Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio show podcast. All right, eighty four days,
Speaker 1: the biggest, the most important election in mid term election
Speaker 1: are Lifetime. Glad you're on board. Glad you're with us.
Speaker 1: Right down our toll free number. It's eight D nine one, Shawn,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
Speaker 1: We got a lot of news that we are gonna
Speaker 1: get to today. Uh, it looks like the trial of
Speaker 1: the century. The Paul mana for trial is now headed
Speaker 1: towards closing arguments. As What's interesting about this is the
Speaker 1: defense is basically saying, well, the prosecution never prove their case,
Speaker 1: and uh, sorry, we're not interested in putting on a
Speaker 1: defense because we don't see a need for one. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a common strategy, risky in a sense, but
Speaker 1: you know, on the other hand, they're just basically telling
Speaker 1: the jury we don't think you've reached the the beyond
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt standard in a particular case, and nor
Speaker 1: are we going to give you an opportunity to cross
Speaker 1: examine the witnesses we were otherwise going to bring on board.
Speaker 1: And this case is now over and we'll make our
Speaker 1: final remarks and closing arguments in this case. Uh, the
Speaker 1: star witness for the prosecution for Team Mueller was, of
Speaker 1: course the partner of Paul Maniford, who faced well over
Speaker 1: a hundred years in jail. You got to get out
Speaker 1: of jail free card by Team Mueller, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: which is a pretty incredible incentive. Every other person it
Speaker 1: seems that testified in the trial was given immunity on
Speaker 1: behalf of Muller and his team to just line up
Speaker 1: against Paul Manafort. The media, I can promise you now
Speaker 1: is you know they they they're just salivating in the
Speaker 1: hopes and prayers. You're gonna get a guilty verdict against
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort. And you know, honestly the odds are against
Speaker 1: him because you got a nine plus conviction rate in
Speaker 1: federal courts like this. But I'm not so sure this
Speaker 1: is a slam dunk. I actually think the jury just
Speaker 1: watching the how disgusted that the judge was in this
Speaker 1: particular case, that this case was even brought to trial.
Speaker 1: And now remember this is the same judge that said
Speaker 1: that the prosecution they don't really care about a tax
Speaker 1: fraud case dealing with a two thousand and five to
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven tax issue. That wasn't their motivation
Speaker 1: at all. Let's be honest. He said, this is to
Speaker 1: put the screws to Manafort, so Manafort will sing or
Speaker 1: compose meaning makeup uh in the hopes that they can
Speaker 1: get information from Manafort that they can use to prosecute
Speaker 1: Donald Trumper impeached Donald Trump. That's the only reason they
Speaker 1: did it. And everybody pretty much that is associated or
Speaker 1: that was used by the prosecution in this case was well,
Speaker 1: in a roundabout way, bribed, you're paid, Use whatever term
Speaker 1: you like. But if Rick Gates their star witness who
Speaker 1: admitted to being a liar, admitted to being an embezzler
Speaker 1: and a tax sheet and committing all sorts of fraud, etcetera,
Speaker 1: he's your main witness and he's given a get out
Speaker 1: of jail free card. How much credibility can such a
Speaker 1: person have with the jury. I've been using the example
Speaker 1: of Sammy the Bull Gravano commits nineteen murders, he gets
Speaker 1: a get out of jail free card, doesn't get prosecuted
Speaker 1: for those murders, and on top of it, gets a
Speaker 1: new life in Arizona with a new home and a
Speaker 1: chance to start over with the government protecting him through
Speaker 1: the Witness Protection Program. Okay, Now, if you're facing charges
Speaker 1: of nineteen murders, which means the rest of your life
Speaker 1: in jail, and you're already a murderer, how much credibility
Speaker 1: are you're gonna have testifying against anybody? And I think
Speaker 1: this is an incredible flaw in our criminal justice system,
Speaker 1: you know, because you're incentivizing people to say things, you're
Speaker 1: giving them something in return for their testimony. In this
Speaker 1: case of Rick Gates, the rest of his life potentially
Speaker 1: in jail. So I I just don't know how much
Speaker 1: credibility they have here. There was an interesting article about this.
Speaker 1: A veteran defense attorney argued many cases before Judge T.
Speaker 1: S Ellis said that the incompetent performance by Mueller's prosecutors
Speaker 1: during the Manaphort trial has exposed Mueller's democratic dream team
Speaker 1: is the gang that couldn't shoot straight. The headline on
Speaker 1: NBC news dot Com, a column by veteran criminal defense
Speaker 1: attorney got by the name of Greg Hunter, said, quote
Speaker 1: the Manafort trial judge snapped at Mueller's team because they're
Speaker 1: not ready for prime time I've heard from many people
Speaker 1: that have gone before Judge Ellis, you better have your
Speaker 1: act together, and you better have your game on, and
Speaker 1: you better know what you're doing, because he will tear
Speaker 1: you to shreds and has no problem at all doing it.
Speaker 1: As we now have witnessed here, as he has dressed
Speaker 1: down the prosecution again and again and again during this
Speaker 1: this ridiculous so called trial of the century. Anyway, Judge
Speaker 1: Ellis keeps yelling at the prosecutors. Now, it's not necessarily
Speaker 1: good news for the defense. But as Greg Hunter writes,
Speaker 1: I've spent my career defending criminal cases before Judge Ellis
Speaker 1: and his colleagues and Mueller's team earned his ire. And
Speaker 1: he goes on to say that you know I've I've
Speaker 1: spent my my entire career defending cases in the Eastern
Speaker 1: District of Virginia. Having watched the Mueller team in action,
Speaker 1: I believe they earned Ellis's anger and and lack of
Speaker 1: respect for their work and the jury's time. The fact remains,
Speaker 1: Mueller's team has to actually try Paul Manafort in this case,
Speaker 1: and only Paul Manafort, and no matter how strong their evidence,
Speaker 1: how righteous their cause, or how impressive their resumes maybe
Speaker 1: and actually are. Mueller's prosecutors simply have not done a
Speaker 1: very good job. This case started with the Mueller team's
Speaker 1: first appearing in in Ellis's courtroom without consulting the local
Speaker 1: United States Attorney's office. The Eastern District of Virginia has
Speaker 1: perhaps the best collection of prosecutors in the entire nation,
Speaker 1: and Ellis doesn't see much of a need for anyone
Speaker 1: from across the river come and to help, let alone
Speaker 1: to prosecute a case on their own. And Mueller's team
Speaker 1: mistakes didn't stop there. They did eventually bring in a
Speaker 1: veteran assistant U S attorney from Alexandria along with with them.
Speaker 1: After the first hearing, they didn't let him speak at
Speaker 1: any motions hearing in May, where Michael Dreaming, perhaps the
Speaker 1: nation's premiere ap pellet advocate, appeared to be poorly prepared
Speaker 1: and less than candid with the court, earning them even
Speaker 1: more of Ellis's ill will and through much. Although much
Speaker 1: has been made about Ellis interrupting and reprimanding the government
Speaker 1: from the first moments of the trial, even interrupting their
Speaker 1: opening statement, the Mueller team invited these interruptions by repeating
Speaker 1: the exact factual claims Ellis had already ruled were irrelevant
Speaker 1: to the case at hand. You're not even reading the
Speaker 1: judges orders and what the judges already resolved. The same
Speaker 1: sort of treatment has continued throughout the trial, and the
Speaker 1: prosecucution continue to bring up irrelevant points, even though they
Speaker 1: are often compelling. They've rolled their rise, They've complained, and
Speaker 1: even once argued that they should be able to present
Speaker 1: a chart the judge it excluded because the witness took
Speaker 1: a long time to make it, rather than telling him
Speaker 1: why they thought it was relevant. If you want things
Speaker 1: to go better and Judge Ellis's court, you have to
Speaker 1: live up to the high standards that he demands. Every
Speaker 1: attorney who has ever tried a case before him knows this,
Speaker 1: including literally hundreds of current and former assistant United States attorneys.
Speaker 1: Anyone who has simply google Judge Ellis's name and read
Speaker 1: the coverage of other famous cases he's presided over knows
Speaker 1: this too. And that doesn't mean I don't want people
Speaker 1: to get their hope, So I you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know what Paul Manafort did in two thousand and five
Speaker 1: and two thousand and seven. I do know that there
Speaker 1: that most of the people that testified in this case,
Speaker 1: we're all given immunity, and that means against prosecution and others.
Speaker 1: You know, in the case of the star witness, Gates,
Speaker 1: I mean admitted to basically every single crime that you
Speaker 1: could possibly admit, and being a liar and an embezzler
Speaker 1: and everything in between. Now, the question is how does
Speaker 1: he become their star witness and how's the jury going
Speaker 1: to view that? Now, maybe it just comes down to
Speaker 1: numbers and accounts and and the boring details of of
Speaker 1: how money was exchanged or handled, which is that, I
Speaker 1: guess the heart of the whole case. I have no idea. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the thing that everybody's missing in all of
Speaker 1: this is everything we talk about every day. How did
Speaker 1: we get here? How is this Mueller's big case. You know,
Speaker 1: He's got twenty nine people he indicted that are never
Speaker 1: going to see a courtroom in the United States, So that, okay,
Speaker 1: gives him a little Russia connection to this whole thing.
Speaker 1: You know, he indictes the equivalent of CIA operatives in Russia.
Speaker 1: They're never coming to the United States. They seemed ill
Speaker 1: prepared when they went after these Russian bot companies that
Speaker 1: they say, we're trying to influence the election, but they
Speaker 1: defended themselves in court, and Mueller says he wants to
Speaker 1: prevent them from even having simple discovery. That case seems
Speaker 1: to be falling apart as well. If he's not gonna
Speaker 1: allow discovery, then the case can't go forward. Means the
Speaker 1: indictments will have to be withdrawn in some way. So
Speaker 1: that's not working out particularly well. You know the fact
Speaker 1: that all these other people that are involved in the election,
Speaker 1: and that that there are real crimes associated with the election.
Speaker 1: It's obvious that if if you were to delete subpoena
Speaker 1: emails and and use bleach bit on your hard drive
Speaker 1: and beat up your devices with hammers, that I think
Speaker 1: most of you listening to me would be arrested, just
Speaker 1: like the Espionage Act has put innocent people in jail.
Speaker 1: Just like if any of you dare to ever lie
Speaker 1: or commit a fraud before a visa court judge, good
Speaker 1: luck to you in your life. It's not gonna work
Speaker 1: out well for you, which happened repeatedly by using the
Speaker 1: the fake phony Clinton bought and paid for dossier with
Speaker 1: a foreign national putting it together that turns out to
Speaker 1: be Russian lies. And then they never verified or corroborated it,
Speaker 1: but they signed off that they verified it, They signed
Speaker 1: off that it was legitimate and corroborated. They purposely didn't
Speaker 1: tell the judge that Hillary paid for it on four
Speaker 1: separate occasions. That's a fraud on the court. That's that
Speaker 1: is an illegitimate document presented to the court. Most of
Speaker 1: us will go to jail over these types of things.
Speaker 1: And all these Yates and Comy and and Rob rosenstud
Speaker 1: they all signed off on this thing. No wonder why
Speaker 1: they don't want to hand it over and allow us
Speaker 1: to see the FISA court applications and the renewal applications
Speaker 1: because we already know the bulk of information was steal dossier.
Speaker 1: These are in same times we're living in. Now. You
Speaker 1: know you're losing here. We we we've now healed away
Speaker 1: every layer of the onion. McCabe has gone, Comey has gone,
Speaker 1: Struck has gone, All these other people are gone. And
Speaker 1: now we have the Inspector General report now leading to
Speaker 1: an investigation into the FIS abuse. But we did have
Speaker 1: real Russian information that was fed to the American people,
Speaker 1: even visa v r C I A director Obama CIA
Speaker 1: director at the time, the former communist Brennan handing it
Speaker 1: off to Harry Reid, and then all of this through
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele, Bruce Or and others being leaked to the media,
Speaker 1: all designed to propagandize and misinformed the American people to
Speaker 1: sway an election. On top of putting the fix in
Speaker 1: on Hillary's investigation that was to keep her in the game.
Speaker 1: And then a group of people beginning not only exonerating her,
Speaker 1: but then beginning this pony Russia investigation much earlier than
Speaker 1: anybody and they had anticipated or saw, and that was
Speaker 1: their insurance policy after they had, you know, said of
Speaker 1: course we're gonna stop him. We need an insurance policy.
Speaker 1: It's like a forty year old dropping dead, okay, in
Speaker 1: case Trump happens to win. And they've implemented all of that.
