Speaker 1: All right, glad you with us. You know, there comes
Speaker 1: a point in everybody's life. I'm mare's hoole. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna take it anymore. I'm not at that point. But
Speaker 1: it is getting really, really, really difficult to hold back.
Speaker 1: What is just an anger that I have at what
Speaker 1: the mob and the media and the Democrats are doing
Speaker 1: to the country. It is they are so detached from
Speaker 1: any objective truth, fundamental fairness, honesty, intellectual honesty, intellectual curiosity,
Speaker 1: on and common sense reason. It is they're void of
Speaker 1: all of it. And I don't care if it's you know,
Speaker 1: even you know bagdaddy. They can't praise the president for
Speaker 1: killing the world's number one most evil brutal terrorist and
Speaker 1: killing the guy's likely successor in the process of all this.
Speaker 1: They can't even bother. They're not going to pay any
Speaker 1: attention to Caleb Mueller's dad praising the president for leaving
Speaker 1: Democrats in the dark about the al Bagh Daddy raid
Speaker 1: because this mission was named after his humanitarian daughter, who
Speaker 1: was brutally killed after being raped by This isis evil,
Speaker 1: soob I mean, you know, it's it is beyond anything
Speaker 1: that I have ever witnessed in the thirty one years
Speaker 1: that I have now publicly been speaking out about politics
Speaker 1: on radio and now the twenty fourth year at the
Speaker 1: Fox News Channel. I've never I've never witnessed anything this ugly, twisted, sick,
Speaker 1: and I've never witnessed a let You have to suspend
Speaker 1: all adherence to truth, reality, reason, common sense. You have
Speaker 1: to apply the most glaring double standards to do and
Speaker 1: to be a Democrat today, and it seems like it
Speaker 1: is just taken over. You talk about mass hypnosis or
Speaker 1: a psychotic shift in thinking, but it is real. It's
Speaker 1: as real as anything I think I've ever seen in
Speaker 1: my life. You wonder sometimes how people could just lose it.
Speaker 1: You know, there is this phenomenon of cultures and societies,
Speaker 1: you know, where the people become brainwashed and doctrinated, mindless,
Speaker 1: thoughtless robots, and they just regurgitate and repeat whatever the
Speaker 1: line of the leaders of the madness tell them to repeat.
Speaker 1: And you wonder, how can that happen? And it's happened
Speaker 1: again and again throughout history, and it's pretty scary that
Speaker 1: it keeps happening. You know, all this talk about Baghdaddy,
Speaker 1: is there anybody out there in the Democratic Party that's
Speaker 1: gonna say thank you, good job, mister President. I know
Speaker 1: that's a stretch, right, Piers Morgan. Literally they're shaming themselves
Speaker 1: and they don't seem to be shame of bull if
Speaker 1: that makes any sense. This was an incredible successful the operation.
Speaker 1: The world is better off, it's safer, more secure today.
Speaker 1: You know, Kamala Harris, the best she could do is
Speaker 1: it was like, oh, his comments, he was acting like
Speaker 1: a you know, he's commenting on a video game. That's
Speaker 1: all you can muster. You know. The austere intellectual, as
Speaker 1: the Washington Post said, dies at age forty eight, that's
Speaker 1: not who this guy was. He was a radical, sick, deranged,
Speaker 1: evil Islamist that killed hundreds of thousands, that inspired an
Speaker 1: instructed terror around the world, that literally would chop people's
Speaker 1: heads off him and his henchman and burn people alive
Speaker 1: in cages and I guess take joy out of doing it.
Speaker 1: That is the evil that was destroyed this weekend. But
Speaker 1: the mp MPR is praising Baghdaddy is he was a
Speaker 1: real leader, a movement we've never seen before. Wow. And
Speaker 1: on top of the austere intellectual the Washington you have
Speaker 1: a Washington Post columnist, Hey The assertion that Baghdaddy died
Speaker 1: as a coward was in any case contradicted by the
Speaker 1: fact that he would rather than be captured. He blew
Speaker 1: himself up. What that's the coward in him? What part
Speaker 1: of that don't you understand? Have to delete that fake
Speaker 1: news CNN the forty one most shocking lines from Trump's
Speaker 1: Baghdaddy announcement. They are so hung up on two things
Speaker 1: that number one, the President didn't tell Pelosi and the corrupt,
Speaker 1: compromised cowards shift the congenital liar that he is, and
Speaker 1: why should he because none of them can keep their
Speaker 1: mouth shut. We've never had in a moment in history
Speaker 1: where a president's conversations with prime ministers and presidents was
Speaker 1: being leaked and released to the public. But they're upset
Speaker 1: about that. They're also upset about the president said he
Speaker 1: he died after running into a dead end tunnel, whimpering
Speaker 1: and crying and streaming all the way. He died in
Speaker 1: a vicious, violent way, as a coward, running and crying, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry it offends you. Then you've got area
Speaker 1: fifty one Rosvo Rachel Manow's MSDNC channels. You know that
Speaker 1: this raid shows flaws in Trump's foreign policy. It happened
Speaker 1: despite of him, and that's pretty much the entire media.
Speaker 1: Jamie Lee Curtis, he may have died a coward at
Speaker 1: real Donald Trump at all. Living things suffer when they're
Speaker 1: blown up. Oh we're supposed to feel bad that he suffered.
Speaker 1: The murderer died. I mean imagine saying this, and I
Speaker 1: don't like Hitler analogies, never use them, but it's mass
Speaker 1: murder on that scale. It's evil. On that scale of evil.
Speaker 1: You don't have a conscience and a soul if you're
Speaker 1: just gonna cut people's heads off, you don't like and
Speaker 1: disagree with, or burn people and get pleasure out of
Speaker 1: watching them burn to death after you set them a
Speaker 1: blaze in a cage or that you literally wipe out
Speaker 1: the pretty much the large portions of the UCD Christian
Speaker 1: community in northern Iraq, and you capture women and children
Speaker 1: and use them as sex slaves. That also was part
Speaker 1: of the m of isis. So you got that madness
Speaker 1: all unfolding. Then we've got the impeachment insanity madness that
Speaker 1: is happening as well. Now you have to suspend. This
Speaker 1: is how hypocritical you must be if you are a
Speaker 1: member of the MOB or a Democrat, you have to
Speaker 1: just forget that. You know, you have to believe that
Speaker 1: Russian interference is wrong, but only if it's Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You can't ever talk about the bought and paid for
Speaker 1: dirty Russian dossier of Hillary Clinton. You can be outraged
Speaker 1: over obstruction of justice that never happened with Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: but you then have to forget the subpoenad, emails, deleted,
Speaker 1: bleach bit Hammer's devices, no simcard. You have to just
Speaker 1: not talk about that part. You have to be okay
Speaker 1: with the dirty Russian dossier, which we now know is unverifiable,
Speaker 1: and the up to five warnings given to the DOJ
Speaker 1: and superpatriots like James Comey saying don't trust Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: saying in a FISA application it's verified because it says
Speaker 1: verified on top of it. Not verify it, but use
Speaker 1: it any way to take away the civil liberties of
Speaker 1: one American and then find a way to spy on
Speaker 1: a candidate for president, then a transition team, and then
Speaker 1: the president. And you have to be okay with all
Speaker 1: of that, or the weaponizing by only the one percent
Speaker 1: in the intelligence community. The other ninety nine percent keep
Speaker 1: us safe and secure in a very dark, evil world
Speaker 1: today against enemies foreign and domestic. But the one percent
Speaker 1: that will weaponize these powerful tools we entrust to them
Speaker 1: and turn it on a president to spy on him
Speaker 1: an outsource, spying to our allies, to circumvent American laws.
Speaker 1: That is a big deal because you don't have a constitution.
Speaker 1: You have a police state at that point, and America
Speaker 1: and constitutional justice, law, equal justice under the law, equal
Speaker 1: application of our laws goes away. Now I know that
Speaker 1: you're thinking, well, well, maybe maybe Nancy Pelosi got the message.
Speaker 1: He's gonna be fair. She's now going to have this
Speaker 1: vote on Thursday. Well, Stanny Hoyer, who is the House
Speaker 1: majority whip, Well he's speaking today signaling he's not committing
Speaker 1: to the House Democrats voting this week to formalize their
Speaker 1: secret impeachment inquiry. Oh is you know we seeing little
Speaker 1: cracks in the in the madness rushed to impeach over nothing.
Speaker 1: And we'll get to that in a second, because there
Speaker 1: is a USA Today Suffolk poll out and that shows
Speaker 1: and I found that only thirty six percent of respondence
Speaker 1: support this House voting to impeach and remove the president.
Speaker 1: Twenty two percent say Congress should continue with their impeachment
Speaker 1: inquiry but should not vote to remove him. Thirty seven
Speaker 1: percent say lawmakers should end their impeachment probe, and four
Speaker 1: percent remain undecided. All right, that's twenty two percent in
Speaker 1: favor of continuing the inquiry but against removal. So that
Speaker 1: would be a fifty nine percent against removing the president.
