Speaker 1: My friends at my Pillow. My buddy Michael Lindell told
Speaker 1: me he was coming out with a brand new product.
Speaker 1: It's called the New Mattress Topper. So I got the
Speaker 1: new Mattress Topper immediately and I've been sleeping on it
Speaker 1: now for a couple of months. It's the best thing
Speaker 1: you've ever felt in your life. Now you literally have
Speaker 1: my pillow foam for support. It's a transitional foam that
Speaker 1: helps relieve pressure points. And it's ultrasoft patented temperature regulating
Speaker 1: cover and I gotta tell you has a ten year warranty,
Speaker 1: a cover that's washable and driable. It's made in the USA,
Speaker 1: back by the sixty day unconditional money back guarantee. Once
Speaker 1: you try this new mattress topper, you put it right
Speaker 1: over your mattress, you will never sleep better. And right now,
Speaker 1: you my radio listeners, you're gonna save thirty percent off
Speaker 1: when you go to my pillow dot Com and use
Speaker 1: the promo code topper. And by the way, Mike will
Speaker 1: also give you two standard my pillows absolutely free. All right,
Speaker 1: So try my pillow dot Com promo code topper promo
Speaker 1: code topper for this great deal and the best night's
Speaker 1: sleep you ever had. Want to remind you too. If
Speaker 1: you're an unhappy timeshare owner, you want on a vacation
Speaker 1: you have in the time of your life. Somebody says
Speaker 1: you can duplicate this every year for the rest of
Speaker 1: your life, and then you never end up going back,
Speaker 1: And then you realize there are other nice places I
Speaker 1: could go too, and I could better use that money.
Speaker 1: But every year you got to pay the maintenance fees
Speaker 1: and whatever other fees associated with it. You wish you
Speaker 1: never did it. Well, there's a way out. Thanks to
Speaker 1: my friends at lone Star Transfer, Brian and Karen. They
Speaker 1: run a family owned business. They will make sure that
Speaker 1: your experience is a pleasant one. They will get you
Speaker 1: out of your time share legally, ethically and quickly. I
Speaker 1: have an eight plus rating with a Better Business Bureau
Speaker 1: and this is what they do. Don't let another year
Speaker 1: go by and you're paying all this money for a
Speaker 1: timeshare you're never gonna use. Now. Two ways to get
Speaker 1: them online at lone star transfer dot com. All right,
Speaker 1: or give my friends a call no obligation called pound
Speaker 1: two fifty on your mobile keyword time share. Just hit
Speaker 1: pound two fifty on your mobile phone say the keyword
Speaker 1: timeshare or just go to Lonestar transfer dot com. All right,
Speaker 1: clad you with us right down our total free telephone number.
Speaker 1: You want to be a part of this extravaganza, it's
Speaker 1: eight hundred, it's nine four one, sean, if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. We are having
Speaker 1: literally the biggest fight here in the studio over you know,
Speaker 1: this whole the biggest admission scam scandal getting kids into
Speaker 1: college thing that's going on. It's pretty amazing the way
Speaker 1: this thing worked. But you got fifty people charge thirty
Speaker 1: three parents as well as some college coaches and associates
Speaker 1: and mastermind of Rick Singer, and twenty five million in
Speaker 1: total bribes and bribe money paid out by the parents
Speaker 1: to get their kids into these these schools when they
Speaker 1: didn't either have the grades or any athletic ability whatsoever.
Speaker 1: They get athletic admission, but that takes away a slot
Speaker 1: of a kid that maybe has been playing that sport
Speaker 1: since they're eight, which was what it pretty much takes
Speaker 1: so different if you play sports today then in the past,
Speaker 1: like when I played sports, it was you know, hockey, football, basketball, baseball, stakeball,
Speaker 1: Street High. We played at all, and it wasn't one
Speaker 1: sport specialized, but the kids that did specialize in a sport,
Speaker 1: you know, usually ended up with some type of uh
Speaker 1: maybe not even a scholarship, but an admission to a
Speaker 1: better school than they otherwise would have gotten into. And
Speaker 1: I'm telling my team here, I'm like, well, that that's
Speaker 1: the way it should be, because they're bringing a special
Speaker 1: talent and experience that they worked so hard over the
Speaker 1: years for and which, by the way, the schools should verify.
Speaker 1: You can go back and look at the records of
Speaker 1: any kid, you know, from when they're nine years old,
Speaker 1: and uh, and they didn't do it. They not, They
Speaker 1: didn't keep an eye on that just to make sure
Speaker 1: that this is a verified athlete. And uh, you know.
Speaker 1: And on terms of I don't know what you do
Speaker 1: if somebody's bribing to help with the with the test scores,
Speaker 1: you just got to have better rules in place, I
Speaker 1: guess to prevent that from happening. Um, but it would
Speaker 1: go something like this, which is, you know, and everyone
Speaker 1: everyone I know is mad, except for everyone that works
Speaker 1: for me. In there they're saying, Oh, I'm naive that
Speaker 1: this happens all the time. Now I know, when people
Speaker 1: hear about legacy admissions, now that the legacy admission would
Speaker 1: be old time, usually in ivy league or prestigious school
Speaker 1: been around a hundred years. That would be your mother,
Speaker 1: your father, your their their sisters and brothers and everybody else.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe grandma and grandpa had gone to the
Speaker 1: school and usually over the years. With that quote legacy,
Speaker 1: than moneys are contributed because all of these schools have
Speaker 1: a they're all they all build up these what do
Speaker 1: you call them? What should these not a trust a
Speaker 1: They build up these war chests of donated money. Like
Speaker 1: I mean, I think I read Harvard has billions, billions
Speaker 1: of dollars that has been donated over the years. So
Speaker 1: a kid whose mother, father, brothers, sisters, cousins, everybody went
Speaker 1: to Harvard maybe wouldn't meet today's standard, is going to
Speaker 1: have a massive leg up because you know, there are
Speaker 1: ten buildings in the name of so and so at
Speaker 1: the at the place. Is it fair? No? But is
Speaker 1: it is it for the Can you make an argument
Speaker 1: it's for the enrichment of the school and the betterment
Speaker 1: of the university, because all that money can build buildings
Speaker 1: and athletic facilities and all of that, and we're kind
Speaker 1: of going sideways here is and again we're putting the
Speaker 1: satactee part of it aside. Is you know that just
Speaker 1: has to be monitored by some type of proctoring system
Speaker 1: that they can't let that happen. But if you know,
Speaker 1: in the case of what's the girl's name from full House,
Speaker 1: Laurie Laughlin, and you know they're they're altering or photo
Speaker 1: shopping pictures of the kids playing a sport that they
Speaker 1: never played, or a kid that never played soccer but
Speaker 1: is admitted to the school based on soccer ability or
Speaker 1: crew ability or whatever. Now, the thing is the kids
Speaker 1: that really do play row crew, or the kids that
Speaker 1: really do play soccer, or the kids that you know
Speaker 1: play football, and the kids that you know play basketball, baseball, tennis,
Speaker 1: whatever it happens to me, you can look at them
Speaker 1: and know in thirty seconds if they can play. It's
Speaker 1: it's not hard to ascertain. Then you can spend maybe
Speaker 1: three minutes on Google to see if they ever played
Speaker 1: competitively in their youth. I know in the you know
Speaker 1: the sports my kids played, you know, you could go
Speaker 1: back to their record when they're eight years old. It's
Speaker 1: ridiculous and The amazing thing, though, is is that if
Speaker 1: you choose to focus on sports and school, is that
Speaker 1: And I watched this. My daughter's kind of going through
Speaker 1: all of this now, and she's really experienced massive recruiting
Speaker 1: for her sport and it's been a great feeling for
Speaker 1: her that the schools really wanted. And the academics standards,
Speaker 1: though for athletes who have devoted literally thousands of hours
Speaker 1: of their time and travel the country, are lower than
Speaker 1: those of other students. Now, take the case of football
Speaker 1: or basketball. Look at what football does for the University
Speaker 1: of Alabama or Clemson. Now, it enriches the entire experience
Speaker 1: for every single other kid that gets in for their
Speaker 1: academic abilities. You know, the fact that you factor in
Speaker 1: the whole person and their life experience, which is individual,
Speaker 1: and if they bring something extra to the table, that Okay, well,
Speaker 1: they devoted twelve years of their life fighting training, competing
Speaker 1: and now they're going to compete for this school, this team.
Speaker 1: But maybe their grades aren't as high as the kids
Speaker 1: that just spent every hour of every day in their
Speaker 1: rooms locked up study in It's it doesn't mean one
Speaker 1: is better than the other. They both offer an enrichment
Speaker 1: of the school academically for the really smart kids that
Speaker 1: have spent their time doing that athletically, the school's spirit.
Speaker 1: I mean, have you ever been a real college football game,
Speaker 1: you know, go on on go to Alabama, Auburn to Florida,
Speaker 1: Florida State game, go to you know, Army, Navy, go
Speaker 1: to Notre Dame, got any of these schools. Michigan the
Speaker 1: biggest football stadium in the country, And you see that
Speaker 1: this is this makes the experience so much better for
Speaker 1: all these other kids. Now, maybe some of the athletes
Speaker 1: that they're admitting would never ever get into the school
Speaker 1: anyway because of their grades. But you got to look
Speaker 1: at the whole kid, and you got to look at
Speaker 1: the life experience and say, Okay, well this kid brings
Speaker 1: something else to the school. But that's not the case
Speaker 1: here because on most sports they're limited in terms of
Speaker 1: the number of slots they have about available. Scholarships are
Speaker 1: usually put aside only for the top top kids. Other
Speaker 1: kids are picked to be on the teams. They don't
Speaker 1: get scholarships, and they but they are wanted on the
Speaker 1: team for other reasons. You know, sometimes it's potential. There
Speaker 1: are more kids in Long Island that are signing that
Speaker 1: have are committing to college based on their ability to
Speaker 1: play lacrosse at in ninth grade. They're committing to big colleges.
Speaker 1: It's a deal that it's a commitment. And why because
Speaker 1: the a athletic experience enriches the prestige of the school
Speaker 1: and the athletic experience, especially especially the big sports. I mean,
Speaker 1: but they offer other sports as well. I mean entitled
Speaker 1: nine comes into play, which offers more athletics scholarships uh
Speaker 1: for girls in college than does boys. Because usually the
Speaker 1: boys scholarships, if they're an equal number of them, a
Speaker 1: lot of them are taken up in football. I don't
Speaker 1: know many colleges that have all girls football teams. Um.
Speaker 1: But I don't want to open up that can of
Speaker 1: worms or get into a different sidetracked issue here. Why
Speaker 1: you you you just cannot You're you're like literally chomping
Speaker 1: at the bit. Why are you so worked up over this? Listen?
Speaker 1: We just agree to disagree on this. You know, I
Speaker 1: just think that if you don't care if that the
Speaker 1: parents paid for the SA, what I'm talking about? What
Speaker 1: are you talking about that? You know? This whole paying
Speaker 1: to get your yourself into college is not a new idea.
Speaker 1: I mean it happens in all different ways all the time.
Speaker 1: I mean you're talking about how excited these schools are
Speaker 1: to go out and ra ra rafa these football games.
Speaker 1: But those kids are getting a free ride because they're
Speaker 1: making everybody else super excited. But they're not passing their
Speaker 1: classes and they're getting pushed along keep up that school spirit.
Speaker 1: That's where you're wrong. Oh so there's not money going
Speaker 1: into those kids through tutors and special programming and law
Speaker 1: at times. Yeah, well, first of all, it's bringing in
Speaker 1: a fortune. These athletic programs benefits from that fortune. The school.