Speaker 1: They care about Russia collusion. What about Adam Schiff on
Speaker 1: the tape, you know, begging for every single solitary detail
Speaker 1: of naked pictures of Trump and Russia that doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to come up very often in Mueller's take. And I
Speaker 1: guess they're going after him. And I guess now the
Speaker 1: next target is Roger Stone will talk to him later today.
Speaker 1: He's actually gone out there and said everything. They're obviously
Speaker 1: targeting him. Why are they targeting him? What did he do?
Speaker 1: Did he have any influence? By the way, what if
Speaker 1: he did try to get you know, information on Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 1: Is that a crime? Well, I mean, let's listen to
Speaker 1: the conversation with with Adam Shift, Shifty Shift. We know
Speaker 1: what he's done, all right. We see that Democrats insist
Speaker 1: Peter Struck's firing doesn't undermine the legitimacy really of Robert
Speaker 1: Mollow's investigation. Time will prove otherwise. I am convinced, even
Speaker 1: though it was launched by Struck under false pretenses and
Speaker 1: a obvious clear present political agenda. But i've Struck isn't
Speaker 1: all that important to the destroy Trump movement? Why are
Speaker 1: so many Trump haters rushing to pay his legal bills anyway?
Speaker 1: You know who says that sending anti Trump text to
Speaker 1: your girlfriend doesn't pay Anyway, Peter Struck, they see him
Speaker 1: have garnered uh enough to raise more than two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars for his legal suspense on his
Speaker 1: goal fund me page on Twitter page was launched on Monday,
Speaker 1: friends of Special Agent Peter Struck. They initially saught a
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty grand to be putting a trust dedicated
Speaker 1: to his growing legal costs and lost income. That sung
Speaker 1: was reached so quickly they now have gone up to
Speaker 1: three fifty and they say, as a man of integrity,
Speaker 1: and we saw that on display clearly, Um, there are
Speaker 1: new developments. It appears that bruce Or had sixty plus
Speaker 1: contacts with Christopher Steele, remember his wife Nellie were profusion GPS.
Speaker 1: Congressman Mark Meadows has pointed out that bruce Or will
Speaker 1: come before Congress on August and answer why he had
Speaker 1: sixty plus contacts with the dossier author Christopher Steele as
Speaker 1: far back as January. He knows the American public the
Speaker 1: full truth, Meadows tweeted. Lawmakers obviously believe war now is
Speaker 1: key to finding out how the Clinton campaign, the d
Speaker 1: n C paid Fusion, GPS and steal to fabricate this
Speaker 1: conspiracy of Trump and the campaign Russia collusion at the
Speaker 1: top levels of the Justice Department and the FBI. Obviously,
Speaker 1: or as contacts with Steele, the ex British spy that
Speaker 1: put together the Russian dossier lies I said to date
Speaker 1: back more than a decade, and you know this is
Speaker 1: the guy also to remember that was fired from the FBI,
Speaker 1: and they continued contact both before and after the election.
Speaker 1: Emails handed over to Congress by the Justice Department show
Speaker 1: that Or steal Will Simpson communicated all throughout as they
Speaker 1: were digging up dirt paid for by the Clinton campaign
Speaker 1: and the d n C. In Congress rightly now is
Speaker 1: set to grill Bruce Or on these secret contacts with
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele, with the members of the House Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: and others. This will be interesting come the end of
Speaker 1: this month. Trey Gaudy telling Martha McCallum last night that
Speaker 1: the Justice Department is doing what Bruce Ord does right now.
Speaker 1: Both men are prosecutors. It's unbelievable a prosecutor would insert
Speaker 1: himself into an ongoing investigation for which he had nothing
Speaker 1: to do. Well, he worked for the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: We're getting to the bottom of it. It's getting worse
Speaker 1: every day. It's all beginning to unfold alright now till
Speaker 1: the h to the top of the hour. One, Shawn
Speaker 1: is our toll free telephone number. Let me give you
Speaker 1: the latest on manaforts defense team rested today without presenting
Speaker 1: a case. Prosecutors resting their case yesterday. Closing arguments are
Speaker 1: set to begin nine am tomorrow morning. The attorneys will
Speaker 1: confer with T. S. Elis, the third later today to
Speaker 1: discuss jury interactions. Now there's eighteen counts of tax and
Speaker 1: banking crimes and the jury has now gone home for
Speaker 1: the day. They were brought back into the courtroom to
Speaker 1: learn that Mantaford is not presenting a defense. The judge
Speaker 1: told the jurors to go home, reminded them, as always
Speaker 1: that they must not discuss the trial, said the course
Speaker 1: of the court is now in recess, when we will
Speaker 1: begin a hearing about jury instructions. On their way out
Speaker 1: of the courtroom, the defense attorney Kevin Downing, said that
Speaker 1: the defense rested because the government has not met the
Speaker 1: burden of proof anyway. So what's playing out for the
Speaker 1: rest of the day today? There now having both rested
Speaker 1: their cases, that the attorneys will now confer with the
Speaker 1: judge discussed jury instructions. Ellis said he will announce his
Speaker 1: decision on another technical issue that the attorneys have asked about.
Speaker 1: And this all begins nine thirty tomorrow morning. Eat Ellis
Speaker 1: encouraged each side to keep them under two hours, and
Speaker 1: the judge old Manafort to the podium to answer a
Speaker 1: brief set of questions, all before the jury was brought
Speaker 1: into the room. Ellis asked if he discussed testifying with
Speaker 1: his lawyer, I have your honor, Ellis asked if he
Speaker 1: was happy with his lawyers. Man of Fort said responded affirmatently, affirmatively.
Speaker 1: Ellis then asked if he made a decision about testifying.
Speaker 1: I have decided. Ellis asked if Manafort would testify, No, sir,
Speaker 1: he took a seat. Manafford is not obviously required to
Speaker 1: testify because the Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination. Ellis
Speaker 1: made this clear during his brief brief conversation with Manafort.
Speaker 1: You have an absolute right to testify before this jury.
Speaker 1: You have an absolute right to remain silent before this jury. So, UM,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be interesting. I think, you know, if they
Speaker 1: do keep it to that, you could even have this
Speaker 1: sent to the jury as early as tomorrow. And we'll
Speaker 1: be watching all of this very very closely. Um, we
Speaker 1: have other news today, It's some of which is pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: National Democrats are kind of tending what is going on
Speaker 1: with Keith Ellison is not happening. It seems to be
Speaker 1: getting bigger and bigger. You know, if it was Donald
Speaker 1: Trump news that it would be all over the place.
Speaker 1: But now we have a you know, apparently a high
Speaker 1: profile Democrat, Keith Ellison. You know, Democrats have not said
Speaker 1: a word. Nancy Pelosi nothing, Harriston, Jilla Brand nothing, Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton nothing, Diane Feinstein nothing. What do we hear from
Speaker 1: Senator Warren nothing, Kamila Harris nothing, Maxie Waters nothing. Prominent
Speaker 1: Democratic women, the most vocal supporters of the me too movement,
Speaker 1: They're all now circling the wagons seemingly around there party
Speaker 1: leader Keith Ellison and um. You know, according to news
Speaker 1: that has come out today, a second woman I has
Speaker 1: accused Ellison of domestic violence and report supports this woman's accusation.
Speaker 1: This weekend, a woman by the name of Karen Mona
Speaker 1: Han accused Ellison, currently a candidate for Attorney General in Minnesota,
Speaker 1: being physically verbally abusive towards her. Allegations were posted on Twitter.
Speaker 1: We're also posted on Facebook by her son, and the
Speaker 1: post has now gone viral, and she took to Twitter
Speaker 1: over the weekend in a series of tweets to support
Speaker 1: her sons post about the assault. Following these allegations, another
Speaker 1: woman claimed that Ellison had abused her during a relationship,
Speaker 1: and so we're gonna watch this unfold. But the only
Speaker 1: difference is is his last name is not Trump. I
Speaker 1: don't know what happened in this particular case. I wasn't there,
Speaker 1: but certainly, uh, there is a different double standard as
Speaker 1: it relates to the news media in this country, which
Speaker 1: is my only point. I do believe people deserve the
Speaker 1: assumption of presumption of innocence until they're proven guilty. That's
Speaker 1: not how the media has been working in a lot
Speaker 1: of these cases. Um, what else do we have here?
Speaker 1: Some other news that I want to get to if
Speaker 1: we have time on Russia Gate? Um, if there's any
Speaker 1: question just how a far Robert Mueller is in this
Speaker 1: Russia Gate investigation and how it's running out of gas.
Speaker 1: His latest development, assuming it's true, could remove all doubt
Speaker 1: The Hills reporting that amar Rossa is now saying she's
Speaker 1: certainly willing to share recordings from her time in the
Speaker 1: Trump administration with the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and that
Speaker 1: his office has already reached out to her, I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't even make this up anyway. But asked by
Speaker 1: Chris Matthews if she has tapes from her time working
Speaker 1: in the Trump administration beyond the two that she has
Speaker 1: shared publicly in recent days, she said, I have plenty.
Speaker 1: Anything Mueller would like to see, all of his office
Speaker 1: calls again, anything they want, I'll share anything they want.
Speaker 1: I'll certainly cooperate. She didn't elaborate on what previous interactions
Speaker 1: with the Special counsel what they may have involved, but
Speaker 1: asked if she believes Trump will be impeached at this point. Yes,
Speaker 1: and you just you can't make this up. You really can't.
Speaker 1: Um What other news do we have today? I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot going on, and some believe there is
Speaker 1: some good economic news. Does anyone ever care about the
Speaker 1: good economic news we have? Small business optimism has now
Speaker 1: hit a thirty five year high in the Country News survey,
Speaker 1: small business owners are now more optimistic about the economy
Speaker 1: than any time since the beginning of what was the
Speaker 1: Reagan Revolution and the Reagan Boom, which really began in night.
Speaker 1: Three year later, Reagan won re election in a forty
Speaker 1: nine state landslide. Small business optimism now marked as second
Speaker 1: highest level in the survey's forty five year history, at
Speaker 1: a hundred and seven point nine, just below the July
Speaker 1: record high of one oh eight. According to the National
Speaker 1: Federation of Independent Businesses, the index reading was expected to
Speaker 1: decline a notch from June's one seventy point one, and
Speaker 1: the rise to one oh seven point nine was four
Speaker 1: basis points higher than the highest estimate that economy of
Speaker 1: economists that were surveyed by Bloomberg. July report also contained
Speaker 1: good news for workers with seasonally adjusted and that of
Speaker 1: small businesses now planning to create new jobs. Thirty seven
Speaker 1: percent of owners said they have unfilled job openings. Small
Speaker 1: business owners and now leading this economy and expressing optimism,
Speaker 1: rivaling the highest levels in history. According to the n
Speaker 1: f IB, President, expansion continues to be a priority for
Speaker 1: small businesses, who showed no signs of slowing as they
Speaker 1: anticipate more sales and better business conditions. We have other
Speaker 1: good news, President, Steel tariffs and now generated a multibillion
Speaker 1: dollar windfall and new revenue for the US government, c
Speaker 1: NBC reports, and less than five months, the Trump administration
Speaker 1: collected more than one point four billion dollars in new
Speaker 1: revenue from steel and aluminum tariffs. According to a recent
Speaker 1: report prepared for by members of Congress, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: we all want free and fair trade. Congressional Research Service
Speaker 1: estimated between March and July the US read one point
Speaker 1: one billion and three four point two million from levies
Speaker 1: on foreign steal and aluminum, respectively. And now see those
Speaker 1: jobs coming back in a pretty significant way. Also, one
Speaker 1: other point on mueller landslide of the American people say
Speaker 1: they're losing patients with Robert Muller and his investigative fiasco,
Speaker 1: and they want him to wrap up things by election day,
Speaker 1: which kind of gives the bumbling special prosecutor a little
Speaker 1: more than two months. Two thirds of Americans would like
Speaker 1: to see Muller finished the investigation into Russian election interference
Speaker 1: before voters go to the polls in November. Democrats are
Speaker 1: more apt than Republicans to think Mueller shouldn't aim to
Speaker 1: wrap up things before the election. Of course, not majorities
Speaker 1: of cross both parties say you ought to be able
Speaker 1: to complete the investigation before voters head to the polls. Well,
Speaker 1: that would be good for the country. Why would we
Speaker 1: ever want something like that? To happen. But you know,
Speaker 1: you just you can't make this stuff up. It's pretty unbelievable. Um.