Speaker 1: It's not going to happen in the House anyway. But
Speaker 1: you know, with everything that we're hearing, watching and saying,
Speaker 1: Ukraine is no different then obstruction of justice, the double
Speaker 1: standard with Hillary Clinton, no different than Russian interference with
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's dirty NASA that they ignored. The same thing
Speaker 1: is happening with Ukraine. Because we have the transcript. I
Speaker 1: don't care how many non whistle blowers hearsay whistle blowers
Speaker 1: or people that heard the call that were alarmed and concerned,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. None of that matters, because we have
Speaker 1: the actual transcript, and in the transcript, it's very clear
Speaker 1: that the president is asking, after congratulating the new elected
Speaker 1: president of Ukraine, President Zelenski, hey I need a favor.
Speaker 1: You got to help us out here. We've spent three
Speaker 1: years now investigating twenty sixteen. You know, outside election interference
Speaker 1: by foreign entities, Your country was involved in it. How
Speaker 1: do we know that? Politico July twenty seventeen, they confirmed it.
Speaker 1: We also have a Ukrainian court, you know, a court
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. They determined that, in fact, Ukraine interfered in
Speaker 1: our twenty sixteen elections. So the president, remember he has
Speaker 1: an oath, we have a constitution, he's charged to faithfully
Speaker 1: execute the laws of this land. And the President saying
Speaker 1: I'd like your help to get to the bottom of that.
Speaker 1: And yeah, the President did mention. You know, if you
Speaker 1: again to be a Democrat, you can't apply the same standards.
Speaker 1: You can't be upset that Ukraine helped and interfered in
Speaker 1: our elections because that had nothing to do with favoring
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. You see, Ukraine was helping Hillary Clinton. If
Speaker 1: you care a lot about quid pro quos, well then
Speaker 1: you just have to ignore the quid pro quo of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden leveraging a billion taxpayer dollars, ragging about it
Speaker 1: and saying you got six hours to fire a Ukraine
Speaker 1: prosecutor or you're not getting the money, son of them
Speaker 1: be They fired him you have to ignore that part.
Speaker 1: Here's a quid pro quo right right there in front
Speaker 1: of us. What Democrat has spoken out about that known
Speaker 1: quid pro quo? They say it's a conspiracy theory. Well,
Speaker 1: if it is, Joe Biden is the one who launched it,
Speaker 1: and then you have to forget that Hunter Biden, the
Speaker 1: kid with no experience, he does the ABC interview. Have
Speaker 1: you had any experience with Ukraine? No oil, no gas,
Speaker 1: no energy. No. Why do you think they chose you?
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't they pick any other American to give millions
Speaker 1: of dollars too? I don't know. Do you think maybe
Speaker 1: it's because your father was the vice president and the
Speaker 1: second most powerful person in the US at the time. Yeah, probably,
Speaker 1: He says it, and they say, oh, that's got to
Speaker 1: be a conspiracy theory. You have to ignore that truth,
Speaker 1: those facts, that reality. To be a Democrat today, to
Speaker 1: be a member of the mob and the media today,
Speaker 1: it's never been this sick. It's never been this distorted,
Speaker 1: this ugly, this corrupt, this biased, this abuse you. It's
Speaker 1: like they're living on another planet. It's like invasion of
Speaker 1: the body snatchers. They don't even exist anymore. There is
Speaker 1: no rationalization in their minds. They just hate Trump. That rage,
Speaker 1: that psychosis goes that deep. That's how hypocritically corrupt they
Speaker 1: all are. It is really insane. These are not normal times,
Speaker 1: all right. So the Democrats released the statement on the
Speaker 1: House resolution. Here's the gist of this whole thing. They're
Speaker 1: not being fair anyway. They this. You gotta understand. This
Speaker 1: is secret Soviet Union style and impeachment cop attempt being
Speaker 1: run by a compromise corrupt Howard Schiff, who's also a
Speaker 1: congenital liar, and Jim Jordan was out there today said
Speaker 1: they're not even letting us ask anybody questions. They're behind
Speaker 1: closed doors. It is corrupt. But let me let me
Speaker 1: cut to the chase. None of it matters anonymous sourcing.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what people thought of the call. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what the whistle blower non whistle blower, heresay
Speaker 1: whistle blow. None of it matters because you got the transcript.
Speaker 1: When you get the transcript, you get to read it
Speaker 1: yourself and you get to see what that a president
Speaker 1: not only did he not do anything wrong, you see,
Speaker 1: the president is faithfully executing the laws of the land. Well,
Speaker 1: he has a constitutional sworn oath and duty. We also
Speaker 1: have a treaty with Ukraine that they will work in
Speaker 1: criminal matters. The idea that all those people that thought
Speaker 1: that election interference was so horrible for three years, well
Speaker 1: they don't want to hear about Ukrainian election interference. And
Speaker 1: the president rightfully, faithfully executing asking and what American is
Speaker 1: gonna look me in the eye and tell me Joe
Speaker 1: Biden bragging about shaking down, quit pro quoting Ukraine to
Speaker 1: fire the prosecutor, or they get no money or Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's no experience in oil, gas energy, or Ukraine did
Speaker 1: why'd you get the job? The millions my daddy. I
Speaker 1: think most of you know that chairmanship has prevented the
Speaker 1: witness from answering certain questions we have during the deposition.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the things you're doing these depositions
Speaker 1: is you ask the basics, what windwhere? Why? He asked
Speaker 1: those questions. When we asked the whistleblower who he spoke
Speaker 1: to after important events in July, Adam Shift says, no, no no, no,
Speaker 1: We're not going to let him answer that question. Even
Speaker 1: though at the start of every one of these depositions,
Speaker 1: and you all know this already, every one of the
Speaker 1: start of every single one, he says, this is not classified.
Speaker 1: He tells us that the witness has their counsel there there,
Speaker 1: the lawyer there. They don't need Adam shift being chairman
Speaker 1: and lawyer. But that's in effect what happened today, and
Speaker 1: he would not let the witness And look the Democrats
Speaker 1: run out here and say, oh, the Republicans are trying
Speaker 1: to figure out who the whistle blower is. We're trying
Speaker 1: to figure out who a witness lis is. If the
Speaker 1: resolution that the Speaker has just filed. At some points
Speaker 1: he points us out in the resolution this is going
Speaker 1: to go to the Judiciary Committee, if in fact they
Speaker 1: push it there, there will be witnesses called. We'd like
Speaker 1: figure out who those witnesses should be so the American
Speaker 1: people can get the facts, get the truths, and we
Speaker 1: know who these individuals are. So that it seems interesting
Speaker 1: to me that chairmanship is so sensitive, I mean, whined
Speaker 1: out last week. There are four hundred and thirty five
Speaker 1: members of Congress. One of them one of them, only
Speaker 1: one of them knows who the whistleblower is. More importantly,
Speaker 1: who the sources are for the whistleblower that were the
Speaker 1: basis of him following this complaint, and somehow he doesn't
Speaker 1: want anyone else to know that him and him, mister
Speaker 1: Ship and his staff are the only ones in America
Speaker 1: who can know and his evidence about his sensitivity. You
Speaker 1: saw it on display today when we try to ask
Speaker 1: the witness certain questions and mister Ship would not let
Speaker 1: him answer. Jim Jordan, Ohio twenty five to the top
Speaker 1: of the hour. Do you hear what he's saying. They're
Speaker 1: preventing the witnesses from answering the questions. The reason the
Speaker 1: ship is compromised. He's corrupt, he's a coward, and he's
Speaker 1: a proven congenital liar. Now I'm reading this, this resolution
Speaker 1: that they is released as a joke. Now, just to
Speaker 1: give you background, remember when New Gingrich Republicans, when the
Speaker 1: impeachment of Bill Clinton went on, they had a full
Speaker 1: House vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry. So they're trying to
Speaker 1: like threat a needle and appear to be fair, But
Speaker 1: once you get into the details, they're not doing what
Speaker 1: New Gingridge did by any stretch. For example, newt allowed
Speaker 1: the full House at every critical step to define the
Speaker 1: scope and establish the rules and procedures. That's not what
Speaker 1: they're dictating them. And I'll explain in a minute. They
Speaker 1: allowed co equal subpoena power for the chair and the
Speaker 1: ranking member. That's not allowed. As you get into the
Speaker 1: details of this resolution, New Gingrich allowed subpoena is be
Speaker 1: subject to a vote of the full committee at the
Speaker 1: request of the chair of the ranking member. New Gingrich
Speaker 1: allowed Clinton's counsel the right to attend all hearings in
Speaker 1: depth positions. That's not happening so far with the president.
Speaker 1: Allowed the President's counsel the right to present evidence. Allowed
Speaker 1: the president's counsel, meaning Clinton's, the right to object to
Speaker 1: admitting certain evidence. The president's counsel the right to cross examine,
Speaker 1: the president's counsel the right to recommend the witness list.
Speaker 1: Now let me just as I read this, So the
Speaker 1: resolution starts out directing certain committees to continue their ongoing
Speaker 1: investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry
Speaker 1: into whether or not sufficient crowns exist for the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump President of the United States, and for other purposes.