Speaker 1: Where does that money go, Well, usually it goes into
Speaker 1: better sporting facilities. It usually goes into hangs in the dragon. No,
Speaker 1: it's what they're what they're trying to do is you know,
Speaker 1: human beings are not robots, and and some people have
Speaker 1: a natural interest in law. Some people have a natural
Speaker 1: interest in and that's why they have varying majors biology, chemistry, communications, journalism,
Speaker 1: whatever it happens to be right. But those other kids
Speaker 1: are interested in sports. But the sports kids are held
Speaker 1: to a different standard and money, usual money is put
Speaker 1: into those kids to push them along. No, it all,
Speaker 1: there's so much tutors answer one question, are there something
Speaker 1: all right, stop using my techniques against me? It's right,
Speaker 1: it does now. But the money is so vast in
Speaker 1: terms of college football for you. I'll just take that
Speaker 1: one sport that the school. Yeah, they can afford to
Speaker 1: pay for tutors for kids that don't have the same
Speaker 1: academic standards. They can also afford to build more classrooms,
Speaker 1: better dorm rooms, better facilities, safer facilities for the entire
Speaker 1: school as a result. And that's and you know, you
Speaker 1: look at something a school like Harvard, they have billions.
Speaker 1: Google ethan how much Harvard has an endowments. That's the
Speaker 1: word I was looking for, um Google helmets they have.
Speaker 1: So the fact that you have kids that are individuals
Speaker 1: and some devoted you know, thousands and thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of hours to their sport and competed at a pretty
Speaker 1: high level, and a coach is interested in them for
Speaker 1: that reason. Now comes along a kid and you're photoshopping
Speaker 1: pictures of the kid doing crew or photoshopping pictures of
Speaker 1: the kid doing playing soccer. There's some crew kid that
Speaker 1: might have gotten that spot where that's where you know,
Speaker 1: the rub is here. But the fact that the school
Speaker 1: would help the kids. You know, think of this, a
Speaker 1: kid that is naturally talented athletically and a great football
Speaker 1: player and trained hard so we would be recruited for
Speaker 1: football and gets recruited, goes to Alabama, and Nick Saban says,
Speaker 1: we're gonna all to the parents, We're gonna help your
Speaker 1: son or son academically, and we're gonna make sure that
Speaker 1: he gets the education that you want him to get
Speaker 1: as well as the athletic experience that he wants. What's
Speaker 1: wrong with that when the school is literally making a fortune. Now.
Speaker 1: The other thing is all these kids have all the
Speaker 1: school spirit. Now, I didn't have this college experience like
Speaker 1: everybody else. I was working full time when I went
Speaker 1: to college and paid every penny myself. So I wish
Speaker 1: I did because when I hear people talk about their
Speaker 1: experience in college and the pride associated with whatever school
Speaker 1: that they had, it's like they love those schools for
Speaker 1: the rest of their lives. And all those parents when
Speaker 1: they get older and start making money, they all give
Speaker 1: money back because they have the fondest memories and they
Speaker 1: want that experience to go to other kids. It's pretty cool. Actually,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm never going to commit. We'll get to this. Harvard,
Speaker 1: by the way, has thirty seven point one billion dollars
Speaker 1: in endowments as of twenty seventeen. Wow, thirty one thirty
Speaker 1: seven point one billion. Okay, now that money can be
Speaker 1: used to make Harvard better. What it's a liberal bashing
Speaker 1: of nonsense. I'm just saying I wouldn't send my child there,
Speaker 1: No freaking way. I don't think they'd accept any kid
Speaker 1: with the last name handed He trust me, it's not
Speaker 1: going to be a broom. All of these colleges are
Speaker 1: making this much money too. Why don't they use that
Speaker 1: money to give everyone free college rather than pouring it
Speaker 1: back into these students. Um well, they actually do in
Speaker 1: a lot of cases. There's so much academic financial help
Speaker 1: available out there. It's crazy. All right, man, I've got
Speaker 1: a cool spirit with free college. Oh god, you people,
Speaker 1: you know you've been working, You've got all cynical now
Speaker 1: you're just wait, you've lost it, all of you. You're
Speaker 1: like the only four people in the country that think
Speaker 1: I'm wrong on this one thing that is not political.
Speaker 1: It's smoking that's about people. And there are thirty four
Speaker 1: million Americans. Now, that's smoke. But for many there's not
Speaker 1: been a clear alternative. Jewel, for me, has been a
Speaker 1: game changer. I watch people all the time. They go
Speaker 1: outside in the middle of the freezing winner just to
Speaker 1: have their smoke. You don't have to do that anymore
Speaker 1: because of Jewel. Now people don't have to worry about
Speaker 1: the smell on your hands. Jewel was specifically designed by smokers,
Speaker 1: forced smokers to be a satisfying alternative. It's a clean technology.
Speaker 1: Jewel has no ash, no odor, no mess. If you're
Speaker 1: one of those thirty four million adults who do smoke,
Speaker 1: you now know there's an alternative to cigarettes and cigars.
Speaker 1: Just go to Jewel, Juul dot com slash switch America.
Speaker 1: That's ju u l dot com slash switch America. Now
Speaker 1: this product does contain nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
Speaker 1: But just go to Jewel ju Uel dot com slash
Speaker 1: switch America. Right as we roll along Sean Hannity Show,
Speaker 1: All right, Paul Manafort got his second sentence. This was
Speaker 1: the DC case. Wait, un, can I interrupt you for
Speaker 1: a minute, Yes, ma'am. So the audience hates me and
Speaker 1: they love you. They're on your side. So I just
Speaker 1: want you to know that I want you to feel
Speaker 1: better about your team spirit. No, it's look, this is
Speaker 1: not okay. Here's the thing I don't want to get
Speaker 1: We'll get back into this later in the show. I
Speaker 1: just want to finish this. The thing is is everybody
Speaker 1: that I know that had a college real college experience.
Speaker 1: And you know, when I went to a Delphi an
Speaker 1: m YU for a year each I worked the whole time,
Speaker 1: and then I dropped out because I ran out of money.
Speaker 1: And then I went back to school and rode out.
Speaker 1: Then I ran out of money and I was paying
Speaker 1: it myself. But when people tell me they went to
Speaker 1: Penn State or Dartmouth or you know, an Ivy League
Speaker 1: school or Notre Dame, every oh my gosh, you talk
Speaker 1: about Notre Dame or Michigan or or UVA or you know,
Speaker 1: just whatever the school happens to be. They love it.
Speaker 1: They stay with that school for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: They donate to that school for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: It is written. And then when you build a big
Speaker 1: football team, you know kids that have gone a different way,
Speaker 1: they're offering something else to the school. And yeah, the
Speaker 1: school make a ton of money off of sports, but
Speaker 1: they're using a lot of it throwing it back and
Speaker 1: into the kids to bring up their academic ability. And yeah,
Speaker 1: they can build better facilities, which makes it an even
Speaker 1: better experience for future kids. What's so bad about that?
Speaker 1: But this is different. I mean, if you know your
Speaker 1: kid never you know, kick the ball and you say
Speaker 1: gets a spot on the soccer team, that's a problem,
Speaker 1: or you know whatever it is that seated that there
Speaker 1: was absolutely no evidence of any Russian collusion in this case.
Speaker 1: So that makes two courts, two courts that ruled no
Speaker 1: evidence of any collusion Russians. Very sad, what's she said?
Speaker 1: Very sad? Sad for such a callous sentence that is
Speaker 1: tortually unnecessary. That's like you guys are lawyers. Are there
Speaker 1: is is your radical extreme hate Trump deranged resistance. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's actually pretty scary. That was the attorney for Paul
Speaker 1: manaphor Kevin Downey. Protesters yelling and screaming and shower and said.
Speaker 1: The judges conceded in both cases no evidence of Trump
Speaker 1: Rush a collusion. The same conclusion of the House Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: the same conclusion of Senator Burr's Intelligence Committee, the same
Speaker 1: conclusion most they're expecting from Robert Mueller. This is this state,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to tell you who is partly responsible
Speaker 1: for getting these people whipped up into a frenzy. The
Speaker 1: media Every second, minute, hour, every day they have been promising.
Speaker 1: They have been hyperventilating, breathless reporting every day. Hey here
Speaker 1: we got them. It's not true, but we'll get them
Speaker 1: next time. Here we got them. But the media is
Speaker 1: done in this particular instance, is so beyond the Pell's
Speaker 1: it is. It is turned. They have given nothing but lies,
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories, and false hope for two years to every
Speaker 1: Trumpeter in the country, Ancy Pelosi, you know, saying impeachment's
Speaker 1: kind of gonna happen back by Stenny Hoyer, backed by others.
Speaker 1: But they're not stupid now either. They're playing a game
Speaker 1: and they'll say, oh, the evidence was so compelling. But
Speaker 1: in spite of it. Then you got Adam Shipp, who's
Speaker 1: now is under investigation himself for ethics complaints, which I
Speaker 1: told you would happened. I'm tye in it for him
Speaker 1: to come on the show, you know, and then I
Speaker 1: get to hit him with all the misinformation. Let's be
Speaker 1: nice today, you know that he's been selling anyway. That
Speaker 1: was the judge sentence man of fort five years on
Speaker 1: the first conspiracy count, thirty months of that would be
Speaker 1: served concurrently with the last sentence in the tsis the
Speaker 1: judge in tf Ellis in that case, that is the
Speaker 1: overlap between the two cases, which involved obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: She sentenced him to thirteen months, saying that his efforts
Speaker 1: to influence witnesses had been nipped in the bud and
Speaker 1: Judge Jackson tends to be relatively lenient unconvicted criminals that
Speaker 1: appear before her. In the five years that ended in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, she handed down an average prison sentence of
Speaker 1: just thirty two months, below both the Washington District's forty
Speaker 1: six month average and the nationwide average of forty seven months,
Speaker 1: according to data from Syracuse University. I promise we'll get
Speaker 1: back to the thing later. My staff is in the
Speaker 1: middle of the biggest fight over this college admissions thing.
Speaker 1: It's hilarious to me, you know, but there you have,
Speaker 1: you know, this mob outside, you know, screaming at Kevin Downing,
Speaker 1: and it's sad, you know the fact that they only
Speaker 1: want Manafort to die in jail. That was the only
Speaker 1: acceptable outcome, and it may actually end up happening. And
Speaker 1: what it was an act of stunning vindictiveness. This should
Speaker 1: not be allowed either, by the way, in my opinion.
Speaker 1: You know, and we see it happened all the time. Well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna charge somebody with a crime that you get
Speaker 1: a not guilty verdict. Now, well now I'm going to
Speaker 1: go after them on the same crime. But we'll call
Speaker 1: it a civil rights violation. It's double jeopardy anyway, in
Speaker 1: an attempt to prevent Manaphort from escaping punishment if the
Speaker 1: president ever decided to pardon him. The announcement was made
Speaker 1: literally while the US judge Amy Berman Jackson was sentencing
Speaker 1: Manafort seventy years old. Right, he's got the seven point
Speaker 1: five years. You know, some of it concur but I
Speaker 1: mean it's pretty much assured that it was going to
Speaker 1: be a very old man if he ever gets out
Speaker 1: of jail. But just to make doubly sure that you
Speaker 1: know now that we have New York prosecutors filing new
Speaker 1: indictments today at the same time, why because they don't
Speaker 1: want him. What if the president ever pardoned him? Now
Speaker 1: we got a backup because you can't pardon him based
Speaker 1: on a state crime. Unbelievable, as Devin Newness on this
Speaker 1: program yesterday reports criminal referrals against Obama officials. Now this
Speaker 1: bomb show that we got yesterday, Thank goodness for Congressman
Speaker 1: Doug Collins, you know, join him with Meadows and Jordan
Speaker 1: and you know all these great congressmen that have been
Speaker 1: doing wonderful things. Anyway, Devin Newness is, criminal referrals against
Speaker 1: Obama officials are coming within the next month. And I
Speaker 1: told you there's a lot about to happen. Just stay tuned.
