker 8: who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate
Speaker 8: speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I
Speaker 8: always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words,
Speaker 8: which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that's
Speaker 8: the environment we're in that people just you can't stop
Speaker 8: with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then
Speaker 8: saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to
Speaker 8: take place.
Speaker 2: And that's the unfortunate environment we're in. Turning point you
Speaker 2: to say, is confirmed that he was shot.
Speaker 1: There you go, there's Matthew Dowd. His initial thought was
Speaker 1: that the best thing he could conjure up was that
Speaker 1: this guy might have brought it on himself, because you know,
Speaker 1: he's just so hateful, just so hateful. So that was
Speaker 1: the according to NewsBusters, the worst quote of the year
Speaker 1: over who gets their Joe Joe Waddell, do you get
Speaker 1: your news from Apple News? Who gets their news from
Speaker 1: I don't know anyone that gets news from Apple News.
Speaker 1: But they have done a study of Apple News and
Speaker 1: it shows only one right leaning outlet out of five
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty articles through November, Apple News is direct
Speaker 1: content of its top stories exposed as the platform's bias,
Speaker 1: especially since only one of the they examined five hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty articles. They examined five hundred and sixty articles
Speaker 1: in November, and they only had one that came from
Speaker 1: a right leaning source. So Apple News, I guess, I
Speaker 1: guess it's an aggregate site. I don't know. I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think I've ever looked. I don't
Speaker 1: know where I would find Apple News, but their bias
Speaker 1: is showing Katie Pavlich. If you're like me, you know
Speaker 1: who Katie Pavlich is. It's been on Fox News for
Speaker 1: a while. He's a great writer, a great guest, a
Speaker 1: great American. She is leaving Fox News. She is getting
Speaker 1: a new gig at NewsNation. Pavlich will host a new
Speaker 1: show over there at ten pm beginning weekdays beginning in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six. The new gig marks our first primetime
Speaker 1: hosting role. She worked at Townhall dot Com for sixteen
Speaker 1: years and has been appearing on Fox News as a
Speaker 1: contributor since twenty thirteen. And James always does a great job,
Speaker 1: So I think she's going to be great over there
Speaker 1: at at NewsNation. Fox News confirmed to The Daily Caller
Speaker 1: the Pablich is no longer a contributor to the network.
Speaker 1: Appeared as a frequent guest host on the five other
Speaker 1: primetime shows. Sean Compton, the president of NewsNation, said Pablich
Speaker 1: has a unique voice, and he is a tremendous asset
Speaker 1: to the network. So she's going to do an hour
Speaker 1: of political news on NewsNation. So congratulations to her. Eric
Speaker 1: Swalwell is I mean, he is a He's out there
Speaker 1: on social media. I see a lot of the stuff
Speaker 1: that he posts, and he's very self righteous. He hates Trump.
Speaker 1: He thinks he's right about everything that he puts out there,
Speaker 1: and he I mean, the guy has no self awareness whatsoever.
Speaker 1: There was a survey that has been done of how
Speaker 1: many votes these individuals cast, and it turns out that
Speaker 1: Democrat Representative Eric swalwere Swalwell Swalwell, I guess he's also
Speaker 1: running for governor now in California, has skipped more House
Speaker 1: votes than any active member of Concress, according to data
Speaker 1: analyzed by The New York Post. Since launching his campaign,
Speaker 1: Swalwell has reportedly been rarely seen in Washington, DC. According
Speaker 1: to the Sacramento b Voting records collected by the nonpartisan
Speaker 1: website gov track show that of the three hundred and
Speaker 1: forty two House roll call votes in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: Swalwell missed ninety five since January, not including absences from
Speaker 1: committee hearings. By comparison, Swamwell missed more than or more
Speaker 1: votes than a fellow California Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who
Speaker 1: suffered a hip injury after a fall. In December. NBC
Speaker 1: first reported, Oh, well, I don't care about that, So yeah,
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell. Government track shows Swalwell has missed fifty of
Speaker 1: sixty one roll call votes, which is eighty two percent,
Speaker 1: between September nineteenth through this last Tuesday, I'm sorry, Tuesday,
Speaker 1: November eighteenth. Overall data from gov Track shows Swalwell has
Speaker 1: missed more than five hundred and fifty votes out of
Speaker 1: seven two hundred and fifty three since entering Congress. While
Speaker 1: the average House member misses about two point one percent
Speaker 1: of votes, Swalwell is missing seven point seven percent of
Speaker 1: the votes, more than anyone else in Congress. So congratulations,
Speaker 1: Eric's Walwell. At least you are a a leader in something.
Speaker 1: And then I'm watching I'm watching the news yesterday and
Speaker 1: I'm flipping around, and all they could talk about on
Speaker 1: CNN or MS now was this story that showed up
Speaker 1: in Vanity Fair. They did, they did a a a
Speaker 1: profile piece on White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles
Speaker 1: and I and and they were still doing it today
Speaker 1: but all day, and I made it a point. I
Speaker 1: was getting ready for the show, and when I I
Speaker 1: wasn't in front of the TV all day, but when
Speaker 1: but when the one hour would come up, there I
Speaker 1: would I would check and see what they were leading
Speaker 1: with on CNN and MSNBC. Susie Wiles, Susie Wilds, Well,
Speaker 1: she she gave some quotes to Vanity Fair magazine and
Speaker 1: and they were just I mean, look it, she said,
Speaker 1: I mean, she said. Some of the stuff she said
Speaker 1: is uh, I mean, it's it's interesting. And and she
Speaker 1: she made she had the one coming. Look, they took
Speaker 1: so many of these quotes out of context. And the
Speaker 1: one about Trump had she said alcoholic personality. She was
Speaker 1: comparing a Trump too, or she was actually talking about
Speaker 1: her father at the time. It was Pat Summerl And
Speaker 1: I guess he was a drinker, and she talked about
Speaker 1: how he was an alcoholic. And you know, they're so driven.