Speaker 1: And then they have the resolution that the Committee on
Speaker 1: Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Oversight, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: Are directed to continue their ongoing investigations. By the way,
Speaker 1: what that means is, this is a let's have every
Speaker 1: committee investigate, investigate, investigate, do nothing for the American people
Speaker 1: and see if anything sticks. This is a phishing expedition
Speaker 1: Resolution number one. Then it goes into for the purpose
Speaker 1: of continuing the investigation described in the first section, a
Speaker 1: permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This is where it is
Speaker 1: led by the compromise corrupt coward Shift, the congenital liar
Speaker 1: that's they're using his committee. They're authorized to conduct proceedings
Speaker 1: pursuing too. The resolution at the chair of the Select
Speaker 1: Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursue into
Speaker 1: the section notwithstanding Ruled eleven of the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: upon recognition of the purpose of blah blah, blah blah.
Speaker 1: Here's where they go sideways again. Well, number one, they're
Speaker 1: so deep into the process. They're allowing every committee basically
Speaker 1: to continue the ongoing investigation into impeaching the president. But
Speaker 1: they don't have any reasons for any of it, and
Speaker 1: we don't need any witnesses anyway, because we've got the transcript.
Speaker 1: That's the sick part of all of this. But then
Speaker 1: this is where it gets interesting. The Chair and the
Speaker 1: ranking minority Member shall be permitted to question witnesses for
Speaker 1: equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined
Speaker 1: by the compromised corrupt coward congenital liar shift. The time
Speaker 1: for each period questioning under this paragraph shall be equal
Speaker 1: for the Chair and the ranking minority member. Sounds fair, right, No,
Speaker 1: it's not because the compromised corrupt coward shift the liar well,
Speaker 1: he's the one the chair make. It goes on for
Speaker 1: equal amount of time. But the Chair may confer recognition
Speaker 1: for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of
Speaker 1: questioning shall not exceed ninety minutes in the aggregate, and
Speaker 1: only the Chair and the ranking Minority member or permanent
Speaker 1: Select Committee employee if yielded. If yielded by the chair,
Speaker 1: I mean, do you understand what they're doing here? If
Speaker 1: they ever got the whistleblower in the chair, which started
Speaker 1: all of this, the whistleblower would then be questioned extensively
Speaker 1: about the contact with the compromise corrupt coward chiff, And
Speaker 1: just like they they'd have to answer questions about the
Speaker 1: relationship with Biden. So they don't want that person. And
Speaker 1: they're going to prevent the Republicans from ever doing any
Speaker 1: of this. They're going to quote allow full evaluation of
Speaker 1: minority witness requests. Full evaluation of request. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: they can do it. They have to go through the
Speaker 1: compromise corrupt coward Adam Schiff. And by the way, they
Speaker 1: may submit to the chair another word, shift in writing
Speaker 1: any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described
Speaker 1: in a section of the resolution within seventy two hours
Speaker 1: after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant
Speaker 1: to paragraph one, any such request shall be a companied
Speaker 1: by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the
Speaker 1: testimony of the requested witness to the investigation described in
Speaker 1: the section of the resolution. What does that mean? It
Speaker 1: means the compromised corrupt shift can say no, Like if
Speaker 1: the whistleblower is called in, he will say no. He
Speaker 1: knows they can't do that because as soon as they do,
Speaker 1: he gets exposed as being a fact witness compromised in
Speaker 1: the case. So he'll have the final determination. So this
Speaker 1: whole resolution is one big smokescreen. They're trying to act fair.
Speaker 1: They're trying to, you know, seem like they're doing what
Speaker 1: New king Ridge did without doing any of it. And
Speaker 1: it goes on. The ranking member is the ranking minority
Speaker 1: member is authorized with the concurrence of the Chair. Again,
Speaker 1: you need the reminds corrupt coward Shift's approval to require
Speaker 1: is deemed necessary to the investigation. Again, you have to
Speaker 1: get Daddy's permission. Daddy's compromised, Oh, cowardly Shift, compromise Shift,
Speaker 1: But anyway, you have to get his permission by subpoena,
Speaker 1: otherwise that you would deem necessary to the investigation. The
Speaker 1: attendance and testimony of any person, including at taking a
Speaker 1: deposition that doesn't guarantee the rights of the minority or
Speaker 1: the President's Council. The production of books, records in other words,
Speaker 1: admitting evidence. Again, you have to has to be authorized
Speaker 1: with the concurrence of the Chair to have the attendance
Speaker 1: and testimony of any person, to produce records, correspondence in
Speaker 1: other words, evidence by interrogatory furnishing of information. In the
Speaker 1: case that the Chair declines to concur meaning Shift, the
Speaker 1: compromise leader in this which hunt is in a proposed
Speaker 1: action of the ranking minority member, the ranking Minority Members
Speaker 1: shall have the right to refer the Committee for decision
Speaker 1: the question whether such authorities shall be so exercised, and
Speaker 1: the Chair shall convene the Committee properly to render that decision. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a little problem there. What is the exact number.
Speaker 1: There's far more numbers. There's far more Democrats on the
Speaker 1: committee than Republicans. So the deck is stacked there because
Speaker 1: the Democrats will protect their fearless compromised leader. This is nothing,
Speaker 1: you know. This is again, it's an ongoing secret Soviet
Speaker 1: style impeachment coup attempt and the worst part of all
Speaker 1: of this, and I'll stop because it's full of basically, well,
Speaker 1: you'll have the right to ask, but we won't ever
Speaker 1: give it to you. You have the right to ask
Speaker 1: for anything, we won't give it to you. We'll stacked again.
Speaker 1: We just want to appear fair when we're not being fair. Now,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department today ruled on this very issue. They
Speaker 1: did their own investigation in the Justice Department, their Criminal
Speaker 1: Division into investigating Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and it concluded that the President did not
Speaker 1: violate any campaign finance law, and as I said, the
Speaker 1: President was faithfully executing the laws of the land. These
Speaker 1: people supposedly cared about election interference. They didn't care about
Speaker 1: the dirty Russian dassier. They only cared about Trump election interference.
Speaker 1: Four separate investigations proved they didn't exist, culminating with three
Speaker 1: years the Muller investigation. Sorry, that failed. So now they're
Speaker 1: just going to stack the deck, and they're gonna do
Speaker 1: it in secret. They're gonna stack the rules in their
Speaker 1: favor a resolution that is so corrupt of itself to
Speaker 1: protect the compromise leader of this witch hunt. That would
Speaker 1: be the compromise corrupt coward, congenital lie or schiff. And
Speaker 1: this is not worth the paper it's printed on. There's
Speaker 1: not due process in this at all, not even they're
Speaker 1: just trying to make it appear like they're offering what
Speaker 1: nuke Kingrich offered. They're not doing any of the things
Speaker 1: New kingridch did anyway. The separate a separate division of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. Justice also ruled today that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration did not break the law by failing to
Speaker 1: quickly share a whistleblower's complaint with Congress, saying the matter
Speaker 1: didn't meet the definition of urgent that would trigger the law. Well,
Speaker 1: it wasn't even a whistle blower. It was a hearsay
Speaker 1: whistle blower, a non whistleblower, whistle blower that now has
Speaker 1: to be kept out of the public eye because there
Speaker 1: was contact with the cowardly shift's office. I've never seen
Speaker 1: anything like this now. Bill mcgerna had a good piece
Speaker 1: in the Wall Street Journal today that Nancy Pelosi's sudden
Speaker 1: change and the rules of impeachment is because the polls
Speaker 1: are going south and impeachment is now beginning to backfire.
Speaker 1: We now are seeing this in the pole I mentioned
Speaker 1: in the last half hour. We're beginning to see cracks.
Speaker 1: And here's what's happening. The American people are now understanding
Speaker 1: that this is nothing but a continuation of what has
Speaker 1: been never ending, a NonStop effort to undo the results
Speaker 1: of a twenty sixteen election. They've now talked since day
Speaker 1: two after Donald Trump was elected about impeachment. They did
Speaker 1: it all through twenty seventeen, all through twenty eighteen. I've
Speaker 1: run the timeline on TV. I'll run it again tonight
Speaker 1: and all through twenty nineteen, and now not only is
Speaker 1: it about undoing the election of twenty sixteen that they
Speaker 1: never accepted the results of. They always thought Mueller was
Speaker 1: going to do the work for them. And they're not
Speaker 1: going to be put in the position of waiting three
Speaker 1: more years to try it again. They're just going to
Speaker 1: do it themselves. And they're never going to allow any
Speaker 1: type of fair process to go on because that's not
Speaker 1: who they are. And Democrats key impeachment witness. We just
Speaker 1: found this out today. Breitbart had an article which is
Speaker 1: pretty interesting that Bill Taylor, the US Ambassador to Ukraine,
Speaker 1: who provide a key testimony to the Democrats on this impeachment,
Speaker 1: well apparently let an election observation delegation in Ukraine earlier
Speaker 1: this year. Apparently some connected group to Sorrows, according to
Speaker 1: Breitbart at the time, boasted Hunter Biden on their board
Speaker 1: as their council chairman for a guy with no experience
Speaker 1: as kids making a ton of money. And this is
Speaker 1: what you have to believe. It didn't matter. You only
Speaker 1: have you only have interference by foreign countries being bad
Speaker 1: if it has to do with Trump, not the Russian
Speaker 1: dossier obstruction is bad, but not Hillary's deleted emails. You
Speaker 1: have to care about foreign interference on our elections, but
Speaker 1: not the court decision in Ukraine that actually said they
Speaker 1: interfered in the US election to help Hillary Clinton. That's
Speaker 1: where Democrats are. You have to support impeachment and throw
Speaker 1: out all of these whistle blowers when you have a
Speaker 1: transcript that shows that the president was doing that which
Speaker 1: Democrats said they wanted for the last three years, and
Speaker 1: that is to look into election interference by foreign countries
Speaker 1: and stop it because that's what the president was asking
Speaker 1: the president of Ukraine to do, and that is relates
Speaker 1: to Biden. You really have to disconnect from any truth, reality, intellectual, honesty, reason,
Speaker 1: and common sense because you have to ignore the quid
Speaker 1: pro quo of leveraging a billion tax dollars to fire
Speaker 1: a Ukrainian prosecutor in six hours or he's taken his
Speaker 1: billion dollars home that's our money. Well, that would be
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo because he wanted the prosecutor fired.