Speaker 1: We didn't work in vain for two years uncovering all
Speaker 1: of this abuse of power and all of this corruption,
Speaker 1: and the evidence now is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Is a
Speaker 1: part of me that wonders, it's funny because people that
Speaker 1: you know, special Counsel's officers not going to take my call.
Speaker 1: But people that have been in touch with the Special
Speaker 1: counsel now I have been very critical, very suspicious, dubious
Speaker 1: based on how things the people that were chosen. Why
Speaker 1: did Muller pick only Democrats. Why did Muller pick Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's attorney for the Clinton Foundation, Jeanie Ray? Why would
Speaker 1: anyone ever pick as your main guy his pit bowl.
Speaker 1: According to the New York Times, Andrew Weisman after what
Speaker 1: he did with Enron accounting, tens of thousands of Americans
Speaker 1: lost their jobs. Cases overturned nine to zero in the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Those are real people that lost their jobs
Speaker 1: once excoriated, as Sidney Powell has in her book License
Speaker 1: to Lie, you know, withholding exculpatory evidence. Why did he
Speaker 1: get on Muller's team. It's struck in Page get on
Speaker 1: Muller's team. Actually, we do have an answer to that question.
Speaker 1: And if you believe Lisa Page, the DOJ was ordering
Speaker 1: the FBI not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Well that brings
Speaker 1: it now right into the Attorney General Loretta Lynch's office.
Speaker 1: But we'll get to that in a second. But these
Speaker 1: people and their track records are atrocious. Their political Weissman
Speaker 1: is at the victory party of Hillary on election night.
Speaker 1: They are not objective, fair prosecutors. But I'm beginning to
Speaker 1: wonder because people that say they know Muller, he has
Speaker 1: an incredible life background and experienced marines and profile served
Speaker 1: his country, you know, went in a private practice, hated
Speaker 1: it went back to being like a DA again because
Speaker 1: he loves it. I love law enforcement people. I wonder
Speaker 1: if there's some people that tell me I'm wrong about him, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm I don't think I am. I wonder if he
Speaker 1: has paid attention to all of this abusive power. I
Speaker 1: wonder if his fidelity to the law is real. Well
Speaker 1: know soon enough, Lunez saying that criminal referrals are coming.
Speaker 1: He says, I'd guess we'd see referrals in the next
Speaker 1: two to three or four weeks. He said he would
Speaker 1: like to see what is in the Special Council Mulla's report.
Speaker 1: And in February, Nunez said that the GOP minority in
Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committee offered up the names of a
Speaker 1: dozen people they want to subpoena the Democrats, as the
Speaker 1: Democrats were a vitalized the panel's Russia investigation. Doubtful the
Speaker 1: majority will cooperate. Instead, Nunez will go to the new
Speaker 1: Attorney General, Bill Barr, which to make headway towards completing us.
Speaker 1: And we also have in the Senate we know that
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham is all over this Lisa page. This was
Speaker 1: interesting in part of this reveal. Now there's so much
Speaker 1: material yet to come that we haven't seen. We learned
Speaker 1: so much about the bruce Or testimony. You know, everybody
Speaker 1: was warned the dossier was Clinton bought and paid for,
Speaker 1: that Steele was invested in hating Trump and Trump losing.
Speaker 1: And we learned that the steal's getting paid from a
Speaker 1: Russian oligarch, the FBI, Hillary's campaign, and the DNC. Wow,
Speaker 1: and there's even now questions about whether by Devin Nunez
Speaker 1: he wants to know who actually wrote the dossier, his
Speaker 1: questions about who did, but you know anyone that says
Speaker 1: they verified it. Lisa Page said that there was some verification,
Speaker 1: you know, file on the dossier. You cannot verify something
Speaker 1: whose own author can't stand by it. You can't. There's
Speaker 1: no you wanted it to be true. And when the
Speaker 1: top DOJ officials and FBI officials were warned by Bruce Or,
Speaker 1: as he said in his testimony released last week, Lisa
Speaker 1: Page yesterday, that means they all knew it was corrupt
Speaker 1: and not verified and bought and paid for and political.
Speaker 1: And that adds even more urgency to the FISA abuse,
Speaker 1: which is committing a fraud on a FISA court, a
Speaker 1: conspiracy to deny an American citizen his constitutional rights, and
Speaker 1: even more importantly, allowing false Russian wise paid for to
Speaker 1: influence the American people leading up to the election. We
Speaker 1: know that happened. There's no question this all happened there.
Speaker 1: It's irrefutable, it is incontrovertible, just like Adam Schiff on
Speaker 1: tape colluding with the Russians to impact America's electoral system
Speaker 1: Lisa Page. In this new testimony we got to read yesterday,
Speaker 1: Struck went to work for Muller to build a case
Speaker 1: for Trump's impeachment. That was the whole purpose. The same
Speaker 1: guy that authored the exoneration letter that took out gross negligence,
Speaker 1: put in extreme carelessness with James Comey and may Comey
Speaker 1: denied it, but we know it's true. And then of
Speaker 1: course he was the only person to interview on July two,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, him and another guy, Hillary Clinton. And then
Speaker 1: three days later Comey's in there and oh, you know
Speaker 1: it doesn't know prosecutor or would ever do it. Well,
Speaker 1: you know we also know that's true, because that's not
Speaker 1: true because James Baker, who was the number one lawyer
Speaker 1: chief General Counsel at the FBI under Comey wanted to
Speaker 1: indict her under the violations of the Espionage Act. That's
Speaker 1: what we also learned. Now, what we also learned is
Speaker 1: from Lisa Page. Oh it was Loretta Lynch, Tarmac, Loretta
Speaker 1: and Tarmac Bill who met just days before the final decision. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's a matter, it's not an investigation, Jim. When it
Speaker 1: was an investigation, well apparent, Lisa Pete said every step
Speaker 1: of the way, the Obama Department of Justice unlike any
Speaker 1: other case, so out of the ordinary. They were involved
Speaker 1: in every decision and ordered the FBI not to prosecute Hillary. Unbelievable.
Speaker 1: And the FBI, by the way, had zero evidence of
Speaker 1: collusion when they first started this investigation in July of
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. They had the dossier by August of twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: And you know, now we've got Laurenta Lynch needs to
Speaker 1: go under oath. And by the way, was she reporting
Speaker 1: any of this to Obama? What did he know? When
Speaker 1: did he know it? There's so much to come. There
Speaker 1: will be criminal referrals, and we still haven't heard from
Speaker 1: the Inspector General or John Huber, Inspector General specifically looking
Speaker 1: into the question of Five's abuse. All those people that
Speaker 1: signed that five's abuse bulk of information being the paid
Speaker 1: for dossier Russian lies. Yeah, how are they going to
Speaker 1: justify saying that they thought that was truthful? By the way,
Speaker 1: all of these twenty twenty candidates have in trouble. Now
Speaker 1: we have Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Jilla brand all facing
Speaker 1: a me too backlash and defending their commitment to the
Speaker 1: idea of me too against a series of accusations that
Speaker 1: they themselves mismanaged sexual misconduct claims against their subordinates. Well,
Speaker 1: how did they get away with that? How come? You know?
Speaker 1: And Kirsten gilliber we did a professional, thorough investigation, not
Speaker 1: according to the person that that was the victim says
Speaker 1: just the opposite, She's a hypocrite. And the same with
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. Now Bernie is also being rocked by anti
Speaker 1: Semitism charges, and a spokesperson for Bernie actually said that
Speaker 1: the presidential campaign apologized after questioning whether the Jews American
Speaker 1: Jewish community as a dual allegiance. By the way, that
Speaker 1: dual allegiance thing is it is you talk about, it's
Speaker 1: a classic anti semitism anyway. A comment condemned by Jewish
Speaker 1: leaders from across the political spectrum. It's a well known
Speaker 1: anti Semitic overtone, not something anybody would have any issue about.
Speaker 1: By the way, a Cosio quartet is now accusing Wells
Speaker 1: Fargo CEO of financing the caging of children, which didn't happen.
Speaker 1: Mister Sloan, why was the bank involved in the caging
Speaker 1: of children and financing the caging of children to begin with?
Speaker 1: I don't know how to answer that question because we
Speaker 1: weren't so in finance, you were financing and involved in
Speaker 1: debt financing of Coursific and Geogroup. Correct. I let me
Speaker 1: jump in here. I want to add one other thing.
Speaker 1: There is a state representative in the Georgia Statehouse drafting
Speaker 1: a blunt response to legislation that would dictate when a
Speaker 1: woman could or couldn't get an abortion. It's called the
Speaker 1: Testicular Bill of Rights, and she said it's a package
Speaker 1: about turning the tables on mail counterparts as comes as
Speaker 1: the Georgia House anyway, the after they have the heartbeat bill,
Speaker 1: once the heartbeat is there, anyway, it would literally outlaw
Speaker 1: abortion after her feats his heartbeat. She has her bill
Speaker 1: of rights, and includes, among many mail focused proposal legislatiation
Speaker 1: requiring men obtained permission from their sex partners before they
Speaker 1: get a prescription for any erectile dysfunction medication, allowing men
Speaker 1: who have sex without a condom to be charged with
Speaker 1: aggravated assault. Twenty four hour waiting period for men to
Speaker 1: want to purchase pornography or some sex toy in the
Speaker 1: state of Georgia. You can't make that. You cannot make
Speaker 1: this insanity up. Oh, when Pelosi revoked Vice President Pence's
Speaker 1: House office space, really nice, Nancy. Washington Post writes, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi just blew it on impeachment. Mm hmm, there's a
Speaker 1: big fight brewing. It's all gonna come out all right.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred nine one Sean is a toe free telephone number.
Speaker 1: Quick break right back, will continue. There was absolutely no
Speaker 1: evidence of any Russian collusion in this case. So that
Speaker 1: makes two courts, two courts, several no evidence of any
Speaker 1: collusion Russian. Very sad, what's he said? Very sad? He
Speaker 1: said for such a Palliser sentence that is totally unnecessary.
Speaker 1: That's like, you guys are lawyers, lawyers. Wow, that was
Speaker 1: out of the courthouse protesters screaming at Paul Unfort's attorney,
Speaker 1: Kevin Downing, saying, yeah, two judges conceded no evidence of
Speaker 1: Trump for Russia collusion, and now Paul Manafort sentenced in
Speaker 1: a second case. And unless this guy dies in jail,
Speaker 1: it's going to be so dissatisfying for people on the left.
Speaker 1: Before that, Richard Blumenthal pardoning Paul Manafort would be obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice. No, that is a power of the presidency,
Speaker 1: a constitutional power of the US president to be used
Speaker 1: that his or her discretion. It is not a power
Speaker 1: that is even in question anyway. Joining us to talk
Speaker 1: about the very latest on this, we have John Solomon
Speaker 1: of The Hill and we're going to talk about the
Speaker 1: release yesterday of Lisa Pages testimony. Is now this whole
Speaker 1: the two years a culmination of unpeeling an onion is
Speaker 1: now reaping some benefit. And we see at the end
Speaker 1: of the tunnel here there are going to be in
Speaker 1: indictments and all names you're going to be familiar with
Speaker 1: her in Deep Trouble. Greg Jarrett, author of the number
Speaker 1: one bestseller of The Russian Hoax, let me ask from
Speaker 1: a legal standpoint, Greg, you first, let's talk about the sentencing.