Speaker 1: One of the news you know what the sad thing
Speaker 1: is with the media is you know, I noticed that
Speaker 1: fake news CNN is actually saying, well, these people that
Speaker 1: we have on tape and I'll play it later in
Speaker 1: the show. We played it yesterday, even calling for the
Speaker 1: assassination of the president, that these same people were there
Speaker 1: to stop hate. And I'm listening to it and it's
Speaker 1: a person after person after person. They either want to
Speaker 1: punch the president in the face, slap him in the head,
Speaker 1: slap him around, or assassinate him. Now, that used to
Speaker 1: be a crime to threaten the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't think anything is happening, though,
Speaker 1: that shows that that's anti hate. Unbelievable. Oh one other
Speaker 1: thing on Amarossa. She apparently is secretly recorded Jared and Ivanka.
Speaker 1: I guess we're gonna get a tape of day and
Speaker 1: the President fighting back, but at this point I don't
Speaker 1: even see any point for it. Um. Anyway, let's get
Speaker 1: to our busy phones. One Sean is our number. If
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of the program, Brian
Speaker 1: and Albani apparently wants to argue with me about something. Brian,
Speaker 1: how are you glad you called? What's going on? Hey, Sean,
Speaker 1: thanks for taking my call. I am a periodical watcher
Speaker 1: of the Hannity Show at nine o'clock and my question
Speaker 1: for you is very simple. In your endless defense of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, why do you constantly talk about how the
Speaker 1: media is unfairly covering this President Trump is the engine
Speaker 1: that drives the car. The media is responding to what
Speaker 1: he's tweeting, what he's saying, what he's doing. I don't
Speaker 1: understand why you feel the need, when talking about the
Speaker 1: media coverage to call it fake new news in which
Speaker 1: haunts and you're actually the one who's topagating a message
Speaker 1: through the media, a pro Trump message. And I just
Speaker 1: don't understand why you're always beating on the media and
Speaker 1: calling the media the mainstream media. Fox News is the
Speaker 1: most watch media network in the country, aren't you guys
Speaker 1: the mainstream media? Well? No, not really. I mean, in
Speaker 1: many ways I would say, I want to answer your
Speaker 1: question thoroughly. Number One, I'm a talk show host. Number one,
Speaker 1: I give opinion, I give strong opinion, But We also
Speaker 1: do straight interviews. We we had one with Jack Dorsey
Speaker 1: of Twitter for example. Recently it was just okay, an
Speaker 1: informational interview. I do uh interviews with Roseanne bar occasionally
Speaker 1: more other straight interviews, even with politicians, just to get information,
Speaker 1: so you know, what's in the healthcare bill. What do
Speaker 1: you want to have in the healthcare bill? Why isn't
Speaker 1: this in the healthcare bill? Those are all straight interviews.
Speaker 1: We also obviously do opinion. We also do investigative reporting.
Speaker 1: I do my own research most of the most of
Speaker 1: the time. I have my team that helps me with
Speaker 1: some of the research, but I have my own sources.
Speaker 1: I make my own phone calls. As a talk show host,
Speaker 1: you wear many different you know, many jobs are are
Speaker 1: included including Yeah. We do journalism. We do straight journalism,
Speaker 1: We do investigative reporting, we do opinion, We we do debate, monitoring,
Speaker 1: We do everything. The difference between me and any of
Speaker 1: these people that you're mentioning is they say that there journalists.
Speaker 1: I'm saying I'm the entire newspaper, news, information, opinion. We
Speaker 1: do it all, and we tell people we do it all.
Speaker 1: I turn on any of these channels and you can
Speaker 1: turn them on any point at any time, any day,
Speaker 1: and all you get is NonStop hysterical coverage about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You don't get any coverage of the success that he
Speaker 1: is now and the things that he's accomplishing. They've ignored
Speaker 1: the biggest abuse of power scandal because of their own
Speaker 1: political bias. And I think that's a big part of
Speaker 1: the story. The way they say things, the things that
Speaker 1: they say every day, and the things that they claim
Speaker 1: to be are not true. And we pointed out it
Speaker 1: is but a small part of what I do. Um,
Speaker 1: we're giving you news and information you're not getting anywhere else.
Speaker 1: You know, our stories have been proven to be true.
Speaker 1: We did learn that Hillary violated the Espionage Act. Everything
Speaker 1: we told you about her subpoena emails, that she deleted
Speaker 1: or acid washed with bleach bit or destroyed her devices
Speaker 1: with hammers turned out to be true. She and the
Speaker 1: d n C did pay a foreign national through funnel
Speaker 1: money through a law firm, through gp a fusion GPS.
Speaker 1: That's all true, and that Christopher Steele, the foreign agent, yeah,
Speaker 1: had an opinion that was anti Trump, and he used
Speaker 1: Russian lies that were propagated to the American people for
Speaker 1: the purpose of influencing them with Russian lies before the election,
Speaker 1: and similarly was used after the election as a weapon
Speaker 1: to destroy Donald Trump. We have Phizer Court judges that
Speaker 1: were lied to repeatedly that information that was never verified, corroborated,
Speaker 1: that ended up being debunked, was presented to these judges
Speaker 1: with the purposeful odmission that Hillary Clinton paid for all
Speaker 1: of this information a vital point that they didn't uh
Speaker 1: present to the judges. That's a fraud against the court.
Speaker 1: That too, is a crime. Also, the considerations that were
Speaker 1: given by people that we now know through Freedom of
Speaker 1: Information Act requests and and different documents that have been
Speaker 1: subpoenaed and turned over to Congress, which has the authority
Speaker 1: for checks and balances. We've discovered that most of the
Speaker 1: people involved in the Hillary Clinton investigation had a pro
Speaker 1: Hillary anti Trump bias, you know, like Hillary should win
Speaker 1: a hundred million to zero, and that we're going to
Speaker 1: stop Trump, and that we've got an insurance policy, and
Speaker 1: that he's loathsome there's the same people that were writing
Speaker 1: an exoneration for even investigating that case. So all of
Speaker 1: the things that we've covered have turned out to be true.
Speaker 1: You can't give me a single bit of evidence because
Speaker 1: it doesn't exist about any Trump Russia collusion of any kind.
Speaker 1: But I can play you a tape of I can
Speaker 1: play you a tape of Adam Shift talking on a
Speaker 1: on a phone that was recorded by Russian hucksters hopsters,
Speaker 1: and he thinks he's getting dirt from Russia about Trump. Okay,
Speaker 1: and so met with you. I don't want to play
Speaker 1: this now. I'll give you a go ahead. You can
Speaker 1: respond to all that. Yeah, I mean half of the
Speaker 1: things that you just said there are either utterly conflated
Speaker 1: or just give me one thing that I said that
Speaker 1: is Give me one thing that I just said that's false.
Speaker 1: There is absolutely zero evidence of any attempts of collusion
Speaker 1: about the Trump campaign and Russia. That is utter not
Speaker 1: tell me what it is. I'll tell you what it is.
Speaker 1: A meeting in Trump Tower between Trump things higher campaign
Speaker 1: and Russian people close to the Kremlin while President Trump collusion.
Speaker 1: That that's not collusion at all. Then you would say
Speaker 1: the tape of Adam Shifty Shift is collusion. I have
Speaker 1: that tape and all that was the discussed at that
Speaker 1: meeting by everybody, and all the evidence showed they talked
Speaker 1: about Russian adoption, and that things that were promised that
Speaker 1: they might have some dirt on Hillary would never delivered,
Speaker 1: never even discussed. So there is no evidence of any collusion.
Speaker 1: What you're saying is false, and it's been repeated over
Speaker 1: and over again by leftist like you. Look, I can't
Speaker 1: convince you. If you want to. If you want to
Speaker 1: convince yourself that you you want to believe the worst
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump, go right ahead, but it's not going
Speaker 1: to end up well for those on your side, because
Speaker 1: the country succeeding in spite of you. Have you been
Speaker 1: asked up here before the Special Council's team. I have not,
Speaker 1: but it has been publicly reported that they have interviewed
Speaker 1: and subpoenaed a number of my associates. I know that
Speaker 1: there exists nowhere evidence of Russian collusion or Wiki leaks collaboration,
Speaker 1: or any nonsense pertaining to John Podesta's email, but I'm
Speaker 1: also mindful of any prosecutor's ability to squeeze underlings to
Speaker 1: get them to compose testimony against a bigger fish. I
Speaker 1: have not been contacted by the Special Counsel's office. I've
Speaker 1: made it abundantly clear that there's no circumstances under which
Speaker 1: I would testify against the president. I would not rule
Speaker 1: out cooperating if they think I could be helpful in
Speaker 1: some area, but beyond that, UM, I have not spoken
Speaker 1: to them. That was Roger Stone from earlier last night,
Speaker 1: and Roger Stone has now written a piece about all
Speaker 1: of this. Signs growing that Muller is zeroing in on.
Speaker 1: Roger Stone is a headline on the Hill and in
Speaker 1: their article he joins us now and of course he
Speaker 1: has a Stone's Rules, which is his brand new book out.
Speaker 1: You even go against your own rules in your article?
Speaker 1: How are you excellent? You know? Generally speaking, Sean, I
Speaker 1: think the only thing worse than being talked about is
Speaker 1: not being talked about. But last Friday I might have
Speaker 1: taken exception to that when my long time associate Christin
Speaker 1: Davis went before the Grand jury, when my long time
Speaker 1: traveling aide Andrew Miller was charged with contempt because he
Speaker 1: refuses to allow them to violate his Fourth Amendment rights,
Speaker 1: and it was revealed that Randy Cretico, who I swore
Speaker 1: under oath before the House Intelligence Committee, was the source
Speaker 1: who told me that Assane did have the goods on
Speaker 1: Hillary and would publish him in October reef Steve's a subpoena.
Speaker 1: By the way, that testimony was accurate and truthful. So,
Speaker 1: by the way, why would not even be today? There
Speaker 1: is no evidence whatsoever that I either cluded with the Russians,
Speaker 1: collaborated with Wicky Leaks, or knew anything in advance about
Speaker 1: John Podesta's devastatingly embarrassing and incriminating emails. Well, let's just
Speaker 1: stop for a second and leave your statement on it's
Speaker 1: on face value versa. What if you did know? Well,
Speaker 1: that is an interesting point. You see, uh, Sam Nunberg
Speaker 1: and other misfits have been out there saying that Stone
Speaker 1: can be charged with defrauding the United States. Really prove
Speaker 1: that Julian Assange is a Russian asset, prove that Wicky
Speaker 1: Leaks is a Russian front. I know that John Brennan
Speaker 1: and James Clapper repeat this lie constantly, but it's never
Speaker 1: been found to be true in the US court of law,
Speaker 1: and you and I, I think both believe it to
Speaker 1: be nonsense. Well, I mean, I did interview Julian Ossans
Speaker 1: both on this radio program and I flew to England
Speaker 1: and I asked him specifically if it came from Russia,
Speaker 1: that this league, etcetera. He was adamant and saying, no,
Speaker 1: it wasn't Russia, nobody connected to Russian, it wasn't a
Speaker 1: state party. Um. But you know, if we're really interested
Speaker 1: in getting to the bottom of it, I have said
Speaker 1: all along in my humble opinion, he would want to
Speaker 1: be the one guy that I would assume would have
Speaker 1: the actual proof and evidence of where it came from.
Speaker 1: And there was a report last week or the week
Speaker 1: before that in fact, he might be invited to testify
Speaker 1: before the Senate, And I think that would be a
Speaker 1: good thing for the country to have resolved, don't you.
Speaker 1: I totally agree. In fact, there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: speculation that Ecuador would soon expel him from the embassy,
Speaker 1: that he the British government would extradite him to the
Speaker 1: United States to stay in file, although it's hard for
Speaker 1: me to understand what the charge would be unless they
Speaker 1: intend to charge the Washington Post in the New York
Speaker 1: Times as well for publishing class forward him for my
Speaker 1: information that they got from a whistleblower. That's what journalists do.
Speaker 1: But he is the one person who could clear this up. Yes,
Speaker 1: Julian Assange more than any person on the planet could
Speaker 1: really clarify these matters. And I think put the lie
Speaker 1: to the deep state claim that Assange is a Russian asset,
Speaker 1: which he is not. Let me go to what you
Speaker 1: think Mueller is trying to accomplish here. I mean, Kristen
Speaker 1: Davis is known as this famous madam in New York.