Speaker 1: Now we know, because Hunter Biden admitted on an ABC
Speaker 1: no experience Ukraine, oil gas or energy, but they paid
Speaker 1: him millions. Wow, you have to think that's a conspiracy theory,
Speaker 1: but one that was spread by Hunter and Joe Biden themselves.
Speaker 1: And then you got to go ignore China completely. No
Speaker 1: experience there either. Ten days after he goes with his
Speaker 1: father to China, a billion dollars deal with the Bank
Speaker 1: of China. These are insane times, all right. Jason Schaffitz
Speaker 1: is going to wait in on all of the Senator
Speaker 1: Tim Scott's with us today. Democracy the posts happy Still,
Speaker 1: I've plogged the speaker for finally admitting it is a
Speaker 1: whole entire sham. But you can't put the genie back
Speaker 1: in the bottom. A due process starts at the beginning.
Speaker 1: It doesn't affirm a Missham investigation all the way through.
Speaker 1: If you were in the legal term, it'd be the
Speaker 1: fruit from the poisonous tree. It'd be a mistrial. None
Speaker 1: of this said, None of this information would go forward.
Speaker 1: But what's most important to the America in public. We
Speaker 1: all have the phone call, we all have the transcript.
Speaker 1: We are all able to see there was no quid
Speaker 1: pro quo, the money was released, Ukraine did nothing and
Speaker 1: no action was taken. Where's the crime, where's the impeachment,
Speaker 1: what's the impeachable offense. The American public sees that we
Speaker 1: should move on, and they continue to try to move
Speaker 1: a whole sham organization is not going to work. It
Speaker 1: is very clear the President did nothing wrong. So why
Speaker 1: are we continuing to go down this path just like
Speaker 1: we had to the last time Adam Shift lied to
Speaker 1: the American public simply because they disagree with the outcome.
Speaker 1: I do not question this man's service to this country.
Speaker 1: But you know what, people have different philosophical beliefs. Now
Speaker 1: we have the proof before is we are a country
Speaker 1: of a rule of law. There's nothing in there that's impeachable.
Speaker 1: But there is also a lot of challenges before us,
Speaker 1: the funding of the American troops, the funding of our budget,
Speaker 1: prescription drugs, our trade, our economy. But none of that
Speaker 1: is being done, None of that is being worked on
Speaker 1: because of the obsession that the Democrats have with the pegs.
Speaker 1: President very well said that is the House Minority leader.
Speaker 1: That would be Kevin McCarthy. We have the transcript. I
Speaker 1: mean wow, Now we got a new witness and he
Speaker 1: was on the phone call and he was nervous after
Speaker 1: he heard the phone call. What we now have the
Speaker 1: transcript of the phone call I mean the latest of
Speaker 1: the Democrats is I've been saying today, Well, it was
Speaker 1: an evolution of a quid pro quote. That doesn't work either,
Speaker 1: because in the beginning it was all quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: Now it's the evolution of a quid pro quo evolution,
Speaker 1: What are you talking about? Evolution? They got the money.
Speaker 1: It was you know here, they cared so much about Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: Russia collusion, collusion, election interference, and we've got all the evidence. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. It didn't matter about Hillary's Russian dirty Daciera
Speaker 1: didn't matter. That's that's the insanity of all of this.
Speaker 1: You want to look a quid pro quo, Look at
Speaker 1: Look at Biden, Joe Biden bragging a billion taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1: You got a fireman six hours, iron in six hours,
Speaker 1: or I'm taking the money. I'm going home, son of
Speaker 1: them be they did it. We want to talk about
Speaker 1: buying influence qui pro quos. Let's get the transcripts of
Speaker 1: Biden after of course, his son Hunter makes millions. No
Speaker 1: experience with Ukraine none zero zip, no experience and energy
Speaker 1: oil gas zero. Well, why did they pay you millions
Speaker 1: of dollars? Don't you have anything to do with your
Speaker 1: last name being Biden, your father being the second most
Speaker 1: powerful guy in the country probably. Oh, and that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be. Okay, this is not going forget the process.
Speaker 1: We have the transcript. There's nothing in the transcript. And
Speaker 1: that's why, Well, you have the corrupt, compromised, coward shift.
Speaker 1: He can't bring in the whistle blower. Whistle blow was dead,
Speaker 1: gone and buried now you know. But why because if
Speaker 1: they if they bring in the whistleblower, well, then the
Speaker 1: whistleblowers has to talk about the contact that they've had,
Speaker 1: which Chiff's office, and they have to talk about favoring
Speaker 1: let's see Joe Biden Joe three h three three. Oh. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Jason Chaffitz is with us. Come former congressman now Fox
Speaker 1: News colleague. His book Power Grab, The Liberal Scheme to
Speaker 1: Undermine Trump, the GOP in our Republic, which is all true.
Speaker 1: You know. One of the points you've been making. I
Speaker 1: notice you tweeted it out and you said it to
Speaker 1: me is the House did vote on impeachment in the
Speaker 1: proceeding failed. That was July seventeenth, twenty nineteen, and one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty seven Democrats voted against moving forward. But
Speaker 1: they've really been all over this since two days after
Speaker 1: Trump was elected, all through twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, and
Speaker 1: now twenty nineteen. We'll just make up a new reason.
Speaker 1: How are you, Yeah, thanks for having me on. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I just went back and reread the article that appeared
Speaker 1: in the Washington Post on January twentieth of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: Impeachment proceedings have begun. The resistance movement always had this
Speaker 1: goal in mind. I think one of the reasons it's
Speaker 1: getting highlighted and accelerated right now is that they this
Speaker 1: is just my own personal opinion, but they know that
Speaker 1: the Horrowitz report and the Durham investigation is in full throttle,
Speaker 1: and what a good time to have this come out.
Speaker 1: You already have Schiff and others trying to take swat
Speaker 1: at Horrowitz and Durham and say, oh, this is just
Speaker 1: Trump right, No, No, it's actually bigger than that. Now
Speaker 1: they're so nervous. You got the likes ofcom Clapper Brennan
Speaker 1: scared to death. This is now a full on character assassin.
Speaker 1: The beginning of the character assassination of Durham and the
Speaker 1: attorney general. That's now their new talking point. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: they've started that before. They've seen a sintella of the evidence.
Speaker 1: But it started from the day, you know, really when
Speaker 1: Donald Trump came down that escalate when he was sworn in,
Speaker 1: and they've all but they've you know, Muller, they thought,
Speaker 1: oh we got him, we got him now and you know,
Speaker 1: nothing clean slate for Donald Trump, so you know, they've
Speaker 1: got the pedal to the metal. The other thing, Sean,
Speaker 1: that strikes me is again, if Adam Schiff had any
Speaker 1: goods on Donald Trump when he had that hearing about
Speaker 1: just over a month ago, he would have sided the
Speaker 1: transcript verbatim. Instead, you know, he had to lie, had
Speaker 1: to make it up. I thought the House should have
Speaker 1: taken more action against Adam Schiffs on that case. But
Speaker 1: they don't have anything on Donald Trump. And the witness
Speaker 1: coming forward today, well who is this guy? Oh, I've
Speaker 1: got concerns. We didn't elect you to to voice your concerns.
Speaker 1: This is a political question. And guess what Donald Trump
Speaker 1: gets to make that decision. You know what the irony
Speaker 1: is and all of that is as I interviewed the
Speaker 1: President last Monday, a week ago, yesterday, the President said,
Speaker 1: I know there's nine hundred people on these phone halls.
Speaker 1: He knows it's being either recorded or transcribed in real time.