Speaker 1: But more importantly, I want to talk about what happened
Speaker 1: immediately thereafter with the Manhattan District Attorney, because Bernie Kerrick
Speaker 1: had a great tweet about this. This is the greatest
Speaker 1: demonstration yet of a politically motivated corrupt at Manhattan DA
Speaker 1: who pre announced his intent then coordinated with Muller's team
Speaker 1: to ensure that Manaphort dies in prison, because immediately after
Speaker 1: this he was charged with sixteen new charges, not federal
Speaker 1: in Manhattan. Can you I'll let you explain it from
Speaker 1: the legal perspective, Well, this is this is redundant, it's overkill.
Speaker 1: It should be double jeopardy, but the law doesn't favor
Speaker 1: that unfortunately. So yeah, I mean, they're still going out
Speaker 1: for Paul Manafort with a vengeance, even though two judges
Speaker 1: have now said in their respective cases involving him that
Speaker 1: there's no evidence of collusion, that on top of the House,
Speaker 1: that on top of the Senate. And I suspect that
Speaker 1: if Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel, had evidence of collusion,
Speaker 1: somebody would have been charged by now, but so far
Speaker 1: it hasn't happened. You know, you got a lot, but
Speaker 1: it seems like it was all planned. Now why the
Speaker 1: second after he's sentenced, of course it was. So it's
Speaker 1: a total of seven years. How many years would he
Speaker 1: have to spend in prison? Well, he'll probably I mean,
Speaker 1: you get a fifteen percent reduction for good behavior, so
Speaker 1: that's the knockoff, not like state courts where you get
Speaker 1: a lot more for good behavior. So he's probably gonna
Speaker 1: have to do you know, at least six and a
Speaker 1: half years. Yeah, I mean it's seven and a half
Speaker 1: years totals. I guess some of this must have been concurrent, correct, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think thirty seven months is concurrent or somewhere around there.
Speaker 1: So but you know, he's he's going to have to
Speaker 1: do some years behind bars. And Dick Blumenthal is wrong.
Speaker 1: It's not obstruction of justice to exercise your constitutional duty
Speaker 1: is president to pardon somebody. But you know, every time
Speaker 1: Bluemithal opens his mouth, the demonstrates his ignorance of the law. Well,
Speaker 1: he was also leading the I believe, I believe, I
Speaker 1: haven't heard him say I believe about the democratic lieutenant
Speaker 1: governor in Virginia and the Commonwealth there. Let me get
Speaker 1: your reaction John Solomon to today's you know, sentencing hearing
Speaker 1: the reaction you hear outside of the courtroom, it's just,
Speaker 1: you know, it's sort of like the left is triggered.
Speaker 1: One of the things, now that we have two judges
Speaker 1: conceding there was no evidence of Trump Russia collusion in
Speaker 1: these cases, we're expecting any day now the Mueller Report's
Speaker 1: going to be at least handed over to the AG.
Speaker 1: I don't think we'll know for some time whether whether
Speaker 1: part of that or any of that is going to
Speaker 1: be released, but you you have a pretty that authority.
Speaker 1: Your sources are telling you pretty confidently that there is
Speaker 1: no Trump Russia collusion that was found by Muller. Certainly,
Speaker 1: that's what people are telling me, And no one will
Speaker 1: know for sure until the moment. The only guy that
Speaker 1: matters hits the send button, and that's Bob Muller, right,
Speaker 1: And when he hits that send button, he transmits that
Speaker 1: report to the Justice Department, we'll finally know the answer.
Speaker 1: But I think in every public setting we have seen
Speaker 1: in the last couple of years, from the Chairman of
Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committee Devin Us, to the Chairman of
Speaker 1: the Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Berm to two judges in
Speaker 1: the Man of Four case, to every other sentencing involving
Speaker 1: a defendant, in the muller in prosecutions and in Muller's
Speaker 1: own statements and indictments, there has not been a single
Speaker 1: allegation of collusion between the presidential campaign in Russia. And
Speaker 1: I think that what we know from the body of
Speaker 1: evidences that it didn't exist. And another big important piece
Speaker 1: of that evidence came out yesterday. As you know, earlier
Speaker 1: on your show, we broke the stories about what was
Speaker 1: in Lisa Page's testimony, but the official transcript came out yesterday.
Speaker 1: What at least the Page tell us, after nine months
Speaker 1: of using the most awesome powers of the FBI, had
Speaker 1: FISA surveillance, interrogation monitoring, in May of twenty seventeen, they
Speaker 1: still had no evidence to prove anything of collusion, as
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele had alleged in his dossier. If all of
Speaker 1: that investigation couldn't turn it up, and all two years
Speaker 1: of turning indicting defendants hasn't turned anything up, I think
Speaker 1: it's highly unlikely. And I think today when you watch
Speaker 1: what happens today the protesters outside the immediate reindictment in
Speaker 1: New York by Syvance, a very political prosecutor in Manhattan.
Speaker 1: You see a lot more politics in the court of
Speaker 1: law than I think most of us would like to see.
Speaker 1: These legal cases should stand on their own merit, and
Speaker 1: yet you see in the form of protests, in the
Speaker 1: form of a sudden reindictment timed to the end of
Speaker 1: the sentencing, a lot of political shenanigans going on in
Speaker 1: the legal system. You know, I agree with that completely.
Speaker 1: I mean, you just said, oh, they're just waiting, Oh,
Speaker 1: just in case you think Donald Trump's going to pardon you,
Speaker 1: We're going to make sure you die in prison. And
Speaker 1: that's how I took it with this today. And yeah,
Speaker 1: there is overkill at some particular point with all of
Speaker 1: this when you go though, we look back at the
Speaker 1: you know, we now have had two weeks of release.
Speaker 1: Let's just assume for a moment, John Sources are right.
Speaker 1: I've been hearing the same thing. Democrats seem to be
Speaker 1: telegraphing that they know that there's not going to be
Speaker 1: what they want in the Muller report in terms of
Speaker 1: a pathway to impeaching the president over collusion, because there
Speaker 1: wasn't any I expect it'll be sternly written and they'll
Speaker 1: be in nuendo in there because I guess they'll feel
Speaker 1: compelled to do so to justify their existence greg But
Speaker 1: beyond that, it's the law that matters. But what is
Speaker 1: now beginning to build or the things that we wanted
Speaker 1: for a long time. Yesterday we got Lisa Page's testimony,
Speaker 1: Lisa Page basically affirming everything. We believe that the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice that would be Obama's Justice Department, that would
Speaker 1: be Attorney General Lynch, were up to their eyeballs in
Speaker 1: helping to protect and prevent Hillary Clinton from being charged
Speaker 1: as any other American would have been charged. And even
Speaker 1: Lisa Page acknowledged all protocols were put aside. We also
Speaker 1: know Comy and Struck wrote the exoneration and purposely withdrew
Speaker 1: those magical words that met the legal standard gross negligence.
Speaker 1: They added a new standard called intent that is not
Speaker 1: part of the law. So the fix was in. Hillary
Speaker 1: was never going to get indicted, even though even James Baker,
Speaker 1: the Chief Council under Comey at the FBI, thought she
Speaker 1: should be indicted. Absolutely. A couple of things jump out
Speaker 1: with her testimony. The first one is she said, quote,
Speaker 1: every person on the team knew no charges would be brought.
Speaker 1: Fast forward to about seventy pages, and she admits the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice actually ordered that Clinton be charged for
Speaker 1: gross negligence. She was pressed about that, Well, what was
Speaker 1: the rationale? She said, well, there was some discussion that
Speaker 1: she didn't have the intent, but as you just pointed out,
Speaker 1: intents not required under the gross negligence provision. But she
Speaker 1: could have been charged under the intent provision because page
Speaker 1: fast forward another fifty pages admits that intent is not
Speaker 1: intent to break the law. But the legal standard is
Speaker 1: intent to commit an act that has the effect of
Speaker 1: breaking the law. And it's abundantly clear by Clinton's own admission,
Speaker 1: she intended to set up a private server, intended to
Speaker 1: use it exclusively for all of her emails, including classified documents.
Speaker 1: That's an intent crime. She should have been charged under
Speaker 1: both intent and gross negligence, but the fix was in. Wow.
Speaker 1: I want to get your take on it now, John Utah,
Speaker 1: I want you to explain the five buckets is the
Speaker 1: testimony that we're getting thanks to Doug Collins, a Republican
Speaker 1: from Georgia congressman. Right, he gave us last week, or
Speaker 1: his testimony now he gave us Lisa Page's testimony, and
Speaker 1: he says he's going to give us all of it,
Speaker 1: and but we have the information you want, and I
Speaker 1: want three zero twos the FISA application, we want the
Speaker 1: Gang of Aid information. And you can explain what all
Speaker 1: of this will will bring to light. Yeah, Greg did
Speaker 1: a such a great job, as he always does, and
Speaker 1: analyzing all the legally significant things that Lisa Page said
Speaker 1: about the Clinton case, there's one thing that jumped out
Speaker 1: at me on the Russia case, and that is, you know,
Speaker 1: the question has always lingered over this, how much did
Speaker 1: politics play in the role in making the decisions the
Speaker 1: FBI did, And by her own admission, Lisa Page testifies
Speaker 1: that they were weighing the fact that they didn't think
Speaker 1: Donald Trump would win the presidency as one of the
Speaker 1: weights and how much they should investigate the Russia allegations.
Speaker 1: And I think that that is such an extraordinary admission.
Speaker 1: I have never, in all my life, covering thirty two
Speaker 1: years of the FBI, ever heard an employe of the
Speaker 1: FBI claimed that the winning or losing of election was
Speaker 1: going to affect the tactics or the intent of an investigation.
Speaker 1: And it explains something that happens the day after something
Speaker 1: you and I reported on your show a long time ago,
Speaker 1: The day after Donald Trump wins, they escalate their efforts
Speaker 1: by a major proportion, which shows that politics was involved.
Speaker 1: If this was any other case, he would investigate it
Speaker 1: because the allegation is serious and the securities at risk. Here.
Speaker 1: It's not serious if he's going to win, but if
Speaker 1: he is going to win, it's going to be serious.
Speaker 1: It shows the raw political nature and that politics did
Speaker 1: infect decisions, certainly in the Russia investigation. Now how much
Speaker 1: did they affect it. I think the big story that's
Speaker 1: going to come out in twenty nineteen is not the
Speaker 1: fact the absence of evidence of criminality, because we now
Speaker 1: have that pretty well established that there wasn't a criminal
Speaker 1: scheme between the president and Russia to hijack the election. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the big story is going to be is
Speaker 1: the abundance of evidence of innocence that the FBI collected
Speaker 1: intercepts or informant contacts with Carter Page and George Popadappas
Speaker 1: that are going to show the FBI not only knew
Speaker 1: there wasn't evidence of a crime, they had admissions of
Speaker 1: innocence and they kept that from the court those five
Speaker 1: buckets of documents we're talking about is the key evidence.
Speaker 1: There are the documents that were turned over to Congress
Speaker 1: in a briefing in June of twenty eighteen to the
Speaker 1: Gang of Eight, known as the Gang of Eight documents.