Speaker 1: Uh And I think she had a run for office
Speaker 1: herself many years ago. Your friends with her, and why
Speaker 1: is she being drawn into this Well, First of all,
Speaker 1: that was ten years ago. Christin Davis paid her debt
Speaker 1: to society. It's ironic that she went to prison and
Speaker 1: Elliot Spitzer, the guy she provided high level prostitutes for,
Speaker 1: went on to have a show at CNN rather than
Speaker 1: doing any time life. She's a single mother. She's trying
Speaker 1: to launch a cosmetology business. She certainly not engaged in
Speaker 1: any illegal activities today. But Shawn, She's worked with me,
Speaker 1: kept my schedule, worked with me on some I T projects.
Speaker 1: She put herself through school to learn web design. She's
Speaker 1: a fine person. She has no knowledge of Russian collusion
Speaker 1: or Wiki leaks collaboration, or any other illegal act, Nor
Speaker 1: does Andrew Miller, nor do any of the people who
Speaker 1: have been brought before the grand jury, So the expression
Speaker 1: which hunt comes to mind. In fact, I think it's
Speaker 1: a fishing expedition. Why me, because I'm for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and I won't back down. So I'm not sure whether
Speaker 1: their goal is to silence me or whether their goal
Speaker 1: is to try to get me to flip and testify
Speaker 1: against the president I've known for forty years. But that's
Speaker 1: not going to happen. I'm not going to do that,
Speaker 1: no matter what they come up with. You even said
Speaker 1: in this piece, you know, I guess a lot of
Speaker 1: people have perceptions of other people that, uh, they're extraordinarily wealthy.
Speaker 1: But we've learned in this all of this nonsense that
Speaker 1: has gone on. You know, General Flynn serves his country
Speaker 1: for thirty years. Even Peter Struck and James Comey said
Speaker 1: there was no indication at all he's lying, but he
Speaker 1: can't afford attorneys, and I would assume they were probably
Speaker 1: putting the screws to him, just like they are Manafort,
Speaker 1: So he'll sing or compose for the purpose of getting
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump to impeach or prosecute. I think the
Speaker 1: same thing is going on all over the place. To
Speaker 1: be honest, and in his case he had to sell
Speaker 1: his house. You know, thanks for serving your country. The
Speaker 1: FBI didn't think you lied to them. But we want
Speaker 1: you to sign here, or maybe we'll go after your
Speaker 1: son and your whole family and you won't be able
Speaker 1: to afford to defend yourself. It's exactly what's going on
Speaker 1: with me showing there are a story you can find online,
Speaker 1: say Roger Stone has worked twenty million dollars in their dreams. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not a wealthy man. I work for
Speaker 1: a living to provide for my family. I work hard
Speaker 1: to flog my books, and I'm glad you enjoyed my
Speaker 1: more my most recent books. By the way, I break
Speaker 1: every single rule in the book, and every other rule
Speaker 1: is about how you dress. And I dressed like a
Speaker 1: slob because I'm wearing jeans and T shirts. And that
Speaker 1: you've got some of the best neckties on television I
Speaker 1: have ever seen. Well, I know there is one hour
Speaker 1: a day that I clean up. The point of the
Speaker 1: course this is yes, they try to destroy you financially.
Speaker 1: Between the Democratic National Committee lawsuit against me, between this
Speaker 1: Obama based group that sued me a suit I recently
Speaker 1: got dismissed between the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Between
Speaker 1: Mr Mueller poking into every single aspect of my personal
Speaker 1: life shown, my private life, my family life, my business life,
Speaker 1: my social life, my political activities. My legal fees are
Speaker 1: are set to run a couple of million, which I
Speaker 1: don't have. So I had to set up a legal
Speaker 1: defense fund it Stone Defense Fund dot com. And I
Speaker 1: thank the thousands of patriots who are donating. I could
Speaker 1: not stay afloat, I could not fight without them having
Speaker 1: my back. But I'm fighting for something larger here because
Speaker 1: You're absolutely right. This isn't about Roger Stone. It's about
Speaker 1: taking down Donald Trump. It's about trying to flip me
Speaker 1: and get me to testify against him. Let me tell you, Roger,
Speaker 1: come up with I am not going to do that.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you have done or haven't done
Speaker 1: in your life. I don't know. I you know, I
Speaker 1: know you. We've we've mostly gotten along over the years.
Speaker 1: You've taken a few shots at me, which is fine.
Speaker 1: I probably deserved him. Um, I'm looking at what's going
Speaker 1: on with Paul mana Fort. What Judge Ellis has said, Uh,
Speaker 1: exactly what you just repeated and I am disturbed. More importantly,
Speaker 1: this was supposed to be about Trump Russia collusion, and
Speaker 1: we're digging down deep into a two thousand and five
Speaker 1: tax case as a means of putting the screws to him.
Speaker 1: And it has nothing to do with collusion, nothing with Russia,
Speaker 1: nothing with the campaign, not thing with Donald Trump. How
Speaker 1: did the mandate ever cover such a wide wide range
Speaker 1: of basically, anything you want to go after, you're free
Speaker 1: to go after a special counsel. Secondly, we do have
Speaker 1: evidence of Russian interference. We had warnings that Obama said,
Speaker 1: ignored of Devon Newness that should bother everybody. Devin Newness
Speaker 1: warned us all the Russians wanted to influence our election.
Speaker 1: In Obama told Trump in October of stop whining and
Speaker 1: go out there and try and get some votes, thinking
Speaker 1: Hillary would win. And what have we discovered? Hillary paid
Speaker 1: for a phony dossier full of Russian lies that was
Speaker 1: spread by the former CIA director to Harry Reid to
Speaker 1: literally influence the American people with what they knew were lies.
Speaker 1: Those same lies were used, never verified, corroborated, and it
Speaker 1: was used four times to obtain warrants to spy on
Speaker 1: a Trump campaign associate American citizens. They never corroborated the information,
Speaker 1: they never verified it, nor did they tell the Feiser
Speaker 1: Court judges on four separate occasions that Hillary bought and
Speaker 1: paid for this. All of that has to do with Russia.
Speaker 1: You want to hear about Russian collusion. We've got a
Speaker 1: tape of Adam Schiff, you know, breathlessly, you know, begging
Speaker 1: for naked pictures of Donald Trump as he being hoaxed,
Speaker 1: as a hoax has taken place with some Russian prankster
Speaker 1: that's on tape. I don't see any interest or or
Speaker 1: resolved to get to the bottom of that collusion or conspiracy.
Speaker 1: So I have an entire distaste in my mouth, and
Speaker 1: I feel that we're losing the country. I feel if
Speaker 1: we can lidify, as the court judges, that Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: can literally have an investigation fixed. There's no American that
Speaker 1: will get away with the leading subpoena emails, acid washing
Speaker 1: their hard drive, and beating up their devices the way
Speaker 1: she did Roger. Those are all crimes. She got away
Speaker 1: with it. All these FBI, high ranking d o J officials,
Speaker 1: they all committed crimes. They all tried to steal an election.
Speaker 1: Here and the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. So I
Speaker 1: don't know what you did or didn't do, but we
Speaker 1: do know these things happen, and nobody seems to give
Speaker 1: a rep Yeah. No, Look, Seawan Nolan has connected the
Speaker 1: dots like you have, and in fact, I think we
Speaker 1: both know that the entire Russian collusion investigation is a
Speaker 1: distraction from a much more serious crime, and that is
Speaker 1: the use of the phony dossier which was which was
Speaker 1: produced with the assistance of Russian intelligence and by the
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign, as the phony rationale for the use of
Speaker 1: surveillance by the state, the power and the authority and
Speaker 1: the capability of the state to spy on Donald Frump's campaign. Yes,
Speaker 1: that is a crime, far more serious than Watergate. At
Speaker 1: The New York Times reported on January seventeen that Paul Manafort,
Speaker 1: Roger Stone, and Carter Page were all subject to warrants.
Speaker 1: Whistleblowers have come to my attorneys and pointed out exactly
Speaker 1: where my name was redacted from the Carter Page FIS
Speaker 1: warrant application released two weeks ago. There's far more of
Speaker 1: this story to be told, but I have none pension
Speaker 1: of turning on the President. I will fight, but I
Speaker 1: need to. I need to support of patriots like you
Speaker 1: and like others. Do give me this forum to tell
Speaker 1: my side of the story because the mainstream media is
Speaker 1: obsessed with the Russian collusion when they should be obsessed
Speaker 1: by the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the Obama Justice
Speaker 1: Department in the Obama FBI. Remember a conversation, a private one.
Speaker 1: I won't go into all the details that I had
Speaker 1: with Paul Manaford after all of this, and he actually
Speaker 1: said the words, there's nothing for me to tell. In
Speaker 1: other words, he didn't have anything that they wanted. Thus
Speaker 1: the case goes forward, and look at his partner, Rick Gates.
Speaker 1: What was he facing up to a hundred two hundred
Speaker 1: years in jail and and meanwhile he admits he's a liar,
Speaker 1: He embezzled, he committed tax fraud. He's guilty of every
Speaker 1: single thing that the government says Manafort's guilty of. But
Speaker 1: they gave him a get out of jail free card. Well,
Speaker 1: that is not exactly a credible witness to me, But
Speaker 1: there is a conviction rate in federal court. No, you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right. In fact, Gates said, understand that he had
Speaker 1: better a four hundred thousand. I believe it's more like
Speaker 1: three million. So clearly the rules are only for Trump supporters. Uh.
Speaker 1: I learned that the woman doing the questioning of my
Speaker 1: associates in front of the grand jury. Ye wait a minute,
Speaker 1: let me get this straight. So the woman who as
Speaker 1: a private attorney represented the Clinton Foundation in the email case,
Speaker 1: which is one of the subjects for which I am
Speaker 1: being investigating and being investigated, is now conducting the investigation
Speaker 1: of me. Can you say conflict of interest? I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to say. All of this thinks too
Speaker 1: hig have all. I gotta take a quick break. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: More with Roger Stone on the other side. Eight nine one, Shawn,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: Right as we continue, Roger Stone is with us. His
Speaker 1: book is out Stones Rules, which you can get at
Speaker 1: his website. And here's my fear, Roger, that they are
Speaker 1: ignoring major crimes that they say their man date uh
Speaker 1: causes them to act on. And they're ignoring the biggest
Speaker 1: abuse of power scandal to literally steal a presidential election
Speaker 1: from the American people. If we don't solve this abuse
Speaker 1: of power the fundamentals here, we've lost the country, Roger,
Speaker 1: it's gone. It's over. Our constitutional republic will be dead.
Speaker 1: You can't have a dual justice system. You can't if
Speaker 1: you don't have equal justice and equal application of our laws.
Speaker 1: It's over. That's just the fact. There is really only
Speaker 1: one answer in my opinion, and that is President Donald
Speaker 1: Trump needs to clean house. He needs to He needs
Speaker 1: to terminate Mr Sessions. He needs to terminate Mr Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: who ought to himself be prosecuted. Uh. He needs to
Speaker 1: terminate Mr Mueller. This is a witch hunt. Um. It's
Speaker 1: interesting that the courts have ruled that Mueller's appointment is
Speaker 1: perfectly okay because he has the has the oversight of
Speaker 1: Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the President. But the
Speaker 1: President and Rosenstein are both at a minimum witnesses in
Speaker 1: the Mueller investigation and therefore conflicted as a conflict. Well,
Speaker 1: there's two conflicts. For Rod Rosenstein. He signed the fourth
Speaker 1: fis of warrant A which was never verified or corroborated,
Speaker 1: and he should be answering questions and be he recommended
Speaker 1: the firing of Comey. And a third conflict of you
Speaker 1: will is his friendship with Robert Mueller, to that that
Speaker 1: he is withholding the fas of material obstruction on the
Speaker 1: basis of national security when it has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with national security, has everything to do with raw politics.
Speaker 1: Rosenstein is a weasel and a criminal, and he's the
Speaker 1: one who ought to be investigated and prosecuted. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: we'll be watching very closely. What is Roger Stone dot
Speaker 1: com and what's your website? You can go to Stone
Speaker 1: call truth dot com. All right, thank you. Roger Stone
Speaker 1: and his book, by the way, you can find there
Speaker 1: as well Stone's Rules eight hundred nine four one. Shawn
Speaker 1: is a told free telephone number. You want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program till the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: Glad you're with us eight D one Seawn if you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the program, joining us Uh.
Speaker 1: John high bushes with us. Uh. Somebody've gotten to know.