Speaker 1: I guess that the personality is and and so they talked.
Speaker 1: She talked about that. She said some things about Gadie Vance,
Speaker 1: and she said some things about Elon Musk. And of
Speaker 1: course they love all this palace intrigue, and they love
Speaker 1: to take these things and take them out of context
Speaker 1: themselves and act as if the Trump White House is
Speaker 1: completely out of control. So Peter Navarro, who's a buddy
Speaker 1: of President Trump's, wrote a great piece about the two
Speaker 1: parts of the Vanity Hit piece on Susie Wiles. He says,
Speaker 1: the Susie Wiles profiles are non journalists. They're a case
Speaker 1: study in how legacy media manufactures menutce by stitching conjecture
Speaker 1: to caricature, insinuation to Indian innuendo, and then calling the
Speaker 1: resulting resulting collage and exclusive. And he calls it vanity hit,
Speaker 1: not vanity fair. He says, what Vanity Hit delivered across
Speaker 1: these two installments is not an investigation grounded in evidence,
Speaker 1: but a prolonged exercise in narrative escalation that is irresponsible, misleading,
Speaker 1: and dangerous. The method is consistent from the opening line
Speaker 1: to the final paragraph. The reader is primed to fear
Speaker 1: before being asked to think. Power in peril is not
Speaker 1: a neutral frame, It's a verdict rendered in advance from there.
Speaker 1: The piece deployed of the piece is deploy of familiar
Speaker 1: arsenal adjectives standing in for proof, brutal, sketchy, chaotic, anonymous,
Speaker 1: consensus replacing sourcing many have called critics say and hypothetical
Speaker 1: elevated to headline status. This is not how facts are established,
Speaker 1: it's how outrage is curated. Across both parts vanity, hit
Speaker 1: repeatedly insinuates illegally without doing the work of demonstration. Immigration
Speaker 1: enforcement is described in language designed to shock, snatching, brutal
Speaker 1: despite court orders. These are all words that were contained
Speaker 1: within the article without cases, files, warrant, docket number, timelines,
Speaker 1: chain of command. If there was court defiance, cite the order.
Speaker 1: If there was violations, show the remedy. Instead, readers are
Speaker 1: offered a mood, not a record. That approach does not inform,
Speaker 1: it in flames. The most reckless choice is the flirtation
Speaker 1: with accusations of war crimes. Both pieces lean into overheated
Speaker 1: rhetoric about interdictions and lethal force, quoting secondhand claims and
Speaker 1: then retreating behind journalistic hedges possible and may have called.
Speaker 1: That is not caution, It is evasion. Allegations of war
Speaker 1: crimes carry extraordinary moral and legal gravity. To air them
Speaker 1: without adjudication, evidence, or authoritative finding is not courage. Its negligence.
Speaker 1: Equally corrosive is the casual use of historically incendiary analogies
Speaker 1: reich Tag imagery, authoritarian trope, guardrails of democracy languages are
Speaker 1: deployed not to clarify, but to terrify. These analogies, collapse
Speaker 1: context to raise distinctions, and act as accelerants in a
Speaker 1: politicized society. Such rhetoric does not cool tensions. It licenses
Speaker 1: the belief that ordinary politics is an existential emergency. History
Speaker 1: teachers where that road leads. When policy analyzes analysis falters,
Speaker 1: vanity hit pivots to personalization, readers are treated to amateur psychology,
Speaker 1: gossip and mockery, claims about impulse, stamina, dozing, and meetings
Speaker 1: and tone abroad. These are not arguments. There are shortcuts
Speaker 1: around evidence. If policies are wrong, argue the policies, if
Speaker 1: the outcomes failed, show the data. Instead. Authority is delegitimized
Speaker 1: by ridicule. The Epstein sectionist in part two of the
Speaker 1: article is emblematic. There's no new evidence, no finding of wrongdoing,
Speaker 1: no adjudication, only the implication of proximity bi proximity and
Speaker 1: disappointment by rumor optics replace facts. Journalism becomes a parlor game.
Speaker 1: Who appears in a file, Who flew where? Who feels
Speaker 1: let down? Suspicion is allowed to linger because it serves
Speaker 1: the narrative, and it goes on. But that's all I've
Speaker 1: got time for right now. But Peter Navarro just nails it,
Speaker 1: and he talks about the tools of the trade and
Speaker 1: the media. The suspect the left, the agenda driven media
Speaker 1: fell for it, hook line and sinker. So I find
Speaker 1: that Peter Navarro piece in the Washington Times and read
Speaker 1: it and is really well written. Now that's it for me.
Speaker 1: I got to get out of here. I am back tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We will do it again nine to midnight on the
Speaker 1: Thursday night edition on the midweek Crisis. Until then, have
Speaker 1: a great night. We'll see you next time on the
Speaker 1: Home of the Best Bengals coverage seven hundred WLW