Speaker 1: They're among the most important documents that could show how
Speaker 1: bad the FBI acted in this investigation. There is a
Speaker 1: spreadsheet that shows how many things were wrong in the
Speaker 1: Steele dossier and yet they proceeded with it. There are
Speaker 1: the three or two interviews of Bruce Orr and his
Speaker 1: contacts with Steele in the Justice Department, his facilitating role,
Speaker 1: and then there are the original FISA documents. When we
Speaker 1: get all of those things, we're going to see not
Speaker 1: only how politics infected it, We're going to see how
Speaker 1: illegally the FBI with hold evidence from the court that
Speaker 1: would show the men they were targeting actually we're making
Speaker 1: statements of innocence and it was not being informed to
Speaker 1: the court. I think that's going to be the big
Speaker 1: story of the second half of twenty nineteen. John just
Speaker 1: went through a litany greg of what is to come
Speaker 1: with the time we have left. What does that mean
Speaker 1: for the names that we have all all of US
Speaker 1: and so many others. I don't want to list everybody's
Speaker 1: name off, forget someone. What does it mean for the
Speaker 1: people that abused power? And we're corrupt at the highest
Speaker 1: levels of the DOJ and the FBI, And now we're
Speaker 1: learning the Lisa Page testimony shows Lauretta Lynch and maybe
Speaker 1: Obama in some way. What did he know? What was
Speaker 1: he informed double and when did he know it? Where
Speaker 1: is this going to go? Well, it means trouble with
Speaker 1: a capital T for those people at the FBI and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice who were involved in this cesspool
Speaker 1: of corruption. And I was glad John Solomon just mentioned
Speaker 1: his reporting has been so instrumental, but that Lisa Page
Speaker 1: reveal that it was all a political calculation. She was pressed,
Speaker 1: what's the insurance policy? She said, well, I don't really
Speaker 1: remember that, But then she went on to explain that
Speaker 1: it was a political calculation that we're going to assume
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't get elected president, but our insurance policy will
Speaker 1: be this hoax of collusion and if he wins, will
Speaker 1: go after him with a vengeance. And that happened. And John,
Speaker 1: your take on that, Yeah, he's exactly right. It is
Speaker 1: a hoax and they know it's a hoax, and they're
Speaker 1: only going to execute the hoax of Donald Trump wins
Speaker 1: the presidency. It's extraordinary, and how we're going to know
Speaker 1: how big a hoax it was. Beyond all the great
Speaker 1: reporting in Greg's book and about all the things that
Speaker 1: other people have reported. When we see how much evidence
Speaker 1: the FBI had that showed what they were pursuing was wrong.
Speaker 1: Had it that Carter page, we know they were warned.
Speaker 1: All Right, I gotta let you both go. Great work,
Speaker 1: all of you spent two years, and we're getting to
Speaker 1: the finish line. I can see the landing strip in sight,
Speaker 1: all right, twenty five now till the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: Glad you're with us. This is now a two hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy five million dollar lawsuit. Lynnwood, the attorney. I
Speaker 1: got to know him in nineteen ninety six. I was
Speaker 1: a local radio host in Atlanta for four years, and
Speaker 1: after the Olympic bombing, the guy who it turns out
Speaker 1: was a hero that saved lives. His name is Richard Jewell.
Speaker 1: And since then, there is no more, there's no more compelling,
Speaker 1: there's more, no more unyielding attorney. As it relates to media, malpractice,
Speaker 1: libel slander than Lynn Wood, and I've gotten to know him,
Speaker 1: stayed in touch with him. The lessons I learned being
Speaker 1: on the right side. The only person in media that
Speaker 1: didn't rush to judgment on Richard Jewell and the narrative,
Speaker 1: well he fits the profile of the lone bomber because
Speaker 1: he lives with his mother was me. And Richard Jewell
Speaker 1: heard me say that the first day, didn't know it
Speaker 1: at the time, and now he's representing Nicholas Sandman. He's
Speaker 1: sixteen year old kid, did everything perfectly, it turns out,
Speaker 1: and this despicable medium mob they never did anything to
Speaker 1: check a single fact in the case, and as a result,
Speaker 1: well now fake news. CNN is being hit with a
Speaker 1: two hundred and seventy five million dollar lawsuit on the
Speaker 1: heels of a two hundred and fifty million dollar lawsuit
Speaker 1: against The Washington Post, and many more to come. Listen
Speaker 1: to this. Last January, sixteen year old Nicholas Sandman was
Speaker 1: falsely targeted, attacked, vilified, and threatened. The Washington Post, owned
Speaker 1: by the richest man in the world, led the print
Speaker 1: media's false attacks against Nicholas's reputation. CNN led the broadcast
Speaker 1: Media's charge against Nicholas both recklessly spread lies about a
Speaker 1: minor to advance their own financial and political agendas. Despite
Speaker 1: raw video debunking the false narrative, the Post and CNN
Speaker 1: double down on their reckless lies. He clearly doesn't blame himself.
Speaker 1: He puts the blame on the adult lies that will
Speaker 1: forever haunt and endanger the life of an innocent young man.
Speaker 1: I blame that kid. What little lies that further divided
Speaker 1: our nation? How long will we allow these media giants
Speaker 1: to tear at the fabric of our lives to further
Speaker 1: their own agendas. Will they ever be held accountable? Lawyers
Speaker 1: representing Nicholas Sandman have just filed a bombshell defamation. Yes
Speaker 1: they will. Nicholas Sandman has taken a stand for himself
Speaker 1: and for you by filing major lawsuits against CNN and
Speaker 1: The Washington Post. Nicholas and his legal team will not
Speaker 1: be stopped until these Goliathe corporations are held accountable for
Speaker 1: their lack of journalistic integrity. Until then, no one's reputation
Speaker 1: is safe. If you took the time to look at
Speaker 1: the full context of what happened that day, Nicholas Salmon
Speaker 1: did absolutely nothing wrong. If they can get away with
Speaker 1: this against a sixteen year old boy, then we're all
Speaker 1: at risk. There has to be changed. A bunch of
Speaker 1: trouble lessons. See how you got these pompous back come
Speaker 1: down hand in the middle of a Native rally with
Speaker 1: the dirty had on. You got all these dirty behind
Speaker 1: you with a wreck with a red Make America Great
Speaker 1: pentaganal and your coolies. You want to fight your brother?
Speaker 1: A bunch of babies made out of a racist played
Speaker 1: out in Washington yesterday on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial,
Speaker 1: some students harassing an older Native American man of Vietnam
Speaker 1: vet The situation came to ahead when that young man there,
Speaker 1: wearing a Make America Great Again hat, got right in
Speaker 1: his face and didn't move. The video appears to show
Speaker 1: dozens of youths wearing Nake America Great Again hats mocking
Speaker 1: Native American elder in Vietnam veteran Nathan Phillips. Yesterday, a
Speaker 1: Native American man was confronted by young people make America
Speaker 1: Great hat song. There's something wrong with that. Outrage over
Speaker 1: this now viral video showing high school teenagers harassing a
Speaker 1: Native American elder. When you have the kind of anger
Speaker 1: that we saw at the Indigenous People's March, where a
Speaker 1: veteran Native American man was you had a standoff with
Speaker 1: students who were, you know, mocking him. A crowd of
Speaker 1: teenagers surrounding a Native American elder and other activists as
Speaker 1: one smirking high school student blocks the elder's path. We
Speaker 1: feel that President Trump is giving license to some of
Speaker 1: this behavior. Another man of peace stands face to face
Speaker 1: with bigotry. The elder says the encounter with the group,
Speaker 1: an intense stare down with the one team in particular,
Speaker 1: leaves him fearful of the future. This kid in the
Speaker 1: front thinks it's somehow acceptable to stand in the face
Speaker 1: of this Native American man. It's not just to him,
Speaker 1: but disturbs me. It's it's the others. It's his schoolmates
Speaker 1: there that are having fun with it. They think it's funny.
Speaker 1: It's interests me that we're at a day and age
Speaker 1: where we see things like this occur. Those protesters who
Speaker 1: were on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the Native
Speaker 1: American man who was beating the drum, Nathan Phillips, and
Speaker 1: those kids and the make America Great Again hats. So
Speaker 1: we're kind of smirking at him and kind of looking
Speaker 1: down their noses at him. We only hope that they're
Speaker 1: in the minority. Fully, that kind of accent you're sewing
Speaker 1: CNN Monday or Tuesday. Yes, ask for how much? Well?
Speaker 1: I expect because of the way they went after Nicholas
Speaker 1: so viciously, that the claim for his reputational damage will
Speaker 1: be higher than it was against the Washington Post. The
Speaker 1: Post was fifty million dollars for the reputational damage, and
Speaker 1: we can discuss why that figure. Two hundred million punitive damages.
Speaker 1: Punitive damages are designed to punish and to deter change conduct.
Speaker 1: Don't ever do this again. Yes, I would think the
Speaker 1: punitive damage award against CNN that will seek will be
Speaker 1: at least the same two hundred million dollars as it
Speaker 1: was against the Washington Post. But the compensatory damage to
Speaker 1: Nicholas's reputation, that number I expect will be higher. All Right,
Speaker 1: pretty unbelievable. Joining us now he knows a thing or
Speaker 1: two about media. Bill O'Reilly is with us, author of
Speaker 1: the bestseller Killing the s S The Hunt for the
Speaker 1: Worst War Criminals, in history. And by the way I
Speaker 1: understand Billa is a little bit of an announcement to make.
Speaker 1: But before we get to that, you just heard this
Speaker 1: tape of Lynn and the the vile assaults that went
Speaker 1: on for days at CNN without without a single bit
Speaker 1: of fact gathering bill, not one. Well I'm shocked. No,
Speaker 1: you are not stocked to the hall here. I mean
Speaker 1: I'm shocked. You know, Look is a survey out yesterday
Speaker 1: that shows eighty percent of the American public eighty percent,
Speaker 1: including fifty percent of Democrats, do not believe they're getting
Speaker 1: the truth from the American media that says everything. And
Speaker 1: the reason is because and you and I have discussed
Speaker 1: this both on and off the air, six companies now
Speaker 1: control ninety percent of the national news flow. That's vital
Speaker 1: for your listeners to understand. It used to be fifty companies.
Speaker 1: Thirty years ago, fifty companies controlled ninety percent. Now it's
Speaker 1: down to six. So when you have that kind of
Speaker 1: power in the hands of corporate executives who are under
Speaker 1: pressure to maximize profits, then the mandate of journalists, which
Speaker 1: is find the truth. When I paid all that money
Speaker 1: to Boston University to get my master's degree in broadcast journalism.
Speaker 1: The theme was you are to go out in the
Speaker 1: marketplace and find the truth. O'Reilly by the way, you're
Speaker 1: revealing your age, because it's been so many decades now
Speaker 1: that that's not happened, and that was the water gay time. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So CNN is in colossal trouble. Everybody should understand that.
Speaker 1: It's not because of Lynn would. It's not because of
Speaker 1: even the Sandman family, which are that family is going
Speaker 1: to become extre realy wealthy in the next year or two.
Speaker 1: All right, but CNN is in trouble because they've just
Speaker 1: been acquired by AT and T. ATNT is not going
Speaker 1: to do what Tom Warner did and allow CNN to
Speaker 1: be in business to promote liberal causes. That's what the
Speaker 1: CNN is in business to promote liberal cause started under
Speaker 1: its founder Ted Turner, and has continued on a hyper
Speaker 1: agenda now that President Trump's in the White House. AT
Speaker 1: and T is not going to continue that. So what
Speaker 1: we what Lynnwood wants to do is put the network
Speaker 1: on trial. It's not about uh, Nick Sandman, who obviously
Speaker 1: was wrong not only by CNN but the Washington Post
Speaker 1: also being sued. Uh, they're a little bit. Oh, there
Speaker 1: they are going to be. But the end of this,
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, no, there's going to be more down tomorrow. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's all coming right. So when CNN goes on trial,
Speaker 1: and believe me, AT and T will try to settle this.
Speaker 1: They don't want to go in and have Zucker and
Speaker 1: all his merry men be deposed because if they were,
Speaker 1: they could prove that these orders came from the top.
Speaker 1: The kid had to make America great again. Hat, He's
Speaker 1: got to go down. That's it. We don't care what happened.
Speaker 1: We're not going to look at the full videotape. We're
Speaker 1: all going to look at the kid with the hat.