Speaker 1: He's the executive director of the Reagan Foundation, author of
Speaker 1: a newly released book, The Second Coming, a sequel to
Speaker 1: the Shroud Conspiracy, and he highlights what's different what's the
Speaker 1: same about Ronald Reagan his administration and Donald Trump, the
Speaker 1: current president. What's different the media, the people, the protests,
Speaker 1: the conversations, et cetera. I think it's a fascinating read
Speaker 1: and a fascinating question. And uh, I want to John
Speaker 1: to come on a couple of minutes and talk to
Speaker 1: us about the How are you, sir, Oh, I'm just great, Sean,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for having me. It's great to be
Speaker 1: with you. Reagan Library. It is a must see for
Speaker 1: anybody that wants to just spend a little time and
Speaker 1: learn about one of America's greatest presidents and one of
Speaker 1: America's great turnarounds. And it is fascinating to me because
Speaker 1: there is a distinct stylistic difference between Reagan and Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Reagan was the ultimate gentleman. Reagan was always polite, well
Speaker 1: not necessarily, but he was forceful. Um. Donald Trump is abrupt,
Speaker 1: he is straightforward. He's an iconoclass. Uh. He feels a
Speaker 1: need to break things and doesn't ever shy away from
Speaker 1: any controversy whatsoever. Doesn't play the political game at all.
Speaker 1: But I look at their policies on taxation, I look
Speaker 1: at their policies on on Supreme Court justices and judges
Speaker 1: in general originalists. I look at their even their philosophy,
Speaker 1: policies on immigration. Although the eight six Bill we can
Speaker 1: talk about specifically piece through strength, the need for energy
Speaker 1: and dependence, ending burdensome regulation. I see so many similarities,
Speaker 1: and I think we're beginning to see the similar results
Speaker 1: that Reagan brought us to by implementing conservative policies. Your thoughts, Yeah, Sean,
Speaker 1: you hit. I don't know I could describe it any better.
Speaker 1: You're you couldn't find two men who are more radically
Speaker 1: different in their styles but who are also so perfectly
Speaker 1: aligned in terms of their policies. I think President Trump
Speaker 1: has executed a very Reagan like agenda. So in reality,
Speaker 1: you know, what he's been able to pass through Congress
Speaker 1: and the things he's done are there's so much like
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan, and I don't think he gets enough credit
Speaker 1: for it. You know, it's interesting because if you go
Speaker 1: back over the years and people forget this, Reagan was hated,
Speaker 1: absolutely despised by establishment Republicans. They're the ones that said
Speaker 1: that he was an amiable dunce and an actor or
Speaker 1: a great b actor, etcetera, etcetera. They're the ones who
Speaker 1: was Bush who said, you know, voodoo economics, Well, voodoo
Speaker 1: economics gave us the longest period of peacetime economic growth
Speaker 1: and twenty million new jobs, uh in America. And and
Speaker 1: Reagan and Trump both were able to do something that
Speaker 1: few Republicans can do, and that is get the working
Speaker 1: men and women on their side. Yeah, right, shown you know,
Speaker 1: it's funny now the media has a love affair, seems
Speaker 1: with Ronald Reagan. Now. But boy, if you look back,
Speaker 1: you're right. I remember Reagan saying, Remember he talked about
Speaker 1: he had a bile in his throats about the media.
Speaker 1: I mean, the way they treated him was so much
Speaker 1: like like President Trump. It's just in Reagan's case, he
Speaker 1: had had to work through the mainstream media right to
Speaker 1: get his message out. There was no Internet, you know,
Speaker 1: galgre hadn't inventitied yet uh and and um, so the
Speaker 1: way that Ronald Reagan could get his message across was
Speaker 1: through the media. I think with President Trump, he's got
Speaker 1: at least he's got the advantage of being able to
Speaker 1: tweet and and reach the American people directly with his message.
Speaker 1: And but you know, times and technology have changed so
Speaker 1: much on Yeah, I mean, talk radio was in its infancy.
Speaker 1: I mean, Rush didn't syndicate nationally until that's the end
Speaker 1: of the Reagan presidency. And you know, think about Fox
Speaker 1: News not existing until it's a different media environment. Then
Speaker 1: you had social media and Facebook and Twitter and Instagram
Speaker 1: and all these other means of communication. You know, the
Speaker 1: president with one tweet can reach you know, millions of people,
Speaker 1: like a hundred million people. It's it's massive. His ability
Speaker 1: to buy pay doesn't need the media anymore. Nobody these
Speaker 1: press conferences have become dog and pony shows. They're just
Speaker 1: a waste of everybody's time. There's no need for them anymore. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, and that's the result. I I think, Sean,
Speaker 1: what's interesting is because the president's Trump in the media,
Speaker 1: you know, seeman at war with each other now, um
Speaker 1: the uh, it's it's it's just fascinating to see how
Speaker 1: how remarkably same he and President Reagan are with respect
Speaker 1: to with respect to each other. It's just that the
Speaker 1: media and the technology, everything is just so so much different.
Speaker 1: It took even you know, years later, but even Democrats
Speaker 1: begrudgingly begin began to acknowledge the success of Reagan. You know,
Speaker 1: everything is is going to be judged through the prism
Speaker 1: of success. Is this president going to follow through on
Speaker 1: his promises? He's doing it. Jerusalem, Iran North Korea, borders
Speaker 1: and taxes and regulation and energy and all of these policies.
Speaker 1: And if he's successful, it'll be amazing how many people
Speaker 1: turn around and say, yeah, he was a great president,
Speaker 1: but they had no vision that he could be. And
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, different times called for different
Speaker 1: type of leadership. And I think American American politics, our
Speaker 1: political system is in such a dramatic state of decline
Speaker 1: that it needs this jolt or shock to the system
Speaker 1: that is known as Trump, who was literally moving at
Speaker 1: his pace and not playing along with how the the
Speaker 1: swamp and the sewer in DC works. Yeah, it isn't
Speaker 1: an interesting too, Shawn. That at a time when the
Speaker 1: media and I don't mean just the editorial but reporters
Speaker 1: and all the talk show hosts have made Trump the enemy.
Speaker 1: At the same time they've never been making more money, right,
Speaker 1: I mean the New York Times subscriptions have increased and
Speaker 1: eyeballs have increased, and you know, everything's gone and all
Speaker 1: the subscriptions are up, but yet he's the enemy too. Well.
Speaker 1: You know, um, we have the highest ratings we've ever
Speaker 1: had by far, and and we're number one in cable
Speaker 1: and it's in large part because the media is so
Speaker 1: hostile towards him like they were hostile to Reagan. But uh,
Speaker 1: John high Bush, it's it's an honor to have you on.
Speaker 1: Executive Director Reagan Foundation, author of this new released book
Speaker 1: it's called The Second Coming, a sequel to the Shroud Conspiracy,
Speaker 1: highlighting the differences and and what the similarities are between
Speaker 1: President Reagan and Donald Trump. It's a great read. And
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with us. Yeah, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for having me, Sean. I'm honored to talking.
Speaker 1: It's just been an honor to have you here at
Speaker 1: the Reagan Library. When you're able to come so, I
Speaker 1: would love to be back as soon as I can.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Eight D nine f one Seawn is
Speaker 1: our number if you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program of Van is in Florida. Van high How
Speaker 1: are you glad you called? Sir? I'm doing well, sor
Speaker 1: to speak to you. How are you doing? I'm good?
Speaker 1: How are you doing? I'm doing very well. And my
Speaker 1: name is Van John's not Van Jones. That's a good thing.
Speaker 1: What's going on? Listen? There's so much I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about, but we don't have time. I
Speaker 1: just want to run one thing by you here real quickly.
Speaker 1: Think you'll understand. Mr Trump is the same person now
Speaker 1: that he was back in the seventies, back in the eighties,
Speaker 1: back in the nineties. He was revered by everyone, the Democrats,
Speaker 1: the media, They all wanted him to be at their parties,
Speaker 1: they all wanted to be like him. He was revered.
Speaker 1: Now he is reviled. And all he did was change jobs. Listen,
Speaker 1: I gotta be honest. That's the thing that I think
Speaker 1: makes him successful. Donald Trump has been because he's running
Speaker 1: government like a business and he moves from issue to
Speaker 1: issue to issue to issued issue, and Okay, that's done. Now,
Speaker 1: let's moved to this. Now, let's move to this. You know,
Speaker 1: Mitch McCardell saying, well, you know there, Wodor wasn't quiet
Speaker 1: Harvard experience for Washington, and you know, it's not the
Speaker 1: way we do things around here. And well that's the problem.
Speaker 1: You know what You're supposed to have the a sense
Speaker 1: of urgency to serve the people of their states and
Speaker 1: and their communities. And I don't see that urgency. And
Speaker 1: when people are on food stamps and in poverty and suffering,
Speaker 1: and the country is not safe and secure, and you
Speaker 1: know what, where's the sense of urgency? I mean, I
Speaker 1: want to pull my hair out myself and go fix
Speaker 1: Chicago if I could. I mean, I can't believe that
Speaker 1: seventy one people can be shot and nobody blinks an eye.
Speaker 1: I'm like, where's this sense of urgency to get in
Speaker 1: there and save lives? It makes no sense to me.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't roll that way. I get up
Speaker 1: every day and I hit the ground running, and I
Speaker 1: have a job to do every day, and I work
Speaker 1: hard to do this job the best that I can.
Speaker 1: And most Americans do the same, you know, politicians telling
Speaker 1: us what they're gonna watch seventy one people get shot
Speaker 1: and not move and fix it. I don't get it.
Speaker 1: That's their job. Go do your job, and do it
Speaker 1: expeditiously into the best of your ability, and keep your promises.
Speaker 1: What's so hard about keeping your promise? You know? Try
Speaker 1: telling you kids you're gonna get they get straight age
Speaker 1: you'll take into Disney and then say, well, never mind,
Speaker 1: good luck with that. It's not gonna work. Keeping your
Speaker 1: promise is not hard for people such as you and
Speaker 1: myself and people like Mr. Trump, and like I said,
Speaker 1: sir again, all I was saying is you know that
Speaker 1: Trump arrangement syndrome TDS thing or whatever that got started.
Speaker 1: And all I'm saying again along the same lines, the
Speaker 1: man went from being revered to being reviled, and all
Speaker 1: he did was change jobs. He's the same guy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that by the way, and keeping his word. There's
Speaker 1: nothing he's doing that is the opposite of what he said,
Speaker 1: which is kind of the m O of most politicians.
Speaker 1: All Right, big time A J Houston, Texas has a
Speaker 1: big announcement. He made some new friends over the weekend
Speaker 1: or recently? What's going on? Big time? Big time? SI? Hey,
Speaker 1: I met Diamond It still you did? Where did you
Speaker 1: meet him? They were at the health to hear Houston then?
Speaker 1: And what a fun time we had. Did you tell
Speaker 1: them we're friends? That they did? They? Did you tell
Speaker 1: them we're friends? I told him? I told him. I
Speaker 1: think one I know was one of y'all don't do
Speaker 1: with Sean Hady, but both of y'all so awesome. I
Speaker 1: don't know what one it is, but what Sean. I
Speaker 1: at the chance to h bothum and take a picture
Speaker 1: with him, and I think it's both of me. On
Speaker 1: a website or something. I don't that Facebook, but it
Speaker 1: should be on a Facebook website or however you can
Speaker 1: get to it. But John, I didn't them drives of
Speaker 1: no funny. They so often they talked about how they
Speaker 1: got into the groove, and it was like wow, And
Speaker 1: you know me, I say, well, it's gonna ways. And
Speaker 1: remember I'm not so I'm not so confident in the
Speaker 1: red wave as you are, but I hope you're right.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, Sean. We've got to save this country because
Speaker 1: this election is wanted. This is just as big as
Speaker 1: the Trophy election. This lection, this guy to be what's
Speaker 1: gonna the Republicans the week gonna drag them over the
Speaker 1: top since this some of them don't have to cahony
Speaker 1: to do what you're doing and Trump doing, I mean
Speaker 1: the people missing and when I well what Trump done,
Speaker 1: I'm like, do you have your eyes open? Are you looking?
Speaker 1: I mean, they're trying to give Obama credit for what
Speaker 1: Trump done, y'all idiot. Just you know what they are.
Speaker 1: They're just political hacks, that's it. They just all they
Speaker 1: care about is is the game. You know. Look, I
Speaker 1: mean I'm watching with a little bit of amusement and
Speaker 1: a little bit of sadness. To be honest, this this
Speaker 1: Amar Rossa is now the love of the liberal media.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you, you know, two days from now,
Speaker 1: they're not gonna care about Amar Rosa at all ever.