Speaker 1: If he was going to do something like a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo, he would have been there. He didn't. But
Speaker 1: what we what we've had a consistent pattern of are
Speaker 1: never trumpers deep state operatives. I've never seen a president
Speaker 1: bludgeon from within like this guy. You know, Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: the corrupt compromise coward Shift. You know they're upset they
Speaker 1: weren't notified about the Baghdaddy raid. And it's like, well,
Speaker 1: you're leaking the transcripts of conversations with the president and
Speaker 1: prime ministers and other presidents. Why would he ever trust you? Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: there's no reason to trust him. Set. For the life
Speaker 1: of me, I cannot figure out how to Adam Shift
Speaker 1: still has a security clarant Yeah. I mean, the guy's
Speaker 1: the chairman of the Intel Committee. How do you even
Speaker 1: have a security clarance? At this point, he has demonstrated
Speaker 1: time and time again he lies, he cannot handle classified information,
Speaker 1: and he should be stripped of that security clarance. Agreed
Speaker 1: on all of it. Now here's where I think you
Speaker 1: have to be. You have to. You have to care
Speaker 1: about obstruction when there was none with Trump after for investigations,
Speaker 1: but ignore Hillary's private server deletions and hammers and bleach bit.
Speaker 1: You have to care about Russian interference, but not Hillary's
Speaker 1: bought and paid for Russian dossier that was then used
Speaker 1: at not verified, but used to get to spy on
Speaker 1: then candidate transition team and President Trump. You have to
Speaker 1: you know, you're okay with all of that, no complaints
Speaker 1: from any Democrats or anybody in the mob about that.
Speaker 1: Now you have to care about a phone call that
Speaker 1: fifty hundred people were listening to in real time, a whistleblower,
Speaker 1: where there's nothing the president to me on that call.
Speaker 1: As I've gone over, this is faithfully executing the laws
Speaker 1: of the country. Is saying get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: your election interference, which they said they cared about, but
Speaker 1: they don't. They dismissed the Biden eruption in all of this,
Speaker 1: which it's breathtaking to me, and they're still going to
Speaker 1: do this is that where we're headed. Well, what's going
Speaker 1: to be fascinating today? You remember Nancy Pelosi instituted a
Speaker 1: seventy two hour rule. Supposedly this resolution that's going to
Speaker 1: be you know, that's unveiled today. Nobody's yet really seen
Speaker 1: it and digested it. She said they're going to vote
Speaker 1: on Thursday, but it's Tuesday, so do the math. I
Speaker 1: don't know how they have any time to actually properly
Speaker 1: digest this. But supposedly it's an impeachment proceeding, but it's not.
Speaker 1: It's somewhere in between. And the backstory there and you've
Speaker 1: highlighted this Seawan is really Lindsay Graham in the effort
Speaker 1: of the Senate to get those fifty senators to sign
Speaker 1: on and really call the bluff, and Nancy Pelosi is saying,
Speaker 1: what you're doing is bogus and we're not going to
Speaker 1: swallow it. Here over at the Senate, Well, are they
Speaker 1: gonna allow the due process that Nuke Gingrich allowed in
Speaker 1: the case of Bill Clinton, because that question has not
Speaker 1: been asked. Are they going to be's parent? Are they
Speaker 1: going to now have all the witnesses in public? Are
Speaker 1: Are they going to allow the president's attorney's access to
Speaker 1: every deposition and every meeting and the right to question
Speaker 1: and subpoena and do their own thing like New King
Speaker 1: Ridge allowed or no. I don't think they are. I
Speaker 1: think look, Nancy Pelosi is three times impeachment has come
Speaker 1: up for a vote, three times in a row. It's failed.
Speaker 1: In fact, the last time when it came up in July,
Speaker 1: a record number one hundred and thirty seven Democrats voted
Speaker 1: against it. So she runs the risk of not getting
Speaker 1: to the finish line. But probably even more importantly, she
Speaker 1: doesn't want to give the likes of a John Ratcliffe
Speaker 1: and Collins and everybody subpoena authority to go call ther
Speaker 1: other witnesses. She doesn't want to have to hear the
Speaker 1: other side of the story from the Trump perspective. I
Speaker 1: don't think she wants to see that happen. What is
Speaker 1: there to subpoena If you have the transcript, either the
Speaker 1: president did something unlawful or didn't. I've read it again
Speaker 1: and again. I've read it again and again. He didn't.
Speaker 1: All right, let me switch topics on you for a
Speaker 1: second here, You know, Michael Harrowitz correct. The inspector Jerry
Speaker 1: Well very night wasn't he wasn't he appointed first by Obama?
Speaker 1: He was? He was appointed by Obama. He was unanimously
Speaker 1: confirmed in the United States Senate he's a man with
Speaker 1: impeccable credentials. He's done the two reports so far. Remember
Speaker 1: he recommended for disciplinary action or prosecution the director of
Speaker 1: the FBI, the deputy director of the FBI, and the
Speaker 1: deputy assistant director of the FBI. The only reason we
Speaker 1: have all these all these text messages is because the
Speaker 1: FBI said, no, we're not going to give them to you.
Speaker 1: We can't find them. Well, he went over to the Pentagon,
Speaker 1: got an algorithm done, and that's how we found all
Speaker 1: these texts from Struck and Page. I really like the guy.
Speaker 1: We have new messages just released today from Judicial Watch,
Speaker 1: a record showing contact between Struck Or that the DOJ
Speaker 1: at the time claimed they couldn't find mind And But
Speaker 1: before I get to those questions, I want to ask you,
Speaker 1: all right, so what can the American people. Here's what
Speaker 1: we know. We know that the dossier was unverifiable. We
Speaker 1: know that its own author, under oath, in an interrogatory,
Speaker 1: said I have no idea of any of it's true.
Speaker 1: So they didn't verify it, but it became the bulk
Speaker 1: of information to in the FISA application at the top
Speaker 1: of a FISER warrant. According to John Ratcliffe, it says verified.
Speaker 1: That would mean that we have and we know of
Speaker 1: at least five occasions where the DOJ, the FBI, we're
Speaker 1: all worn, don't trust Steel. This is before the first application,
Speaker 1: and we also know McCabe said, well, no dossier, no
Speaker 1: FISA warrant, so they used it anyway, unverified information? Is
Speaker 1: that not pre meditated fraud committed on a FISA court.
Speaker 1: I think what we're also looking for, Sean, is the
Speaker 1: interaction Well, well, you didn't answer that's an important question. Yes, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it clearly is. But what you're also looking for the
Speaker 1: interaction before and after between Brennan Clapper and the senior
Speaker 1: Astroland there at the FBI. If there is evidence that
Speaker 1: they willingly and knowingly did this, you could put the
Speaker 1: documents there, But you also need to look at in
Speaker 1: real time, did these people know that they were defrauding
Speaker 1: the court. Then I think the Department of Justice is
Speaker 1: left with nothing but the need and the imperative to
Speaker 1: prosecute these people. All right, take a break here we
Speaker 1: have our good friend, Congressman Jason Chavis. All right, we
Speaker 1: continue with Congressman, former congressman, now Fox News colleague Jason Chaffitz.
Speaker 1: All right, so we have these new documents thanks to
Speaker 1: our friends at Judicial Watch. The contact Or and Peter
Speaker 1: Struck the weeks after the twenty sixteen election, and you
Speaker 1: have Lisa Page, you know, in a meeting that took
Speaker 1: place required attendees. Or Struck the FBI Deputy Assistant Director
Speaker 1: of Counterintelligence, and then Or attend to arrange a meeting
Speaker 1: which struck Page himself, and Bruce Schwarz sports rather and
Speaker 1: then Or writes to Struck and Page under the subject meeting,
Speaker 1: Bruce Schwartz, thanks again for taking time to chat. As
Speaker 1: I mentioned, I'd like to set up a short meeting.
Speaker 1: Would you be available? And Page responds, Unfortunately, Pete is
Speaker 1: briefing the house and tell community blah blah blah. Or
Speaker 1: responds to Page, no problem, and it goes on from there.
Speaker 1: At bottom line is we keep getting more information. It
Speaker 1: seems these figures keep popping up again and again. Do
Speaker 1: you believe that the insurance policy is what we now
Speaker 1: know it to be? Yeah, yes, I do. I think
Speaker 1: the insurance policy was there in place. Do you look
Speaker 1: at the timing? They stay it there in black and white,
Speaker 1: in real time in text messages. I think the Inspectors
Speaker 1: General have been looking at trying to verify even further
Speaker 1: with other documentation. You know, I think a lot of
Speaker 1: us were frustrated last time. You know, did they have
Speaker 1: nefarious political intent? And the Inspector General was, you know,
Speaker 1: hesitant on that. But the proactive actions that these people
Speaker 1: took where they overstepped, oh, why, that's where they really overstood.