Speaker 1: As soon as the hat was there, then CNN swung
Speaker 1: into action. You know. But can I just add can
Speaker 1: I add a bigger point to this or another additional
Speaker 1: point is Bill, the kid is sixteen years old? Oh
Speaker 1: of course, you know. I mean, you know. And here's
Speaker 1: the amazing thing. Once we got to the truth is
Speaker 1: you see the black Hebrew Israelites and the vile, vicious,
Speaker 1: horrible thing. They were screaming at their kids and getting
Speaker 1: in the kid's face, all of those kids, and it
Speaker 1: was Nicholas Sandman that actually said to his friends, don't respond,
Speaker 1: oh he was. The kid was so good. It was perfect.
Speaker 1: You and I would never have survived that test. Never
Speaker 1: be in prison, sixteen year old O'Reilly and levit forget it.
Speaker 1: It was still be in prison, had a file sentence.
Speaker 1: I get I'd get your cake with a file of work.
Speaker 1: So what you're looking at, though, is such a serious
Speaker 1: lawsuit because Wood knows he can destroy that whole operation.
Speaker 1: Now he can also harm the Washington Post, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter as much because the Post is a niche
Speaker 1: media outlet. All right, it has a circulation. It makes
Speaker 1: money off Washington d C. But that's it. CNN is
Speaker 1: a worldwide operation, and the damage that CNN now does
Speaker 1: to the United States, creating the country as a racist operation,
Speaker 1: which it does every day, is incalculable. I said that
Speaker 1: last night on TV. It's so much of the world
Speaker 1: because of quote CNN International. They have such a perverted, distorted,
Speaker 1: unrealistic and frankly all the impressions of America that are
Speaker 1: just flat out wrong because of CNN International. I mean,
Speaker 1: I was in Vietnam with Fox News. Wasn't on in Vietnam,
Speaker 1: you know, fake news CNN was the only shot you got.
Speaker 1: And I had to watch the Cone hearing that morning,
Speaker 1: and you see the bias all over that place. It's
Speaker 1: what that's been the domestic right, They're foreign operation is
Speaker 1: worse than the domestic operation. But what is? There are
Speaker 1: no standards, okay at CNN. So the guy runs a
Speaker 1: Jeff Zucker is an entertainment guy, all right, and he
Speaker 1: used to be Trump's best friend. You know, I'm writing
Speaker 1: a Trump book. And the relationship between Zucker and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump when they did the Apprentice, it was like they
Speaker 1: were pals. And now Donald Trump's helped to get him
Speaker 1: that job at NBC. You know that. Yeah, So when
Speaker 1: Wood goes in, the attorney for the Salmon family goes
Speaker 1: in and he starts to depose people, why you did
Speaker 1: what you did against Nicholas? And can you imagine a
Speaker 1: jury in Kentucky sitting there listening to this, not gonna
Speaker 1: be two hundred and fifty millions, gonna be five hundred million.
Speaker 1: And by the way, rightly, so that bill, they didn't
Speaker 1: pick up a telephone, They didn't bother to do any
Speaker 1: fact checking. That they don't and the narrative of Trump
Speaker 1: for two years, the Similarly, they don't do any work
Speaker 1: headline from whatever publication BuzzFeed. Let's run with it. Listen
Speaker 1: really quick because I don't have a lot of time,
Speaker 1: and I want you to to your announcement. Yes, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: come back to a national radio. Not going to tell
Speaker 1: you now because well we'll lay it out for you
Speaker 1: next time I talk to you, maybe next week. But
Speaker 1: O'Reilly's coming back to national radio. But I want you
Speaker 1: to give give this hint. It's gonna fill a void.
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't tell you're right, you're not gonna
Speaker 1: let me tell you. I already know the answers I'm
Speaker 1: not allowed to say, but don't say it because they're
Speaker 1: hurting it because we want to be respectful to the
Speaker 1: franchise we're taking over. Um, And that's the hint. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be Newsy, it's gonna be every day and
Speaker 1: good day. It's coming up. Oh that was the biggest
Speaker 1: hint so far. All right, Bill, O'Reilly, thank you, We
Speaker 1: appreciate you being always enjoy talking to you. Sewan, thank you.
Speaker 1: Stay right here for our final news round up and
Speaker 1: information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: show there can be no separate college admission system for
Speaker 1: the wealthy, and they'll add that there will not be
Speaker 1: a criminal justice system either. Every year, hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of hard working, talented students strive for admission to elite schools.
Speaker 1: As every parent knows, these students work harder and harder
Speaker 1: every year in a system that appears to grow more
Speaker 1: and more competitive every year, and that system is a
Speaker 1: zero sum game. For every student admitted through fraud, an honest,
Speaker 1: genuinely talented student was rejected. The parents charged today, despite
Speaker 1: already being able to give their children every legitimate advantage
Speaker 1: in the college admissions game, instead shows to corrupt and
Speaker 1: illegally manipulate the system for their benefit. We're not talking
Speaker 1: about donating a building so that a school's more likely
Speaker 1: to take your son or daughter. We're talking about deception
Speaker 1: and fraud. Fake test scores, fake athletic credentials, fake photographs,
Speaker 1: bribed college officials. Wow, the biggest an example of admissions
Speaker 1: fraud to some of the country's most elite colleges um
Speaker 1: pretty unbelievable. This is basically how this thing worked. It
Speaker 1: was so you have this guy named William Rick Singer
Speaker 1: and that by the way, was the Attorney General Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: His name is Andrew Lelling. And what happened is Singer
Speaker 1: would would tell these parents, well, first he helped these
Speaker 1: wealthy clients illegally boost the scores of their kids and
Speaker 1: cheat on the ACT SATs et cetera, et cetera in
Speaker 1: varying ways, and told the parents to seek quote extra
Speaker 1: time for the kids to take the SA t ACT tests,
Speaker 1: including by faking learning disabilities. Now I know a little
Speaker 1: bit about this because I have my older sister has
Speaker 1: as a school counselor, and there are real issues with
Speaker 1: kids that are for example, if you have ADHD or
Speaker 1: ADD or something like that. Um, they sometimes you can
Speaker 1: apply for more time to take the test because your
Speaker 1: ability to focus is not at the same level. And
Speaker 1: it's a real thing for these kids. Okay, so he's
Speaker 1: telling them to lie about that, I guess to a doctor.
Speaker 1: And once the kids get the extra time, then Singer
Speaker 1: would tell the parents change the exam location from the
Speaker 1: kids high schools where I guess they're known to one
Speaker 1: of the test centers that he knew controlled in either
Speaker 1: say West Hollywood or Houston, you know, as an excuse
Speaker 1: for changing the location, he suggested, saying the kids would
Speaker 1: be out of town attending a wedding or a bar mitzvah,
Speaker 1: and then Singer would bribe the administrator administrators. So he's
Speaker 1: picking specific test sites where I guess he had relationships
Speaker 1: with the administrators of the tests and let a co conspirator,
Speaker 1: usually a Harvard grad student, help the kids cheat on
Speaker 1: the exam. And then you know, either he or others
Speaker 1: would take the tests for the kids. In other words,
Speaker 1: either the Harvard grad stude would take the test and
Speaker 1: put the or just give the kids the answers they
Speaker 1: needed or correct the wrong answer. After the kids turned
Speaker 1: in the test and the test center administrators then sent
Speaker 1: the exams back to the College Board sat and Act
Speaker 1: for official grading, which then raised scores significantly, and I
Speaker 1: got schools listened. I'm living through They've been living through
Speaker 1: this now for a long time, because you know, if
Speaker 1: you have a kid that's an eleventh grade like I do,
Speaker 1: it's it's front and center in everybody's mind, and eleventh
Speaker 1: grade is like the hardest grade for kids all the time.
Speaker 1: And then of course, you know the idea in the
Speaker 1: other case, Laurie laugh Fan's case, you know, they actually
Speaker 1: took the daughter was not an athlete at all, and
Speaker 1: they photoshopped a picture of the daughter onto the body
Speaker 1: of an athlete and started posting it all over social
Speaker 1: media as if she was a crew player in the
Speaker 1: case that the US attorney made, or they do it
Speaker 1: with the soccer player. Linda is shaking her head the
Speaker 1: whole time. You think I've gotten this all wrong. I
Speaker 1: haven't even given my opinion yet, you'd think I have
Speaker 1: this all wrong? Why you know? I just I think
Speaker 1: it's a bunch of bologney, I really do. I mean
Speaker 1: the feigned indignants and the shock over this. Give me
Speaker 1: a break, scrap's been going on for years. Well hang,
Speaker 1: I'm saying, well, you know about legacy admissions. I mean,
Speaker 1: if your mother and father and grandmother or father and
Speaker 1: your grandfather and your uncle all went to one school,
Speaker 1: the advantage you have is massive over any other applicant.
Speaker 1: It's called you know, legacy admissions goes on all the time.
Speaker 1: Usually it is tied to how much money the family
Speaker 1: donated over the years. That's I mean the endowments at
Speaker 1: these schools or sometimes in the billions and billions of dollars, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And well, then those kids, because of their name, their family,
Speaker 1: they have an advantage. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: everybody gets an advantage. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the end of the day of the day, everybody's going
Speaker 1: to get over because of something. So I can throw
Speaker 1: a basketball, I can throw a football, I can play
Speaker 1: the yobo, I know how to do across. I need
Speaker 1: more time on my test because I got adhd, I
Speaker 1: got add I feel sad today. My dog died, my
Speaker 1: cat didn't eat her food. Whatever the freaking reason is.
Speaker 1: This is what these people do to me. This is
Speaker 1: not worthy of our time. So you know that I
Speaker 1: have been of my kids have been you know, athletes
Speaker 1: since they were seven years old. I mean I've been
Speaker 1: all over the country. You know, my son's been all
Speaker 1: over the world. They play in his sport. And I
Speaker 1: could but let's just interrupt you for one moment. Yeah,
Speaker 1: your kids play tennis. What do people? I wasn't going
Speaker 1: to say that, but that's fine. First of all, you
Speaker 1: talk about tennis all the time. This is not a surprise, okay.
Speaker 1: Second of all, when people play tennis, one thing comes
Speaker 1: to mind. Money. How do I know this because I'm
Speaker 1: from Philadelphia, and they have the Arthur Ash. They have
Speaker 1: the Arthur Ash Center, and they used to take all
Speaker 1: of us poor kids down to play tennis so we
Speaker 1: could see how the other side lived, learn a little
Speaker 1: bit of tennis. YadA, YadA, YadA. There's not so you know,
Speaker 1: I've actually donated a pretty good amount of money over
Speaker 1: the year, right, But that's not my point. My point
Speaker 1: is to two separate charities to actually make tennis available
Speaker 1: for everybody. Right. But my point is is that that's
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong with that. You know, if you have
Speaker 1: more money and you can do more for your children.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying do criminal activity. What's the difference. What's
Speaker 1: the difference? You give the money. You're gonna let me talk.
Speaker 1: You asked for my opinion, But this is the difference.
Speaker 1: You're you're missing so much here. Well, for example, my
Speaker 1: daughter is in eleventh grade and my son that was
Speaker 1: the same thing. Every single one of the kids she
Speaker 1: grew up playing this sport with. Every one of them
Speaker 1: has been recruited. Not one wasn't. They all were recruited.
Speaker 1: They all got you know, picked for their athletic ability. Now,
Speaker 1: if you add other sports to it, you add baseball, basketball, football.
Speaker 1: You know, first of all, sports enhanced the university experience.