Speaker 1: And they're only you know, this is the latest thing
Speaker 1: that they can focus and fixate on so they can
Speaker 1: avoid discussing the biggest abuse of power scandal in America
Speaker 1: in history. That if we don't get right, we're gonna
Speaker 1: be in deep trouble as a country. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 1: And we're not gonna have a country. You saw that
Speaker 1: and the requick and for the black folks, Emma Rosa
Speaker 1: and Obama they got into the sop spot and black
Speaker 1: with the liver Black they always say what we can't
Speaker 1: get there and can't do the two got there and
Speaker 1: failed the country. I mean, I'm sorry people, the the
Speaker 1: black the ball with Trump right now, I say it's
Speaker 1: more really but the media not reporting And I'm like,
Speaker 1: look at uh diamonister, look what they're doing. I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, whether they not looking at you, I guess.
Speaker 1: I bet they had a very big crowd as well.
Speaker 1: I bet they had a good crowd. Oh it was
Speaker 1: a night they had wine, they had the snack foods.
Speaker 1: Oh that it was set up beautiful, Sean. Them girls
Speaker 1: are slow, hey, re quick. They say, yeah, we got
Speaker 1: we had to get secret service. And but we had
Speaker 1: to get secret service. They wanted to protect people from us.
Speaker 1: That's hilarious. They said, Well, good for them. You know
Speaker 1: what they're They're wonderful people. They are great senses of humor.
Speaker 1: They stand up for what they believe in and they
Speaker 1: take a lot of grief for it. But you know what,
Speaker 1: they entertain people at the same time. It's a perfect combination.
Speaker 1: Big time. I got a roll. We love you, Thank you,
Speaker 1: my friend, eight hundred nine four one sewn toll free
Speaker 1: telephone number. We'll talk about the media corrupt, uh coverage
Speaker 1: of everything. When we get back. Joe Conscien is gonna
Speaker 1: check in. We have about a minute plus here. We'll
Speaker 1: give it all to Kimberly in Connecticut. Next on The
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show. Kimberly, Hi, how are you glad you
Speaker 1: called hi? Him? Thanks for having me on. I'm here.
Speaker 1: Today's binary Day in Connecticut. Only two thousand UM registered
Speaker 1: Republicans have voted so far, up the twelve thous and
Speaker 1: who are able to UM. What race are you talking
Speaker 1: about in particular? Okay, this is a gooberatorial race UM
Speaker 1: between the five Republicans. So we have two mayors UM
Speaker 1: and three businessmen. Stefanowski has Arthur Laugher's economic plan for
Speaker 1: Connecticut UM. Stefanowski's the strongest conservative UM candidate for the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. Stefanowski has the backing that low. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is amazing, domtime I have a primary. It's only
Speaker 1: of all registered Republicans in the state of Connecticut have voted. Well,
Speaker 1: there's only twelve thousand registered Republicans in the whole state
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. Sorry, alright, I gotta run. But all right, Kimberly,
Speaker 1: that's what a dumb time to have a primary in
Speaker 1: the middle of August on a Tuesday. People don't have
Speaker 1: their brains straight. All right, We'll take a quick break.
Speaker 1: We'll come back. So we also know who was a
Speaker 1: mediator between Trump and Russian government who met with ex
Speaker 1: adviser of Trump, Mr Flynn. It was the Russian singer
Speaker 1: where famous singer Arcadio Kupnik, who met with Mr Flynn
Speaker 1: on Brighton Beach in Brooklyn in a special Russian cafee Langeron.
Speaker 1: What's the Langeron Langeron? Yes, it's an other Brighton Beach, Okay,
Speaker 1: And it's a special right. It's a Russian district in Brooklyn.
Speaker 1: And do you know what was discussed? They discussed many things,
Speaker 1: but the most interesting thing is they use the special
Speaker 1: They used the special password before before their meetings, when
Speaker 1: they met each other. They said, whether it's good on
Speaker 1: Jerry buster Scare, whether the trains is good? And where?
Speaker 1: Whether it's good on Jerry Bososca. There is a name
Speaker 1: of a street in Ardessa. Did you did you hear? Yes?
Speaker 1: I did. We are asking people what they would do
Speaker 1: if President Trump were to show up at this march.
Speaker 1: Some of the answers have been pretty stunning. Uh here
Speaker 1: they are, whould you do Donald Trump? Shout up about
Speaker 1: the Trumper? Hurd him, murder him for the people. How
Speaker 1: about you, man? I'm Trump to get on the on
Speaker 1: the floor hest those toilets himself because you don't know
Speaker 1: how to clean. He needs to learn. He needs to
Speaker 1: learn how to clean trunks and toilets. I mean, yo,
Speaker 1: he's America's Caesar, except so you gotta take him down.
Speaker 1: Trump Trump Trump, If it came down to it, and
Speaker 1: it was a group effort. We'd have to do him
Speaker 1: like a duffy, like a doffy. Yeah, what would you do?
Speaker 1: Don Trump showed up? Yeah, I'm gonna will out. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna will out. Yeah, yeah, you come on? Yeah, honest,
Speaker 1: all right, I go to tattood. I wouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: Was that I get a tattoo? Come up? I would
Speaker 1: chance to come up. You wouldn't. Yeah? How about you?
Speaker 1: What would you do? I watch this smack smack him? Yes,
Speaker 1: I won't smack them that like? Yeah, all right, how
Speaker 1: about you? Sir asked on he'd be like a pimp.
Speaker 1: Stop if the president shut up this march? What will
Speaker 1: you do, sir? Beat his ass? Trump show up today?
Speaker 1: What would you do? Sir? Bell at him? You throw
Speaker 1: a bell at him? All right? What would you say?
Speaker 1: Tell him? Alright? What's that shirt? Say? Company on his leg?
Speaker 1: What's that I kiss on his legs? Tell? Yeah? I
Speaker 1: will tell his wife could go home and for him
Speaker 1: to get on his ja and get the g out
Speaker 1: of here, and want to to get out of here too? Yeah,
Speaker 1: be close. He uh, he hates everybody, but he forgets
Speaker 1: his wag his own immigrant to um, I wouldn't say anything,
Speaker 1: because if you don't have anything nice to say, don't
Speaker 1: say anything at all. And with this kind of inspiration,
Speaker 1: I will go and take Trump out tonight. Yes, I
Speaker 1: have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
Speaker 1: Who's the last time at your assassinated the President? I
Speaker 1: want to clarify I'm not an actor him. However, for
Speaker 1: a while, maybe it's to dare you say the things
Speaker 1: he does? Of course I want to punch him in affair.
Speaker 1: The press always asked me, don't I wish I were
Speaker 1: debating him. No, I wish you were in high school.
Speaker 1: I could take it behind the gym. That's what I wished,
Speaker 1: all right? There you hear? That was from the what
Speaker 1: Well c ann described as an anti hate counter rally.
Speaker 1: I heard a lot of hate and a lot of
Speaker 1: talk of assassination, and a lot of talk of slapping, hitting, beating,
Speaker 1: punching the President of the United States if they had
Speaker 1: the ability to. But none of it should surprise us,
Speaker 1: considering all the rhetoric that we've heard out of Hollywood
Speaker 1: and from left wingers, and what we've been watching with
Speaker 1: Pam Bondi and Secretary Nielsen and Sarah Sanders and the
Speaker 1: Trump family and even the the president's wife and daughter
Speaker 1: and kids and granddaughter. I mean, nothing surprises me, even
Speaker 1: his twelve year old son and four year old granddaughter.
Speaker 1: Nothing at this point surprises me. All right, joining us now,
Speaker 1: he's with the Hill. He covers all things media and
Speaker 1: has been on through all these crazy media cycles. He's
Speaker 1: kind of a unique island in the media. And as
Speaker 1: much as he's actually a little fair and balanced and
Speaker 1: uh calls out his fellow people in the media, I
Speaker 1: guess that takes you out of the circle or the
Speaker 1: loop or the I don't know what you want to
Speaker 1: call it, but I mean, they've got this bubble that
Speaker 1: they live in on Twitter and amongst themselves, and they
Speaker 1: seem to just think alike, use the same words and
Speaker 1: phrases and sentences and spin. I'm not yeah, Sean, I'm
Speaker 1: not in the trust try anymore. I guess no longer
Speaker 1: allowed in the group. You know, I don't really care.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be on the big panels and
Speaker 1: go to the big parties. I just want to call
Speaker 1: balls and strikes like any m should. Everybody's so compromise
Speaker 1: at this point and mainly even a lot of media
Speaker 1: reporters are. And that's a shame because we're supposed to
Speaker 1: be the refs and when they're even being compromised, and
Speaker 1: we got probably compromised. I mean, they've gone all in
Speaker 1: anti hate Trump. I mean it's not even you know.
Speaker 1: This is what the media doesn't seem to understand, is
Speaker 1: that there's a reason that trust in them is now
Speaker 1: at an all time low and getting lower. And I
Speaker 1: think this is one of the big reasons why they're
Speaker 1: all losing audience and losing in ratings wars, because they are,
Speaker 1: you know, predictable, and they have opinion and they try
Speaker 1: to serve it up as their news channel and they're
Speaker 1: not a news channel. Well that's right, and we've talked
Speaker 1: about this before. You're an opinion maker, right, and yeah,
Speaker 1: I know you break news on your show through like
Speaker 1: the John Solomon's and the Sarah Carters and the Greg Jared's,
Speaker 1: and I get that completely, but mainly you're an opinion guy,
Speaker 1: and a lot of these peoplesually beg to differ. Okay,
Speaker 1: go ahead. I'm a talk show host. Talk show host,
Speaker 1: you where many there's many roles associated with it. You
Speaker 1: don't call yourself an anchor. Correct, Well, you know, I
Speaker 1: mean I'm if I said I'm a journalist and that
Speaker 1: that puts me in a very narrow scope. But a
Speaker 1: talk show host, I do plenty of straight interviews. I
Speaker 1: think I did a straight interview with uh Jack Dorsey
Speaker 1: of Twitter or Roseanne Barr. I think I do straight
Speaker 1: interviews all the time, where it's just okay, give me
Speaker 1: answers to specific questions on the news of the day,
Speaker 1: but mostly you're where you're at now because of your
Speaker 1: opinions and your your your convictions, right, that's what you
Speaker 1: give strong opinion. I also interview newsmakers, We break news,
Speaker 1: we do investigative reporting. I use sources, and it's all encompassing.
Speaker 1: When you talk about what a talk show host does,
Speaker 1: we do do journalism and we do do opinion. We
Speaker 1: do both. In other words, I would say we're the
Speaker 1: whole newspaper. We're there, the news division of the newspaper,
Speaker 1: and they they claim to be, but they're not. Right. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you're not just the outbed, but you also are
Speaker 1: that you're saying you're you're that you're a hybrid. Well
Speaker 1: we'll put it that way. Yeah, Look, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that's a lot of the problem here that so
Speaker 1: many people are called anchors when they're clearly giving opinions.
Speaker 1: I know, I know you mentioned, uh, you know, Chris
Speaker 1: Cuomo and Antifa, and you know, he's still listed if
Speaker 1: you look at to see them Bio as an anchor.
Speaker 1: Don Lemon's listed as an anchor or, Anderson Cooper. Yet
Speaker 1: they all have commentary, very provocative commentary on their programs,
Speaker 1: and I think when people here that they're saying, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, you're supposed to be the anchor. You're supposed
Speaker 1: to be giving us facts and let us decide at
Speaker 1: home what what our conclusions should be. But you know,
Speaker 1: the the Antifa commentary by Cuomo last night certainly getting
Speaker 1: a lot of play. And you know, I just remember
Speaker 1: when when Chris actually sent out a tweet last year
Speaker 1: and I didn't even see what Chris said. I wasn't
Speaker 1: talking about him specifically at all. But I will say
Speaker 1: this that they were covering this as an anti hate protest.
Speaker 1: That look, there were two thousand ignorant races morons that
Speaker 1: showed up in Washington, but by the coverage leading up
Speaker 1: to it, you would have thought, you know, a million
Speaker 1: people were going to show up at twenty right. I
Speaker 1: think that it was like, doesn't yeah, you can even
Speaker 1: get a football game together with that. By the way,
Speaker 1: I have no problem with people standing up against ignorant, racist,
Speaker 1: hateful people at all. Who would right, yeah, yeah, But
Speaker 1: but with the Cuomo's point, I think that he had
Speaker 1: said that, uh, you know, Antifa should not be compared
Speaker 1: to Basically he defended them, saying that you know, they're
Speaker 1: standing up to hate, therefore that makes it okay. And uh,
Speaker 1: you know, you can read about on the Hill today.