Speaker 1: That's quick. Quit. When are we getting the report? I
Speaker 1: got a break like six months ago. It's exactly. It's
Speaker 1: pissing me off too. That's how I'll put that, all right,
Speaker 1: Jason Chaffitz, thank you, eight hundred nine one Sean. When
Speaker 1: we come back Senator Tim Scott, South Carolina, we'll get
Speaker 1: his take on the killing of Baghdaddy and of course
Speaker 1: this impeachment madness a much more great it killed ALVIGDADTI
Speaker 1: is both a military and political victory for the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: but some officials point out that it may say as
Speaker 1: much about the flaws in Trump's foreign policy as it
Speaker 1: does about how well it can work. He sounded not
Speaker 1: like a president of the United States. He actually sounded
Speaker 1: like Saddam Hussang after torturing people. Sounded like Momarkadafi after
Speaker 1: he went torture people. There's a long trail ahead of
Speaker 1: him actually finally releasing details, explicit detail, some of which
Speaker 1: sort of echoed, I'm frankly the crudeness he would often
Speaker 1: expect to him. Maybe from isis about the whimpering screaming
Speaker 1: back that I think from a standpoint of so symbolism
Speaker 1: and importance of the country U saw taking down the
Speaker 1: Laden had a lot more meaning than this. Can we
Speaker 1: at least agree that the world is a better place
Speaker 1: without this guy in it? Oh? Trump, will the Begdanni.
Speaker 1: It is unbelievable what these men did and for our country,
Speaker 1: and what the President did as far as not being
Speaker 1: afraid to engage in what was really a high risk operation.
Speaker 1: The press releases have been quite jubilant. They have been
Speaker 1: completely bipartisan congratulating President Obama. The American people are giving
Speaker 1: President Obama strong approval ratings for getting Osama bin Laden,
Speaker 1: but the Bush team is trying to grab the credit.
Speaker 1: President Obama showed this week he was as in the
Speaker 1: terrorist hunt as he was in president, as he was
Speaker 1: in the delegate hunt as a candidate back in two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight. All Right, twenty five toil the top
Speaker 1: of the hour. This is how ugly, demented, twisted, six
Speaker 1: psychotic the mob in the media, the Democratic Party has
Speaker 1: now become peers Morgan. I can't say it any better
Speaker 1: than him. As I said earlier, that they shame. They
Speaker 1: are shaming themselves and their country. Where's the Democrat that
Speaker 1: is saying, thank you, good job, mister president, great job.
Speaker 1: The guy that's killed hundreds of thousands, the guy that
Speaker 1: is responsible for the terror and brutality around the globe,
Speaker 1: the guy that would give orders to be head people
Speaker 1: and videotape it, or put people in cages and burn
Speaker 1: them to death or wiping out you see the Christians
Speaker 1: in northern Iraq and taking women and children and raping
Speaker 1: them repeatedly and turning them into sex slaves. Yeah, Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: so well. Trump, the way you described it was like
Speaker 1: commenting on a on a video game. You got NPR
Speaker 1: praising this mass murderer is a real leader, a movement
Speaker 1: we've we've never seen before, talking about bagdaddy. You know
Speaker 1: you got the uh you know, Bozo O'Rourke. It succeeded
Speaker 1: despite Trump. They can't even can't say once good job
Speaker 1: then you got the Washington Post, the austere religious intellectual
Speaker 1: dies at forty eight. Uh no, that's not how you
Speaker 1: describe them. And you got one of their columnists, you know,
Speaker 1: having to backpedal even after that. The assertion that Baghdaddy
Speaker 1: died as a coward was in any case contradicted by
Speaker 1: the fact that, rather than be captured, he blew himself up.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, that is uh, that's not a coward. Couldn't
Speaker 1: stand being captured. I was afraid of American forces. And
Speaker 1: now they have more backlash there. They had to delete
Speaker 1: that tweet. You got fake news CNN. They literally forty
Speaker 1: one of the most shocking lines from Trump's Baghdaddy's speech,
Speaker 1: he died after running into a dead end tunnel, whimpering
Speaker 1: and crying and screaming the whole way. He died in
Speaker 1: a vicious, violent way, as a coward, running and crying.
Speaker 1: Oh I'm sorry. They're bad things to say. You got
Speaker 1: you know then, of course Area fifty one Roswell Rachel
Speaker 1: Maddow's channel ms d NC. The Baghdaddy raid chose flaws
Speaker 1: in Trump's foreign policy. It happened to despite him. I mean,
Speaker 1: they this is how ugly twisted, sick, distorted. The media
Speaker 1: has become all right joining us to discuss this and
Speaker 1: much more. Our Senator Tim Scott, our friend from South Carolina.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know how I like better. I'd
Speaker 1: like Lindsey Graham. He's really been doing a pretty good job.
Speaker 1: But I'm gonna I think I like you better. You
Speaker 1: have great taste in your guests. Lindsey Graham's an excellent choice.
Speaker 1: I won't argue with you, Barry, both of are you
Speaker 1: both great? Yes, we could. We cannot be more proud
Speaker 1: of the President of the United States than his military action.
Speaker 1: He took a high risk and it earned a high return.
Speaker 1: And the media has gone bonkers. If you cannot credit
Speaker 1: President Trump for bringing down the highest profile the leader
Speaker 1: of the ISIS movement back Daddy, there is something wrong
Speaker 1: with your process. They can't overcook my grits. To see
Speaker 1: the response from the left in the media, which perhaps
Speaker 1: the same the exact same thing at times, this is
Speaker 1: just outrageous. The lack of a positive response. I don't
Speaker 1: understand it. John. You know, you said something really funny.
Speaker 1: You kind of reminded me you remember the movie my
Speaker 1: cousin Minnie. You said overcook my brits. You know, remember
Speaker 1: the how do you like it al Dente? And uh
Speaker 1: do you like it oldente? You like instant grits? No
Speaker 1: good Southern or whatever, use instant grits. Oh, and then
Speaker 1: he tears apart. Anyway, you reminded me of that, you know, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you've got now and I know you were one of
Speaker 1: the early signatories, if you will on this Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: effort to say impeachment's debt on arrival because it's being
Speaker 1: done and behind closed doors, led by a fact witness,
Speaker 1: a compromised congressman to corrupt, frankly coward and congenital liar
Speaker 1: Adam Shippy lied to us three years about Russia. So
Speaker 1: now they're going to vote to have the inquiry after
Speaker 1: we already have all the facts. What else do we
Speaker 1: need besides the transcript? Is there anything you can think of?
Speaker 1: I can't. I'll tell you what. There's a stinch coming
Speaker 1: from the House of Representatives because of the fact that
Speaker 1: they've cooked the books before they allow any of the
Speaker 1: process to go public. One of the reasons why I
Speaker 1: have said very clearly that the presumption of innocence have
Speaker 1: to apply to this situation. It's because they've made this
Speaker 1: into a judicial process that we know that the impeachment
Speaker 1: process is a political one. But the way that they
Speaker 1: have characterized it and framed it, my good friend Trey
Speaker 1: Gaudy could not have said it better that the impeachment
Speaker 1: process is the closest thing to a death row case
Speaker 1: or a politician. I've read the transcript several times, and
Speaker 1: the President of the United States is not guilty, according
Speaker 1: to the transcript and my interpretation of an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1: The process, of course matters, but we should first start
Speaker 1: with the fact that there's nothing for us to take
Speaker 1: a look at. If you've read the transcript, it's not
Speaker 1: only that the president is not guilty of anything. And
Speaker 1: what they said, the quid pro quo. You know, they've
Speaker 1: now changed their stories now a million times, and they
Speaker 1: keep raising and moving bars all over the place about
Speaker 1: what this impeachment is about. But it was supposed to
Speaker 1: be about the phone call and a quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: There is no quid pro quo. Here's what I hear,
Speaker 1: and I've read the transcript on the air, both radio
Speaker 1: and TV. Often I hear the press saying, and we
Speaker 1: know we know Ukraine because we have a court decision
Speaker 1: in Ukraine that said they interfered in our twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: We went through three years of oh, we can't have
Speaker 1: foreign interference in our election. So what I hear the
Speaker 1: President is saying is, hey, I need a favor. Can
Speaker 1: you help us get to the bottom of this. To me,
Speaker 1: he's faithfully executing the laws of the land, something the
Speaker 1: media mob said they cared about, Democrats said they cared
Speaker 1: about for three years. Sehn, your point is crystal clear
Speaker 1: that president of the United States is looking back at
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, not looking forward at an opponent. That is
Speaker 1: something that we have to We have to bifurcate this conversation.
Speaker 1: We have to make a line of delineation that simply
Speaker 1: says the president is looking at previous corruption in the
Speaker 1: election process, not looking for a way to injure or
Speaker 1: bring into conversation. Frankly, Joe Biden for the future, it
Speaker 1: was about what happened in he's sixteen. He is like
Speaker 1: a hounddog on this situation. He wants to bring forth
Speaker 1: to declare public what happened in twenty sixteen, and that's
Speaker 1: what he was pursuing and in my opinion, reading that transcript,
Speaker 1: like I said ten times, it is clear he is
Speaker 1: looking back and not forward, and that to me is
Speaker 1: doing the job of the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you about Biden, because it does come up. Okay,
Speaker 1: So if you're looking for a quid pro quote, tell me,
Speaker 1: Senator if I'm wrong. When Joe Biden's on tape bragging
Speaker 1: that he leveraged a billion taxpayer dollars and said, I'm
Speaker 1: you got six hours, you fire the sky, You're not
Speaker 1: getting the money, well, it sounds to me like a
Speaker 1: quid pro quo because and then he says, son of
Speaker 1: a bee, they fired him. And then we now learn
Speaker 1: and we had the disaster interview of my view of
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden. Do you have any experience in Ukraine? No?