Speaker 1: If you go to the University of Alabama, you go
Speaker 1: to Clemson, UM, you go Notre Dame. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you something, those sports not only financially enrich the institutions,
Speaker 1: but they make the experience of the other kids that
Speaker 1: are there because of academic merit so much better because
Speaker 1: they all love going to the games and cheering on
Speaker 1: their team. So here's here's the thing they lowered. They
Speaker 1: don't lower the admission standards academically for the athletes out,
Speaker 1: but there's a give and take to that. Do you
Speaker 1: know what I mean? No, I think it's a bunch
Speaker 1: of crap. Like I said at the beginning of this argument,
Speaker 1: So like when I went to school, right, how many
Speaker 1: master's degrees? I have two? But I'm the first person
Speaker 1: in my family to go to college. My mother went
Speaker 1: to college. Aft to me, now, having said that, I
Speaker 1: had to go at night, I had to work all day.
Speaker 1: I had a very different college experience and a lot
Speaker 1: of other people because of my financial background, I had
Speaker 1: paid my own way. And I feel you totally get it.
Speaker 1: But the long and the short of it is, we
Speaker 1: all try to do more for our children, right, we
Speaker 1: don't want our kids to have the same struggles that
Speaker 1: we had. YadA, YadA, YadA. So a lot of these
Speaker 1: kids who are very, very good at sports that come
Speaker 1: from affluent families, they don't go to regular school. They
Speaker 1: have private tutors, they have private tennis instructors. They spend
Speaker 1: X amount of hours a day playing tennis, x amount
Speaker 1: of hours a day, do a math history, YadA YadA,
Speaker 1: and listen, if you can afford it and you can
Speaker 1: do it, more power to you. I would do it
Speaker 1: for my kid too. You know, you can't hate on
Speaker 1: people doing well, at least I don't. The problem that
Speaker 1: I have is a sudden indignation like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: I can't believe they paid for this. It's horriball. I'm like, dude,
Speaker 1: that is no difference. Difference. What's the difference? Okay? Because
Speaker 1: let's take the case of the kids that on their
Speaker 1: own get the great SAT score like me, uh huh okay,
Speaker 1: So there is a zero sum game here. In other words,
Speaker 1: there is a certain number of slots available for kids
Speaker 1: that are academically hard working and gifted. Okay, And even
Speaker 1: then you don't hang on then at least the playing
Speaker 1: field is more fair if you take out the whole
Speaker 1: legacy admission part of it, et et. Now on the
Speaker 1: athletic side, you know if these there's only X number
Speaker 1: of slots for every sport in every school. So no,
Speaker 1: there's not. Here's why. Let me tell you why you're
Speaker 1: all wrong. They're only for example, you're only allowed X
Speaker 1: number of signings NCA rules for any sport in any right.
Speaker 1: So what they'll do is they'll bring in another kid
Speaker 1: and they'll say, well, we'll take them earlier, we'll bench
Speaker 1: him for this year, or we'll go into this and
Speaker 1: then we'll bring them onto here. There's always a work around. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you, but that would mean that that year,
Speaker 1: one less person that was deserving they get their spot
Speaker 1: taken away. And you know what that's called. That's called life.
Speaker 1: Life is not fair. Life is not fair, and things
Speaker 1: are difficult, and at the end of the day, you
Speaker 1: have to know. Let me give you an example. If
Speaker 1: you're playing if you're playing baseball, basketball, tennis, crew, which
Speaker 1: is I actually think I've never played the clarinet. Okay,
Speaker 1: and let me tell you how it works. To become
Speaker 1: a recruited athlete. You know, you can go back to
Speaker 1: when your kids, these kids are are eight, nine and
Speaker 1: ten years old and see that they've been playing the
Speaker 1: whole time, whatever sport it is. Anybody that looks at
Speaker 1: you throwing a baseball, shooting a basketball, hitting a tennis ball,
Speaker 1: they're gonna know in five seconds whether you're a real player.
Speaker 1: Let me sum this up for you so that you
Speaker 1: understand from where I come. Okay, I'm not understanding. I
Speaker 1: don't care how you want to look at this. At
Speaker 1: the end of the day, which is where I started.
Speaker 1: That's my opening line. I'm going to finish with it.
Speaker 1: There are all sorts of inaccuracies and discrepancies that come
Speaker 1: with applying to college. Now, what these people did was wrong.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying what they did was right. So when
Speaker 1: we look at this and we and we take a
Speaker 1: close look at what's happening here, we also need to
Speaker 1: take a close look at all the other inequities and
Speaker 1: then we can have an honest and real conversation about
Speaker 1: the overpriced experience we call college. You don't see, I
Speaker 1: actually think there's a bigger problem with the legacy issue.
Speaker 1: If you want my opinion, you know, the only thing
Speaker 1: I can say and the only thing I can say.
Speaker 1: And you know, I have one good friend of mine
Speaker 1: whose son plays at UVA. You know, we've been tennis
Speaker 1: acquaintances the entire time. We had sons the same age,
Speaker 1: we had daughters the same age. They competed all throughout juniors.
Speaker 1: And you know, every time I see him, I hate
Speaker 1: the sport. I hate this. I would tell him because
Speaker 1: it's torture watching your kids play. I hate it. And
Speaker 1: you know he laughs at me all the time, and
Speaker 1: you know we would just you know, it was kind
Speaker 1: of became just a long joke. It's I am the
Speaker 1: amount of effort, time, money, everything traveling that goes into
Speaker 1: the years. You can't be a You have to decide
Speaker 1: if you want your kids to go unless they're so
Speaker 1: off the hook naturally talented. If you want them to
Speaker 1: go to college on some athletic um scholarship or or admissions,
Speaker 1: you have to start when you're seven or eight and
Speaker 1: focus pretty much now on one sport. Everything is specialized.
Speaker 1: And or you could have just saved doing the money
Speaker 1: those years and put it into a five twenty nine
Speaker 1: college fine and paid for college. Okay, but you're not
Speaker 1: going to get into the college. Maybe that you want.
Speaker 1: That's the point. I don't know how much money are
Speaker 1: you saving. Well, the way it works is this that
Speaker 1: you for You know, because of Title nine, there are
Speaker 1: more scholarships for women in sports. Because of Title nine,
Speaker 1: those scholarships are more available. Usually colleges for men's tennis
Speaker 1: have very few because in that case, you know, the
Speaker 1: scholarships are often deemed for the football team, which would
Speaker 1: be mostly males that are playing. Usually most schools have
Speaker 1: a male and female basketball program, so that's equel. But
Speaker 1: they got to make up for it some way. But
Speaker 1: sixty kids on a football you're making my argument, yes
Speaker 1: you are. You have to look at all of the inequities.
Speaker 1: So we can take a look at Laurie Laughlin and
Speaker 1: Felicity what's her name Hoffman whatever. I mean. The bottom
Speaker 1: line is these two people are just two people of
Speaker 1: the fifty that they caught right now. But there's all
Speaker 1: sorts of discrepancies and inequities that have been going on
Speaker 1: for a very long time in this college debate, and
Speaker 1: they're going to keep on going. And this is just
Speaker 1: one example of the kind of nonsense that people do
Speaker 1: to get into a liberal indoctrination that you have to
Speaker 1: work yourself out of after four years and then if
Speaker 1: you decide to go to grad school another two and
Speaker 1: two after that. Look, you don't. Look you're making some
Speaker 1: valid points. I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you. Something
Speaker 1: walked in that college, but the amount of effort and
Speaker 1: fraud that went into this. I mean to literally photoshop
Speaker 1: a picture of your kid playing a sport they never played,
Speaker 1: and then they get chosen and there are limited amounts
Speaker 1: of slots available for those particular sports crew and soccer
Speaker 1: in this particular case, volleyball in another particular case, then
Speaker 1: that does mean that someone else that maybe was, you know,
Speaker 1: on the edge. The great thing is for all of
Speaker 1: these kids, and you know, I would advise us to
Speaker 1: any parent. You know, it didn't matter if you were
Speaker 1: ranked you know, one through a hundred. You know in
Speaker 1: your section, all those hundred kids, for the most at
Speaker 1: least the top sixty in every section is gonna get
Speaker 1: into a college, a better college because of the whatever
Speaker 1: sport they're playing. Because I've seen it over and over again.
Speaker 1: You know, if you have a kid that's ranked in
Speaker 1: the top five in the in your division and as
Speaker 1: a nationally ranked player, then if the odds are even better.
Speaker 1: But every year they have tennis recruiting dot com dot com.
Speaker 1: You can literally, you know, follow a kid's career. Maybe
Speaker 1: had a bad year, but that year that kid had
Speaker 1: an injury. But you see, as interesting as it is
Speaker 1: for us to try to save the world and all
Speaker 1: of the college problems we have to go to break,
Speaker 1: that's so annoying. All right, take a quick break. We'll
Speaker 1: come back your calls on the other side. We're here
Speaker 1: today to announce charges in the largest college admission and
Speaker 1: scam ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice. We've charged
Speaker 1: fifty people nationwide participating in a conspiracy that involved first
Speaker 1: cheating on college entrance exams, meaning the SAT and the ACT,
Speaker 1: and second securing admission to elite colleges by bribing coaches
Speaker 1: at those schools to accept certain students under false pretenses.
Speaker 1: In return for bribes, these coaches agreed to pretend that
Speaker 1: certain applicants were recruited competitive athletes, when in fact the
Speaker 1: applicants were not, as the coaches knew the students athletic
Speaker 1: credentials had been fabricated. Overall, today we have charged three
Speaker 1: people who organized these scams two SAT or ACT exam administrators,
Speaker 1: one exam procter, one college administrator, nine coaches at elite schools,
Speaker 1: and thirty three parents who paid enormous sums to guarantee
Speaker 1: their children's admis to certain schools through the use of
Speaker 1: bribes and fake academic and athletic credentials. A central defendant
Speaker 1: in the scheme, WILLIAMS. Singer, will plead guilty today to
Speaker 1: charges of racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering, conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud
Speaker 1: the United States, and obstruction of justice. Singer allegedly ran
Speaker 1: a college counseling service and something called the Key Worldwide Foundation.
Speaker 1: Between roughly twenty eleven and twenty eighteen. Wealthy parents paid
Speaker 1: Singer about twenty five million dollars in total to guarantee
Speaker 1: their children's admission to elite schools including Yale, Georgetown, Stanford,
Speaker 1: the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, UCLA,
Speaker 1: and Wake Forest. Beyond the SAT and ACT scam, parents
Speaker 1: also paid Singer money that he then used to bribe
Speaker 1: coaches and administrators to designate the children as recruited athletes
Speaker 1: for various schools in return for bribes coaches would use
Speaker 1: slots that their schools had allocated to them for the
Speaker 1: recruitment of athletes instead to take the applicants Singer had identified.
Speaker 1: The Singer worked with the parents to fabricate impressive athletic
Speaker 1: profiles for their kids, including fake athletic credentials or honors,
Speaker 1: or fake participation in elite club teams. In many instances,
Speaker 1: Singer helped parents take staged photographs of their children engaged
Speaker 1: in particular sports. Other times, Singer and his associates use
Speaker 1: stock photos that they pulled off the Internet, sometimes photoshopping
Speaker 1: the face of the child onto the picture of the
Speaker 1: athlete and submitting it in support of the applications for
Speaker 1: these children to elite schools. In one example, the head
Speaker 1: women's soccer coach at Yale, in exchange for four hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, accepted an applicant as a recruit for the
Speaker 1: Yale women's team, despite knowing that the applicant did not
Speaker 1: even play competitive soccer. The student was in fact admitted,
Speaker 1: and afterward the students family paid Singer one point to
Speaker 1: million dollars for that service. In addition to the standardized
Speaker 1: test scam and the college admission scam. Singer also arranged
Speaker 1: for someone to take online high school classes in place
Speaker 1: of certain students so that those students could submit higher
Speaker 1: grades as part of their overall college application packages. All right,
Speaker 1: so there's again we're playing the Andrew Lelling is his name.