Speaker 1: I think it's on media as well as it's gotten
Speaker 1: some play. But you know, you gotta look at it,
Speaker 1: like you know. He also had a tweet of a
Speaker 1: year ago who where he showed Allied troops storming Normandy
Speaker 1: on D Day and saying, this is the same thing
Speaker 1: as uh, Antifa protesters, right because they're fighting Nazis. And
Speaker 1: now now, when when both sides are using violence to
Speaker 1: bring home a point, I say, you can equate them.
Speaker 1: I don't think there is any difference between. I've heard
Speaker 1: a lot of hate in the tape that the Daily
Speaker 1: Caller put together as they went into that rally, and
Speaker 1: and I experienced it recently myself when I was in
Speaker 1: London and I went into the middle of an anti
Speaker 1: Trump protest there. It was a little shocked that everybody
Speaker 1: there knew who I was. They were not particularly happy
Speaker 1: that I was there, and I didn't stay particularly long
Speaker 1: for a lot of obvious reasons. But um, you know,
Speaker 1: there there are calls for and talks of really violent attacks,
Speaker 1: even assassination of our president. And it's done daily, and
Speaker 1: it's done openly, and it wasn't hard to get these
Speaker 1: comments from people, right and put it up. Put the
Speaker 1: shoe on the other foot. Let's pretend it's two thousand ten, okay,
Speaker 1: And let's say members of the Tea Party marched and rallied,
Speaker 1: and reporters were sent into those rallies, and you had
Speaker 1: Tea Party members saying I want to assassinate the president
Speaker 1: at that time, right it could you imagine they would
Speaker 1: be shamed out of existence. Not that the Tea part
Speaker 1: didn't get a lot of bad press already, but they
Speaker 1: would be shamed out of existence. And I can't believe
Speaker 1: that we're hearing people defend Antifa, because if you're gonna
Speaker 1: defend Antifa and say, well, they're fighting hate therefore that
Speaker 1: makes it okay. Then I guess we should have rooted
Speaker 1: for Stalin as well because he was on the side
Speaker 1: against the Germans as well World War Two. That makes
Speaker 1: him a good guy. No, you could have both bad
Speaker 1: people on both sides, and that's clearly the case here
Speaker 1: and threatening to assassinate the president in attacking reporters, including
Speaker 1: Cal Perry from NBC. Again, we hear the media screech
Speaker 1: about these things so much, then we have to stand
Speaker 1: up and support the media whenever they're attacked. But it
Speaker 1: seems like they want a Trump supporter to be doing
Speaker 1: the attacking. But when Antifa does it, it gets ignored.
Speaker 1: The bias and omission against strikes. They're they're offender of
Speaker 1: the president, saying that the press is fake news and
Speaker 1: fake news is the enemy of the people. They're they're
Speaker 1: they if they're worried about potential violence against them, and
Speaker 1: you and I both know the reality. If you're in
Speaker 1: the public eye, you've experienced it. I've experienced more than
Speaker 1: I've ever brought in these airways. I've had threats against
Speaker 1: my life. I have had all sorts of incidents that
Speaker 1: I've had to deal with over the years. Unfortunately, that's
Speaker 1: the reality of being in the public eye. And I
Speaker 1: don't want any of my colleagues to do it. I
Speaker 1: don't want if I'm ever at any conservative event and
Speaker 1: anyone ever when I after the press, you know me,
Speaker 1: I'll be the first one to dive in and defend
Speaker 1: whoever is being attacked. And you're very capable of doing
Speaker 1: that too. From the very whole Cobra Kai thing that
Speaker 1: you've got going on. Uh, it's uh, we do some serious,
Speaker 1: serious training every day. It's it's hard work, but I
Speaker 1: would do it because it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: But words are different, you know, saying chanting fake news
Speaker 1: or CNN sucks is not the same as you know
Speaker 1: what we're hearing. I want to murder the President. I'd
Speaker 1: kill him, I'd i'd slap him, I'd punch him, I'd
Speaker 1: think an awful lot about you know whatever blowing up
Speaker 1: the White House. Yeah. Look, and you look at guys
Speaker 1: like you know, Ben Shapiro, even Guy Benson, right, and
Speaker 1: Guy Benson is not exactly provocateur. And he was telling
Speaker 1: me not too long ago that when he goes on
Speaker 1: college campuses and tries to just give a speech, right
Speaker 1: and you think Guy Benson, you're not thinking like Milo here.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is somebody who's just a regular conservative,
Speaker 1: and hundreds of thousands of dollars and securities needed to
Speaker 1: protect guys like Guy Benson or Ben Shapiro. So everybody's
Speaker 1: got it bad. And I think when the medium media
Speaker 1: tries to play the victim of oh boy, you know,
Speaker 1: we're we're getting mocked and we're getting chanted at. You know, well,
Speaker 1: you know that happened to Sarah Sanders, and it happened
Speaker 1: Kristen Nielsen, and it happens to a lot of people
Speaker 1: out there, And it's not just the media, And I
Speaker 1: think it's just the way the country is right now.
Speaker 1: We're all very polarized and no one knows how to
Speaker 1: have a conversation anymore. Yeah, alright, more with Joe Concho
Speaker 1: on the other side, he is a writer for The Hill. Right,
Speaker 1: as we continue with Joe Concha, he is a media
Speaker 1: writer for The Hill. Let me, um, let me ask
Speaker 1: you this question. Do you see the biggest story that
Speaker 1: I and Sarah and Gregg and so many others have
Speaker 1: been talking about in the media ignores And to me,
Speaker 1: it is the biggest dereliction of duty we've I have
Speaker 1: ever seen in the media in our lifetime, and I
Speaker 1: guess what it is. Yeah, I will say it's probably
Speaker 1: the fact that you had a campaign, during a presidential campaign,
Speaker 1: that colluded with a foreign spy to get information from
Speaker 1: the Russians to take down another political candidate. That is
Speaker 1: conspiracy conclusion. I'm not I'm not a lawyer, but I
Speaker 1: I have logic. It doesn't get covered. And I think
Speaker 1: the reason why is they said, well, Hillary didn't win,
Speaker 1: so that's her punishment. That's not the focus because Trump
Speaker 1: is president. No, it absolutely should be because the evidence
Speaker 1: is there. While we haven't seen the evidence yet against
Speaker 1: Trump as far as any collusion, correct, well, we haven't
Speaker 1: seen that. We have seen Hillary pay for We now
Speaker 1: know Boughton paid for Russian lies that was disseminated to
Speaker 1: the American people, UH in the lead up to a
Speaker 1: campaign that influenced their vote. It was never verified or
Speaker 1: corroborated by the FBI or or the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: but it was used as the basis of a fiser warrant.
Speaker 1: They never told FIS. The court judges that it was
Speaker 1: paid for by Hillary Clinton an important O mission. UH.
Speaker 1: And we also know that that if you really care
Speaker 1: about Russia and you really care about Russian interference, well,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama missed all the warnings of devon newness and
Speaker 1: the like and lecture Trump to stop whining. And we
Speaker 1: have Adam Schiff on tape talking to Russians trying to
Speaker 1: dig up dirt on Donald Trump naked pictures and the like,
Speaker 1: and he's giddy about it, and yet all of that
Speaker 1: is ignored. Well why cover that, Sean? When am Rosa's
Speaker 1: father's brother's nephew's former roommate once heard from another friend
Speaker 1: that maybe Trump said the N word at one point.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the thing. Like where amor Rossa is
Speaker 1: getting all the media coverage now when she has contradicted herself,
Speaker 1: when she's been caught in several lives, when she's made
Speaker 1: up things that are impossible to believe, like Donald Trump
Speaker 1: swallowed a piece of paper as if to destroy evidence.
Speaker 1: The germophobe did that really? And even Michael Cohen, here's
Speaker 1: no fan of President Trump, said I never saw anything
Speaker 1: like that when amar Rossa said he was right in
Speaker 1: the room. So that alone should have her dismissed from
Speaker 1: any media coverage or any interview that happens. She should
Speaker 1: be getting raked over the coals, and instead it's Michael Wolf,
Speaker 1: Fire and Fury Part two. Where we treat where we
Speaker 1: treat basically gossip. Gossip is gospel. And and then she's
Speaker 1: going to dominate the news cycle for the next two
Speaker 1: weeks when it's been proven that she lies, exaggerates, and
Speaker 1: has no credibility. But it doesn't matter to anybody because
Speaker 1: the narrative is the end goal here in terms of
Speaker 1: anything that can make the president look that. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: pretty unbelievable. All right, Joe Concho, We appreciate you for
Speaker 1: being with us, and uh, thanks for your time. Thanks
Speaker 1: for your commentary, which is in a world of bias. Honestly,
Speaker 1: it is refreshing because you're basically an island onto yourself
Speaker 1: now in terms of a little bit of objectivity and
Speaker 1: in analyzing news. Thanks for being one of the stakes
Speaker 1: I've invent to my own party, by the way, the
Speaker 1: Pregnantist Party. What do you think? Appreciate it? Go conscience.
Speaker 1: Thank you to the top of the hour, the hot news,
Speaker 1: the burning issues. All you need to know eighty four
Speaker 1: days toll the mid term elections, the most important mid
Speaker 1: terms in our lifetime. There's no other way to put it.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to our phones. Norfolk, Virginia. We
Speaker 1: have Pat standing by Pat Hi. How are you glad
Speaker 1: you called Sean? Thank you for taking my call, Thank
Speaker 1: you for calling. I am an eighty two year old,
Speaker 1: very conservative Republican, so I'm not a liberal. So I
Speaker 1: want you to know this one. I take you on,
Speaker 1: why are you supporting Dot Donald Trump? Well, because I
Speaker 1: went into great detail about this yesterday. If you were
Speaker 1: listening to the program Tom and I was listening at home,
Speaker 1: So okay, no, that's fair. Well, I'll give you the
Speaker 1: reasons I think he I think conservatism. I'll start with
Speaker 1: this a broad overview. Conservatism works. Conservative philosophy helps the
Speaker 1: forgotten men and women that suffered under Obama's policies, that
Speaker 1: have now been suffering for almost ten years. We see
Speaker 1: the proof in the pudding. I didn't even think things
Speaker 1: would turn around this quickly, but they are. And I
Speaker 1: agree with the President that we're over tax, not under tax.
Speaker 1: He gave us the biggest tax cut in history. I
Speaker 1: believe that government regulation has created a stifling environment towards business, which, yeah,
Speaker 1: Obama was right. If we kept all of that big
Speaker 1: government regulation, we would not be able to see manufacturing
Speaker 1: centers and factories going up, Nor would the President be
Speaker 1: able to appeal to businesses to continue to invest trillions
Speaker 1: of dollars in cities like Cleveland, and in Ohio, and
Speaker 1: and in Michigan and in North Carolina, Wisconsin. And that's
Speaker 1: all happening. So it works. We see it with four
Speaker 1: million new jobs, two million fewer people on food stamps.
Speaker 1: I agree with the President. He has now opened up
Speaker 1: American energy possibilities in a way that it has never
Speaker 1: been before, which gives us not only the opportunity to
Speaker 1: become energy independent, but also allows America to create millions
Speaker 1: of high paying career jobs for our fellow citizens. That
Speaker 1: is important to me. I agree with the President that
Speaker 1: we've got to build a wall to secure our southern border.
Speaker 1: I've been down there fourteen times. I've I've seen the crime,
Speaker 1: I've seen the drug warehouses, I've seen the tunnels. I've
Speaker 1: been out all over the place on the border. The
Speaker 1: statistics speak for themselves, but we can have a big
Speaker 1: open door and just vet people before they come in
Speaker 1: where an inviting country. Um. I agree with the President's
Speaker 1: peace through strength and making Jerusalem the capital of Israel,
Speaker 1: which many presidents promised and never delivered on. UM appreciative
Speaker 1: that he pulled out of that ridiculous Iranian deal and
Speaker 1: is not you know, dropping billions of dollars in cash
Speaker 1: and other currency on the harmack of of Mala's that
Speaker 1: that chant death to our country. I'm glad what he's
Speaker 1: been able to accomplish with Isis and degrading them to
Speaker 1: the extent that he has. UM. I agree with the
Speaker 1: President's tough position on North Korea China. I think we're
Speaker 1: getting better trade deals because he's willing to just negotiate.
Speaker 1: I don't think any of this is about a trade war.