Speaker 1: Have any experience and energy oil gas? No? Why do
Speaker 1: you think they picked you to give millions of dollars
Speaker 1: to I don't know. Did they think it might have
Speaker 1: anything to do with the fact that your dad was
Speaker 1: the vice president? Probably? Now, how do the Democrats just
Speaker 1: say that's a conspiracy theory when we know those are
Speaker 1: all facts. Well, number one, it is impossible to not
Speaker 1: hear what you just said and not hear the sound
Speaker 1: of the swamp needing to be drained. That's the first
Speaker 1: thing that comes to mind. Number Two, it is undeniable
Speaker 1: that Vice President Joe Biden made it crystal clear that
Speaker 1: in order to get the money you had to do
Speaker 1: something that to me sounds like quinn pro quo. And
Speaker 1: number three, if your dad's running for president, you might
Speaker 1: not want to go on TV. I think you're going
Speaker 1: to incriminate everything that has happened along the way. That's
Speaker 1: what Hunter Biden did from my perspective. Now, the fact
Speaker 1: of the matter is if you fixed they changed the
Speaker 1: names and it was Vice President Trump and Donald JR. Oh,
Speaker 1: I think the reaction. I think the reaction would be
Speaker 1: very different. All right, let me ask you this question,
Speaker 1: where is this going? Because to me, the Democrats are
Speaker 1: so often that they they're out of their minds with
Speaker 1: rage in the psychosis against Trump. Um they can they
Speaker 1: ever they jumped out of the airplane. Are they now
Speaker 1: going to impeach them? Impeach the president? In your view,
Speaker 1: if they do, what will happen in the Senate? DA
Speaker 1: There's no question that this behind the scenes public not invited. Republicans,
Speaker 1: you have no access to the information, to the testimony,
Speaker 1: to the witnesses, to the fact patterns. Mister President, police
Speaker 1: sit on your hands because you and your team and
Speaker 1: your legal response will have nothing to respond to because
Speaker 1: we're sending you nothing over. There's no way a person
Speaker 1: of conscious sitting as a juror can look at this
Speaker 1: process and say, I find him only in this because
Speaker 1: you can't find them guilty, because there's no doubt the
Speaker 1: process has been so corrupted, so indefensible, that there's only
Speaker 1: one thing that a person of good conscience can conclude,
Speaker 1: and that is that the guilty party might be in
Speaker 1: the House, but it's signed in the White House. The
Speaker 1: interesting thing, and I found fascinating in Washington Times today
Speaker 1: prints out you know this full Department of Justice. The
Speaker 1: Department of Justice investigated and their criminal division has now
Speaker 1: completed their investigation into the conversation with President Trump and
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian president, even about Joe Biden. They concluded that
Speaker 1: mister Trump did not violate any campaign finance laws, and
Speaker 1: a separate division of the department also ruled the administration
Speaker 1: did not break the law by failing to quickly share
Speaker 1: a whistleblower's complaint with Congress saying the matter didn't meet
Speaker 1: the definition of urgent that would trigger the law. The
Speaker 1: Department also released the transcript of the President's conversation with
Speaker 1: President Zelenski, showing that the American leader did talk about
Speaker 1: mister Biden and his son, but mister Trump did not
Speaker 1: threaten to withhold military aid as some of alleged. When
Speaker 1: you hear now that we know what Biden did and
Speaker 1: shaking down Ukraine with taxpayer money, when his VP now
Speaker 1: that we know his son got all of that money
Speaker 1: for doing nothing with no experience, do you is there
Speaker 1: any criminal statute that you can think of? I mean,
Speaker 1: beyond the ethics stink of it all, Is there anything
Speaker 1: you can see that would be legally that would put
Speaker 1: them in any legal jeopardy. I think it's very important
Speaker 1: for us to note that Attorney General Bill Barr is
Speaker 1: a man that we can trust and have confidence in,
Speaker 1: and we can also have great confidence that this is
Speaker 1: just the beginning and not the end. The fact that
Speaker 1: he's looking into the twenty sixteen election process will include
Speaker 1: all that we've talked about so far, and as important
Speaker 1: as it is that he is looking in to the
Speaker 1: entire higher process and the im probing at all. I
Speaker 1: think President Zelinsky's convents of their not being a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo is incredibly important to what we get from hearsayers,
Speaker 1: because you can't call him whistleblowers hearsayers when both parties
Speaker 1: on the conversation says that there was no quid pro quo,
Speaker 1: We're going to go to someone who was not on
Speaker 1: the conversation to establish a fact pattern that is non existent.
Speaker 1: And then you have shift making up from whole cloth
Speaker 1: a transcript that cannot, does not, and will exist. Remember
Speaker 1: he lied for three years, he lied about Russia for
Speaker 1: three years. Well, you know, so there's nothing in the
Speaker 1: real transcripts, so let me make it up as I
Speaker 1: go exactly so there's no way that we can have
Speaker 1: any confidence in what's happening in the house. All right,
Speaker 1: Senator Tim Scott, friend of the program. Love having you
Speaker 1: on from South Carolina. Thank you, Senator, You're always welcome.
Speaker 1: And maybe we'll get you and Lindsay on together. We'll
Speaker 1: have a maybe we'll even bring Gaudy to the mix.
Speaker 1: That'll be fun. A yeah, a powl metal wind day.
Speaker 1: I love it sounds great, all right, Senator, thank you.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred ninety four one. Sean, you want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program on News Round Up, Information Overload.
Speaker 1: I'm finding it a more interesting. Hoyer now throwing cold
Speaker 1: water on Pelosi's impeachment plan. I think he's begin in
Speaker 1: a sense what I've been saying. This is a disaster
Speaker 1: for them. We'll continue coming up next our final News
Speaker 1: round Up and Information Overload hour. The President United States
Speaker 1: went on talking about how Baghdad he died like a
Speaker 1: quote dog, a coward, a whimpering, whimpering and sniveling. He
Speaker 1: sounded not like a president of the United States. He
Speaker 1: actually sounded like Saddam Hussang. After towards ring people sounded
Speaker 1: like momark adopt Republicans and Democrats are united in their
Speaker 1: applause for the news that a military operation in Syria
Speaker 1: took down the number one most wanted terrorists in the world,
Speaker 1: ISIS leader Abu Bakr el Baghdatti. Here's the press conference
Speaker 1: from yesterday. Take a look. Last night, the United States
Speaker 1: brought the world's number one terrorist leader to justice. Baboo
Speaker 1: Bakar al Baghdatti is dead. He was the founder and
Speaker 1: leader of ISIS, the most ruthless and violent terror organization
Speaker 1: anywhere in the world. He died after running into a
Speaker 1: dead end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way.
Speaker 1: So can we at least agree that the world is
Speaker 1: a better place without this guy in it? Oh? Trump
Speaker 1: will the Baghdatti, which one of you bet? But Dotty's
Speaker 1: a bad guy. I'm glad he's dead. Trump is now
Speaker 1: taking credit for all of this. And I remember when
Speaker 1: when Osama bin lay Wet we got away up that
Speaker 1: he put up was captured. Yeah, he said, you know,
Speaker 1: Obama should not be taking credit for this because the
Speaker 1: Navy seals did it well. In this case, the special
Speaker 1: ops or whoever they were did this thing also, So
Speaker 1: maybe she should back off a little bit and stop
Speaker 1: bragging about it so much. All right, They're the insanity
Speaker 1: of everybody in the media, everybody in you know, on
Speaker 1: the left and TV, the medium mob, the Democratic mob.
Speaker 1: They can't even find it within themselves to praise the president.
Speaker 1: Good job, mister president. How about you just say that now?
Speaker 1: Bad enough? You know you have the Washington Post leading
Speaker 1: the way. The Austere religious scholar dies at forty forty eight. Really, Oh,
Speaker 1: and you can't say he is a coward either and
Speaker 1: then and then they can't say it word or it's
Speaker 1: just it's such a derangement we got in Hollywood now
Speaker 1: sympathy growing for Baghdatti, the terrorist, the murderer who used
Speaker 1: to behead Americans. On live TV, live streaming it. You
Speaker 1: had Jamie Lee Curtis racking up thousands of replies before
Speaker 1: she had to delete a tweet actually suggesting the Islamic
Speaker 1: state leader at Bu Bakar al Baghdaddy suffered when he
Speaker 1: was killed Sunday during a US military operation. President Trump
Speaker 1: mince no words, describing the death of Baghdaddy at the
Speaker 1: hands of our brave men and women as a brutal
Speaker 1: killer who has caused so much hardship and death has
Speaker 1: violently been eliminated. He died like a dog. He died
Speaker 1: like a coward. Then Jamie Lee Curtis reacted to the
Speaker 1: President's speech and tweets out, well, he may have died
Speaker 1: a coward at real, Donald Trump, but all living things
Speaker 1: suffer when they're blown up. What is wrong with these people?