Speaker 1: He's a US attorney of Massachusetts. And you know the scheme,
Speaker 1: this college admission scheme, the worst in history. You got
Speaker 1: fifty people charged in this, thirty three parents, including well
Speaker 1: Laurie Laughlin and what's named Felicity Huffman charge a Wafflin. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like some people say my name Linda mclock Lynda McLaughlin.
Speaker 1: The second would be wrong with regard to me, but
Speaker 1: it's correct with regard to her. Okay, And so thirty
Speaker 1: three parents, college sports coaches, associates of this guy, this
Speaker 1: mastermind of this whole scam, Rick Singer. Twenty five million
Speaker 1: dollars in total bribes paid out by the parents. Individual
Speaker 1: payments ranged from two hundred thousand or six point five million.
Speaker 1: And you know we're talking about you know, Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, Well,
Speaker 1: you know a lot of big schools involved here. And
Speaker 1: after a ten on the investigation and faking you know,
Speaker 1: SAT tests or whatever, they're doing. It's it's just pretty outrageous.
Speaker 1: The more importantly than on the athletic side, you know,
Speaker 1: taking pictures and photoshopping kids that never played a sport ever,
Speaker 1: and then kids, you know, getting into the school based
Speaker 1: on an athletic scholarship or athletic or being on an
Speaker 1: athletic team when the kid never played the sport and
Speaker 1: that would take away a slot. I'm a kid that
Speaker 1: would otherwise have made it, you know. The only thing
Speaker 1: I'd say, because I've lived this and you know, I'll
Speaker 1: be honest. Over time, I got to know that you
Speaker 1: see all the same parents most of the weekends, you know,
Speaker 1: except when you're traveling nationally, you don't know. Maybe some
Speaker 1: of them, how do you know they're their parents, Maybe
Speaker 1: they're standings, maybe they got paid to be there. Right,
Speaker 1: we stop at these attractions, please the you know, everybody
Speaker 1: knows everybody. And the amazing thing is is that the
Speaker 1: kids that have gone through that journey, starting at seven
Speaker 1: or eight, they all end up being recruited, every one
Speaker 1: of them at the ones that stick with it all throughout,
Speaker 1: you know, junior high school for example, and they all
Speaker 1: find a good school, which is you know, because it
Speaker 1: becomes such a grind. You know, the kids got to
Speaker 1: practice every day, the kids doesn't want to practice every day,
Speaker 1: the kid doesn't want to put on sunscreen when they're
Speaker 1: in Florida, et cetera. I mean, it's it becomes a
Speaker 1: real grind at the end of the day. You pay
Speaker 1: a price early, but the payoff is huge now most recently,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to sit here and talk about what
Speaker 1: I've been going through with my daughter, but you know
Speaker 1: the schools that have been recruiting her, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: and you know where she decided. I mean, she felt
Speaker 1: so good about every letter, every call, every visit that
Speaker 1: it just it was a huge payoff for her, you know,
Speaker 1: for her hard work. And I've watched this happen with
Speaker 1: kid after kid after kid. You know, my daughter, my son,
Speaker 1: and all their friends have had that experience, and it's
Speaker 1: very cool to see, you know, even though you're competitive
Speaker 1: maybe when you're in juniors together, but when you get
Speaker 1: older and a little more mature and you realize this
Speaker 1: is not Wimbledon, you begin to realize, you know that
Speaker 1: these are all really good kids that have been through
Speaker 1: a very similar hard experience, and you like them all.
Speaker 1: I mean, I kind of like all these kids that
Speaker 1: I've gotten to know, and so they and all of
Speaker 1: that work is chronicled. And Alan Dershooz brought up a
Speaker 1: point last night that you know, the schools kind of
Speaker 1: have a little bit of an obligation to say, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's look at the history. Did this person really play
Speaker 1: the sport, because there's going to be a history of
Speaker 1: the kid playing the sport, usually going back before their
Speaker 1: ten and because that's what it takes to get to
Speaker 1: that level. There are kids. It's amazing how things changed.
Speaker 1: When I was growing up, I played ice hockey, I
Speaker 1: was a pitcher in baseball, I played basketball. They made
Speaker 1: me play soccer in high school. I didn't want to
Speaker 1: play soccer. I hated soccer. And I ended up being
Speaker 1: a center half back and I hated it because that's
Speaker 1: more running than anyone else on the team. And I
Speaker 1: just hated running for the sake of running. But they
Speaker 1: made me the center half back. I'd rather be the
Speaker 1: goalie and just stand there. But we played all sports.
Speaker 1: It's not how it is you specialize. You know, Once
Speaker 1: a kid is identified in high school is to say
Speaker 1: a good baseball player or a good football player or
Speaker 1: junior high school. Even that kid then is told usually
Speaker 1: by some smart mentor who's watched the knows the whole
Speaker 1: experience and being told, Okay, this is what you can do,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna get into a great college because you're talented.
Speaker 1: You know, if you put the work in, you're gonna
Speaker 1: get there. So it's it's pretty amazing actually the whole process.
Speaker 1: And I get, you know, look to my asking that
Speaker 1: they put these people in jail for twenty years. No,
Speaker 1: but I think that there's such outrage because most people
Speaker 1: feel this is the you know, this is a rig system,
Speaker 1: and there's angst and there's anger about it, and a
Speaker 1: lot of it's justifiable. But I would say that the
Speaker 1: bigger scandal is, you know, the whole legacy issue. And
Speaker 1: we know in some cases where you know, if a
Speaker 1: kid's mother, father, grandma, grandpa went to some big school,
Speaker 1: the odds of that they're kid getting in or phenomenally greater.
Speaker 1: And that's probably the odds go up even more if
Speaker 1: the family you know, has donated millions of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars to the school, and people do that because they
Speaker 1: love the school. You know, I didn't have the college
Speaker 1: experience that we're talking about in this case, and Linda,
Speaker 1: you didn't have it either. When I went to college,
Speaker 1: I was working full time. I was tending bar some
Speaker 1: nights still four thirty in the morning, and I had
Speaker 1: at eight o'clock Monday morning writing class for example. I
Speaker 1: remember that particular class at a Delphi and then I
Speaker 1: went to NYU. I was still tending bar on the
Speaker 1: weekends to pay my bills because I didn't have scholarships.
Speaker 1: I didn't I didn't take a penny for my parents.
Speaker 1: I paid it all myself. You know, people write Hannity
Speaker 1: or a college dropout. Well, Hannity couldn't afford it. He
Speaker 1: went back to school on three separate occasions. And I
Speaker 1: think all told, I have little over three years finished,
Speaker 1: and I just I didn't have the money. I didn't
Speaker 1: have the money to pay for it, and I didn't
Speaker 1: want to ask any buddy for it. So I don't
Speaker 1: regret my decision. And I study more now, to be honest,
Speaker 1: than I ever studied it in my life. As you
Speaker 1: know and you've seen and you watch every day and
Speaker 1: with every show we knew you want to add one
Speaker 1: last phraise I can sell before we get to the Well, listen,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm arguing with people in our office about
Speaker 1: this right now and here in the studio. I mean,
Speaker 1: Ethan's on my side, Kylie's on my side. I don't
Speaker 1: know where Jason is on this. I'm so surprised. I
Speaker 1: really am you on my side? Well, I mean the
Speaker 1: whole thing about people being outraged. I've been watching college
Speaker 1: sports forever and the stuff that athletes get away with.
Speaker 1: I see it all the time. But if you commit fraud,
Speaker 1: you should be hang Jason. Those a lot of kids
Speaker 1: that get in on their sportability. Sports adds to and
Speaker 1: enriches the entire school experience for the kids that get
Speaker 1: in academically. They they were talking about fraud. I mean,
Speaker 1: how many schools. I'm not talking about fraud. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about athletics in general. We're talking so what they lower
Speaker 1: their standards for, you know, tennis, baseball, basketball, football, or
Speaker 1: whatever whatever they do. I know in many cases that
Speaker 1: the schools don't sacrifice the education. They invest in the
Speaker 1: athletes education knowing that they're not at the same academic
Speaker 1: level as some of their their fellow students. You were
Speaker 1: to academic standards, do you agree with that. Do you
Speaker 1: know how much money football brings to the University of Alabama.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm absolutely Notre Dame didn't want to hire urban
Speaker 1: Meyer because urban Meyer wanted to lower their academic standards,
Speaker 1: so he went to Florida. Yeah, because because Nick Saban
Speaker 1: doesn't really give a rip about what a kid's score is.
Speaker 1: What he's gonna tell the parents is we're gonna get
Speaker 1: him the help he needs to academically pass so he
Speaker 1: can stay on the team and let us win. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but honestly, how many but football? How many going to
Speaker 1: class look at sports, but every other kid that gets
Speaker 1: to go to the football game and share their school
Speaker 1: on it creates school spirit and unity. It's huge. It
Speaker 1: really helps their betterment when they have to go to
Speaker 1: the job market because they have a good school spirit.
Speaker 1: It doesn't do anything. This is but the whole idea
Speaker 1: is to at college to you know how everybody I
Speaker 1: know that's ever graduated from whatever school it is, and
Speaker 1: again I didn't have that experience. They're so proud of
Speaker 1: that that school. They love that school, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: it could be. Okay, so let me jump on you.
Speaker 1: I agree with this part of it. So I love
Speaker 1: like anybody who listens to the show knows, I can't
Speaker 1: tell you a single thing about sports. I don't know
Speaker 1: what's happening. I don't know what season it is, sports again, spots,
Speaker 1: I don't know anything. However, I love all of the
Speaker 1: fun stuff that goes with sports. I love how people
Speaker 1: get really excited. I like the potties. I like to
Speaker 1: make the dips and the food and have the drinks.
Speaker 1: It's fun. But I don't know what's happening. I have
Speaker 1: no idea why we're there. I'm just happy we're all together.
Speaker 1: Anything that brings people together in a fun environment, I'm down. Okay.
Speaker 1: You know what it does. It takes the college experience
Speaker 1: every any college that has any successful athletic program, it
Speaker 1: takes that experience for every student. Almost universally. It might
Speaker 1: be five kids in their dorm that night, that day,
Speaker 1: and that night that are you know, um, you know,
Speaker 1: not going to the game. But everybody loves me and
Speaker 1: they're proud of their team. They're proud I go to
Speaker 1: Alabama because we got the best football team in the country,
Speaker 1: or Clemsing because we got the best football team in
Speaker 1: the country. They love it. Now, so some of the
Speaker 1: athletes did not meeting the same academic standards. But but
Speaker 1: they're bringing something else to the school, a talent that
Speaker 1: they have developed throughout their youth. Listen, they don't have
Speaker 1: a lot of time here. I think what the team
Speaker 1: is saying here, and and I did not pay them
Speaker 1: to get on my side. I just want to say that,
Speaker 1: for the record, there's no fraud happening in the studio. However,
Speaker 1: I think what we're saying is we just don't agree
Speaker 1: that this one moment, as corrupt as it is, there
Speaker 1: are so many others that's been going on for so long.
Speaker 1: This is one highlighted incident. You know, there's all really
Speaker 1: Legacy is one of them. I got it right, all right.
Speaker 1: That's going to wrap things up for today, Big Hannity. Tonight,
Speaker 1: we have an update on this college admissions story scam
Speaker 1: and the biggest in the country apparently Laurie Laughlin in
Speaker 1: court today. We'll have the latest on that the President
Speaker 1: taking a strong leadership role on the issue of the
Speaker 1: Boeing seven thirty seven. We have more deep state information
Speaker 1: we got on Lisa Page today. We'll break that tonight.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, cowardly Schiff vows more investigations, nine Eastern Box News.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us, see it tonight, back here
Speaker 1: tomorrow s