Speaker 1: I think it's about better deals and free and fair
Speaker 1: trade with reciprocity. So uh, that's the shortlist of what
Speaker 1: I like about this president. And he's also a guy
Speaker 1: that is fearless and gets things done, and he takes
Speaker 1: on one issue after another. He also got rid of
Speaker 1: the individual mandate on healthcare and his fault like hell
Speaker 1: to get rid of Omama Care altogether. Okay, Now the
Speaker 1: reason I called you is I remember Ama Rosa. See,
Speaker 1: this is what sparked me to call you on Monday,
Speaker 1: because I watched Chuck todd sup interview of her. I
Speaker 1: have been working as a volunteer on campaigns. I mentioned
Speaker 1: to you I was eighty two years old. Since I
Speaker 1: was in my teens, I have never missed a vote
Speaker 1: in my community, even the Sore Commission. I worked on
Speaker 1: Jeb Bush's campaign and the last presidential election. Now, all
Speaker 1: those many many things that Trump is doing, I agree with,
Speaker 1: but he waters them down by his ugliness. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: to say am Arosa, I don't agree with a lot
Speaker 1: of things she did because I know I don't know
Speaker 1: her personally, but I met her on the Apprentice to
Speaker 1: call her low life? You know what, do this in
Speaker 1: the privacy of your office, hit the wall and put
Speaker 1: a make a hole into it. But why does he
Speaker 1: have to character assassinate everybody? And you know what, John,
Speaker 1: I have voted at every presidential election for over sixty years.
Speaker 1: I walked out of the polls two years ago, left
Speaker 1: it blank and in I now moved to Norfolk. I
Speaker 1: was in New Hampshire for thirty two years, and you
Speaker 1: know what a great state that is for politicians. I
Speaker 1: am going to work my backside eight off to get
Speaker 1: trim Trump out, not impeach you, but I'm gonna work
Speaker 1: in two thousand twenty to get another good Republican there.
Speaker 1: And I'm looking at Jeff like Sean, I love you.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have a son that your age, and
Speaker 1: my son thinks Trump is the greatest. But I can't
Speaker 1: stand that. Man Ian. What you're basically telling me is
Speaker 1: you don't like style. What you're basically telling me is that.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I get where you're coming from.
Speaker 1: I've had this discussion with many people You're talking about style.
Speaker 1: President Trump is never ever going to be the quintessential
Speaker 1: um establishment like and I mean this in all sincerity. President,
Speaker 1: It's not him. But I do think that things are
Speaker 1: so bad that America. It's sort of like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: if you've ever had a pull or taken care of
Speaker 1: a pull. It's a pain in the neck. Don't bother
Speaker 1: getting one, it's not worth it. But you sometimes have
Speaker 1: to shock the wall or shocked the system. I think
Speaker 1: America's political system needs this electric shock that Trump is
Speaker 1: bringing to it. And by that I don't I think
Speaker 1: I think both parties have become corrupt. You mentioned Jeff Flake.
Speaker 1: You know, with all due respect He's not somebody that
Speaker 1: can get a thing done in Washington. He's not somebody
Speaker 1: that is gonna make promises and fight like hell to
Speaker 1: get it accomplished. You know, I think the fact that
Speaker 1: the president fights so hard is been a blessing overall
Speaker 1: for the American people. I know it hurts some people's feelings,
Speaker 1: but I don't know. Maybe it's maybe it's the fact
Speaker 1: that I grew up in New York. I'm just not
Speaker 1: offended by it. I'm not offended by words. I don't
Speaker 1: feign this outrage every day that everyone in the media
Speaker 1: seems to feign. I look at the results, and I
Speaker 1: look at the promises made and the promises kept, and
Speaker 1: I find it refreshing. I look at him call out
Speaker 1: people for what they are and who they are, swamp
Speaker 1: sewer creatures, and and they're being exposed in ways that
Speaker 1: we never imagined. You know, when he came down on
Speaker 1: that escalator in UM, it doesn't upset me. I understand
Speaker 1: your level of being upset. But if you say you're
Speaker 1: a conservative, I don't see Jeff Flake as a conservative
Speaker 1: at all, UM, and I don't see that he has
Speaker 1: anywherewithal to get a thing done and that's part of
Speaker 1: Washington's problem. Weak Republicans, inept Republicans, spineless for Republicans, Republicans
Speaker 1: full of fear and not courage, no vision, the people perish.
Speaker 1: They can't even keep their promise of seven years to
Speaker 1: repeal and replace healthcare. It's pathetic to me, and so
Speaker 1: I feel very strongly that this is a moment in time.
Speaker 1: America deserves action, and President Trump is an action president.
Speaker 1: And sometimes when you're doing action, you're gonna step on
Speaker 1: a lot of tolls and pistol a lot of people off.
Speaker 1: And frankly, if as long as it's for the good
Speaker 1: of the American people, I don't mind, by the way,
Speaker 1: one other thing on my list conservative justices. I don't
Speaker 1: think there's one thing, if you're a conservative, that he
Speaker 1: has accomplished that I named to you that you can
Speaker 1: disagree with. In New York, Parker, can you hear me, Sean, Yes, ma'am,
Speaker 1: I hear you loud and clear. Well. I moved to
Speaker 1: New York in the fifties Middle America, met my husband.
Speaker 1: He's a New Yorker, same as you. But if he
Speaker 1: was alive today, he'd be ninety two. I couldn't believe
Speaker 1: how caustic New Yorkers were. So you know what, we
Speaker 1: were married in sixty I dragged him out of that
Speaker 1: city to Atlanta in sixty one and we never returned.
Speaker 1: You know what changed my life? You're gonna love this, Pat?
Speaker 1: Well know well that and I lived in this house.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I prefer that, Pat, I would
Speaker 1: leave here tomorrow if I could get out of here.
Speaker 1: I don't want to live in New York. I hate
Speaker 1: New York. Well, that's right. You lived in Atlanta where
Speaker 1: my son I was born at Peachtree Hospital, and he's
Speaker 1: fifty six years old. How old are you? I'm fifty
Speaker 1: six years old. You're old enough to be my mom. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 1: Of course I'm old enough to be Listen. I'm only saying,
Speaker 1: and you didn't answer this part of my question. I
Speaker 1: know I've heard you loud and clear on style. But
Speaker 1: between judges and immigration and tax cuts, ending burdensome regulation,
Speaker 1: energy piece through strength, you know, Jerusalem ran North Korea?
Speaker 1: Are you saying that as a conservative that you disagree
Speaker 1: with all these accomplishments you don't like at so for you,
Speaker 1: it's all style, it's if you know what damn it,
Speaker 1: he can change that. I mean, for somebody that gets
Speaker 1: that's upset with people style, you just said, damn it,
Speaker 1: I wish he'd changed that. I mean, you've got a
Speaker 1: pretty tough core yourself, because it's hitting my hot button.
Speaker 1: And I've never called a talk show host until now.
Speaker 1: He could have come out and he could have said
Speaker 1: to the reporters, I'm sorry that Ama Rossa is going,
Speaker 1: but she just didn't. And and basically, you want him
Speaker 1: to be somebody he's not. He listened most politicians, and
Speaker 1: this is an interesting observation you're making. We'll spend their
Speaker 1: entire career years hiding who they really are and creating
Speaker 1: a false image of themselves. You know, Donald Trump's the opposite.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wear He wears it all on his sleeves
Speaker 1: and he you know where he stands, and he doesn't
Speaker 1: hold back. And in a way, if you look at
Speaker 1: it a different way, it's kind of refreshing that he's
Speaker 1: not b ssing us. Jeff Flake, to me, who you mentioned,
Speaker 1: is the biggest phony I've ever seen in d C.
Speaker 1: I I gosh, you're too smart for him. I told
Speaker 1: you I'm going to investigate Jeff Flake. I don't support
Speaker 1: anybody unless I dig deep into them a snowflake. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: I'll look at somebody else. But I am going to
Speaker 1: work damn hard in two thousand to make sure Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't win the primary. I hope I can make a difference. Well,
Speaker 1: I love your passion. You sound like a wonderful person.
Speaker 1: And uh, I hope you feel that this was a
Speaker 1: worthwhile experience as your first talk radio call. We hope
Speaker 1: you'll call back again. I love talking to you, Sean.
Speaker 1: I really you're very sweet, You're very kind. I hear
Speaker 1: the goodness in your voice. I just um, I would
Speaker 1: just say to you, this country is headed It was
Speaker 1: headed down, a headed down on a on a slope
Speaker 1: that really frightened me. I think that we're exposing all
Speaker 1: of these flaws of the deep state ought to scare
Speaker 1: every American. I think we're at a precipice, a tipping
Speaker 1: point for the country, for our constitutional republic. And this
Speaker 1: is not a time to be soft spoken. I think
Speaker 1: there's a time to be you know, gentle, and there's
Speaker 1: a time to be forceful. And right now is a
Speaker 1: forceful period. And you know what we need to fix
Speaker 1: the country for the sake of our fellow Americans, and
Speaker 1: for me, that's all that I care about. I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm not in this for me. I'm not in this
Speaker 1: for fame, money, anything anymore. I'm done. I just do
Speaker 1: it because I really think that this country is at
Speaker 1: a tipping point. If we don't fix it, we're gonna
Speaker 1: lose this great gift that I believe it was divine
Speaker 1: providence from God. I love you like a son because,
Speaker 1: like I said, I'm out in the car every day,
Speaker 1: so I listen to you every day. Now I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you something. He's going to dump on you down
Speaker 1: the line because he dumps on everybody. And when that happens,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna fly for Norfolk dinner. Let me tell you something.
Speaker 1: There's nothing anybody in this world can say about me
Speaker 1: anymore that I care about. I have given up this
Speaker 1: idea that that I have to please people to um
Speaker 1: be happy, and I don't. This isn't a selfish you know,
Speaker 1: um as Just the reality is is you either know
Speaker 1: who you are where you stand, or you don't. And
Speaker 1: I am standing in my core. I know my heart
Speaker 1: is with the forgotten men and women of this country
Speaker 1: that have suffered needlessly because of, frankly, the horrific policies
Speaker 1: of government. And I want to do all I can
Speaker 1: because I still lemn that person to make sure that
Speaker 1: every American has the opportunities that God has blessed me
Speaker 1: with in my life. And if you want to call
Speaker 1: me names, he wants to call me names. The liberal
Speaker 1: media calls me names. I just don't care. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to live my life caring what other people think
Speaker 1: about me. I just refused to live that way with
Speaker 1: you more when I was about your age, I stopped caring.
Speaker 1: You gotta know it's it's it's freeing because in the
Speaker 1: sense that if I cared what these people said about me,
Speaker 1: I couldn't function every day. No, I wouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to be who I am, and I'm I am being blunt,
Speaker 1: brutally honest with you. I love this country and I
Speaker 1: see a chance to fix it, and I want to
Speaker 1: take advantage of it fully. Well, I've been doing that
Speaker 1: for years, And as I said, you know, one person
Speaker 1: can make a difference. But anyway, I God bless you.
Speaker 1: What about the woman that used to call you all
Speaker 1: the time, and she brought her grandchildren into New York
Speaker 1: to your office. I can't think of her name. I
Speaker 1: don't remember. Um, Linda, do you remember who she's talking about? No,
Speaker 1: I don't look. You know, if you think about it,
Speaker 1: you let us know you. Listen, take Linda's number. We'll
Speaker 1: give you a number you can call us whenever you
Speaker 1: want to yell at me. Okay, Well, did I really
Speaker 1: yell at you? I didn't mean to yell at you.
Speaker 1: You were not you were very respectful and kind, or
Speaker 1: you're good. I know, I don't know. I think I
Speaker 1: need to jump in Pat and say, say you gave
Speaker 1: him a little bit in New York today. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think you went a little New
Speaker 1: York on me, is right? I think Linda for is
Speaker 1: absolutely right. There you go, Pat, that's right there, own it.
Speaker 1: It was living in New York in the fifties. I
Speaker 1: was a flight attendant with United and that was a
Speaker 1: lovely job. It was a great job. That was your
Speaker 1: Those were the good old days. Now a flight attendant,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's as good a job as it
Speaker 1: used to be. All right, listen, we love you, Thank you, Pat,
Speaker 1: God bless you. You're welcome anytime, and we do appreciate
Speaker 1: your being with us and being out there, and I
Speaker 1: think this was a worthwhile call for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: All Right, that's gonna wrap things up for tonight. All Right,
Speaker 1: do huge developments as it relates to Deep State Gate.
Speaker 1: It is now unraveling even more deeply than we thought.
Speaker 1: Well of the latest details, Sarah Carter Mark Penn joins
Speaker 1: us tonight, we'll get the legal analysis from Greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: and David Shoon, also Jesse and Jessica and Dan Bongino,
Speaker 1: Sebastian Gorka and how obsessed the media is with their
Speaker 1: new favorite star Amarossa. That and more tonight at nine
Speaker 1: Hannity Fox News. Will see you then, and we'll see
Speaker 1: you back here tomorrow.