Speaker 1: There's like a missing chip, There's something like this is
Speaker 1: like a mass psychosis. I mean, to be at liberal,
Speaker 1: you have to now deny that objective truth exists. You
Speaker 1: have to live in such a state of hypocrisy that
Speaker 1: you know Russian interference only matters if it's Trump, not
Speaker 1: the dirty dossier. That obstruction can only be Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: but not Hillary's deletion, bleach bit namorous. That election interference
Speaker 1: from foreign countries matters, but not if it's Ukraine helping Hillary.
Speaker 1: All the eye believers nowhere to be found when it's
Speaker 1: the Lieutenant governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is
Speaker 1: that sick, It is that inconsistent, that hypocritical, that psychotic.
Speaker 1: At this point, you have to suspend any intellectual honesty, reason,
Speaker 1: common sense to live in this insane world that now
Speaker 1: the mob and the media and liberal Democrats live in.
Speaker 1: And this impeachment madness doesn't matter the Justice Department. We've
Speaker 1: all read the transcript. Everyone's heart about the transcript. The
Speaker 1: President in the transcript is trying to do his job
Speaker 1: and faithfully execute the laws of the land and saying,
Speaker 1: if you have information about twenty sixteen election interference, we
Speaker 1: have an agreement. By the way, put that aside, would
Speaker 1: you we'd like you to help us. Democrats once cared
Speaker 1: about that for three long years, when They thought they
Speaker 1: could get Trump on that, but apparently not. Now, Okay,
Speaker 1: the bidens. You want to talk about quid pro quos,
Speaker 1: We got a quid pro quo. You got six hours,
Speaker 1: six hours, and I'm gonna you're not getting the money.
Speaker 1: Fire this prosecutor. Okay, son of him be they fired him?
Speaker 1: Why did they fire Why did he want him fired?
Speaker 1: Because his son's being paid millions? And the dopey sun
Speaker 1: goes on Good Morning America. Did you have any background
Speaker 1: with Ukraine? No energy, no oil, no gas. No? Oh well,
Speaker 1: why do you think they hired you? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Could it be your last name? The fact that your
Speaker 1: dad's the second most powerful guy in the country. Yeah, oh,
Speaker 1: if that was Vice President Trump and Don Junior, you
Speaker 1: think the mob would act this way? That's a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo. It's also buying influence in favor. How does
Speaker 1: the vice president suff What do you think they're giving
Speaker 1: him all that money for all these countries now we're
Speaker 1: finding out China everything because they wanted favor. You don't
Speaker 1: have experience. No other Americans getting millions of dollars, are
Speaker 1: they anyway? News round Up Information Overload, Kayleegu Mcinaney National
Speaker 1: Press Secretary Trump twenty twenty, the author of the number
Speaker 1: one bestseller Swamp Wars, Donald Trump and the New American
Speaker 1: Populism versus the old Order. I say that they're probably
Speaker 1: now in a position, although Stunny Horriers trying to wake
Speaker 1: some of these idiots up. And I heard Stunny Horrier today,
Speaker 1: Jeff say, you know, signaling that he will not commit
Speaker 1: to the how was voting this week to formalize their
Speaker 1: secret Soviet style impeachment inquiry coup attempt after Pelosi said
Speaker 1: a vote is expected on Thursday. We're gonna have to
Speaker 1: consider whether or not it's ready to go on Thursday.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there is conflict within the Democratic
Speaker 1: ranks on this, Yes? Absolutely. And let's remember that Senny
Speaker 1: Hoyer has clashed in the past with Nancy Pelosi. He's
Speaker 1: let's just say, a minimal fan of hers, So there
Speaker 1: has historically been friction there between the two of them,
Speaker 1: and I can see it coming out right here with
Speaker 1: his comments on impeachment. I mean, whatever else you want
Speaker 1: to say about Senny Hoyer, he's a pretty sharp politician.
Speaker 1: He understands the pickle they've gotten themselves into, and I
Speaker 1: think he wants to be very cautious. What do you think,
Speaker 1: Kaylee mcinanny, Yeah, I think rightfully so. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is essentially an admission that what they've been doing all
Speaker 1: along was not the right way. It's also an attempt
Speaker 1: to legitimize a coup. This is a sham vote. I
Speaker 1: think Stenny Hoyer in part realizes that, or at least
Speaker 1: I hope, because essentially what you're staying with this vote is, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we know we've raided your house. We know we've violated
Speaker 1: your right to be free from a lawful search and sidure.
Speaker 1: We know that we've taken away your Fourth Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: But here's a warrant thirty four days later, and this
Speaker 1: should make up for it. Well, that just doesn't work.
Speaker 1: To try to on the back end say yes, let's
Speaker 1: give the president the rights he deserves. When you've done
Speaker 1: this under the shroud of darkness, the Q and A
Speaker 1: is in a skiff, under lock and key, and you've
Speaker 1: selectively leaked, it looks really bad to the American people.
Speaker 1: And I think wiser Democrats, if there are any, at
Speaker 1: least realize that. I don't know. It seems like most
Speaker 1: of them jumped out of the airplane and they're five
Speaker 1: thousand feet below where the plane is now. I don't
Speaker 1: know if they have any ability to climb back up
Speaker 1: and get an airplane. I would think that the thirty
Speaker 1: to forty or so Democrats that are in Trump won
Speaker 1: districts in twenty sixteen, that they've got to be pretty
Speaker 1: nervous and they may know they're walking the plank if
Speaker 1: they go along with this madness. But there's no indication
Speaker 1: that they have any say now. When they had their
Speaker 1: last meeting, apparently there were twenty seven of them, at least,
Speaker 1: maybe as many as thirty two. I heard my sources
Speaker 1: that were like, this is a bad idea. Does that
Speaker 1: resistance still exist? I guess we're going to find out.
Speaker 1: I expect there's going to be a lot of arm
Speaker 1: twisting of those people and saying you need to do
Speaker 1: this for the good of the country. Right. Yeah, they
Speaker 1: are going to be told that, and they are going
Speaker 1: to be put in a bad situation here. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, you look at a state like Pennsylvania where
Speaker 1: you've got some of these people who were elected. They'll
Speaker 1: be in real trouble if they do this, real trouble
Speaker 1: and they know it. They know it so you know,
Speaker 1: pushing these people into doing this when it's you know,
Speaker 1: more or less signing your own political death warrant is
Speaker 1: something they're not going to appreciate. Yeah, in terms of
Speaker 1: the mob and the media, they're the biggest donors to
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. We know our friends at Media Research,
Speaker 1: and you know they do a pretty good job. And
Speaker 1: what they've pointed out is the broadcast networks, well, they
Speaker 1: have despite all the unreliable nature of these anonymous sources,
Speaker 1: the three broadcast networks, I'll throw this to Kayley, they
Speaker 1: have used them in nearly three fifths of their news
Speaker 1: reports about quote, the impeachment probe since it began, and
Speaker 1: the day the impeachment inquiry was announced, these three broadcasts
Speaker 1: devoted three hundred and twenty two minutes to the probe
Speaker 1: of their evening newscasts across one hundred and forty separate
Speaker 1: news segments. So the bottom line is that's about eighty
Speaker 1: two or fifty seven percent relied at least in part
Speaker 1: on anonymous sourced information. We don't need any sources at
Speaker 1: this point, do we Careley, Because we got the transcript exactly.
Speaker 1: We don't need any source because we have the first
Speaker 1: stand information. But that's what the media does. They don't
Speaker 1: care the veracity of the source, the truthfulness of the information.
Speaker 1: They just care if it's damaging to President Trump. It's
Speaker 1: damaging to President Trump by all means, they'll publish it.
Speaker 1: They'll run with it if it's an anonymous source, or
Speaker 1: I agree with the President at times, perhaps even baking
Speaker 1: up sources and saying it's an anonymous source. But we
Speaker 1: have You're exactly right, Sean, we have the transcript before
Speaker 1: our very eyes. We see there's no quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: So that's why these selective leaks from the testimony from
Speaker 1: this Vendelman guy, and from Bill Taylor and all the
Speaker 1: selective leaks, these are just opinions on a transcript we
Speaker 1: all have seen because we have it in front of us.
Speaker 1: We have the information. We don't need the opinions from second,
Speaker 1: third hand sources, many of whom like Vendelmann today who's
Speaker 1: never even associated with the president or had interaction with
Speaker 1: the president, and just read the transcript like the rest
Speaker 1: of America. So Mark Halperin, who I guess a regular
Speaker 1: panelst on liberal Joe and he and the other guy,
Speaker 1: the other idiot, Heilman I guess his name is or
Speaker 1: responsible for game change. They took what could have been
Speaker 1: a great show called the Circus, and they turned it
Speaker 1: into an abusively biased hate Trump circus. Just an extension
Speaker 1: of everything else we see in the mob in the media.
Speaker 1: But anyway, he writes a book. In this book, he
Speaker 1: is saying that there is a plot with the Democrats
Speaker 1: and never trumpers to doom Trump's twenty twenty election. The
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner has this in there today and that it's
Speaker 1: called the Moonshot Project, which would begin next spring, would
Speaker 1: have the goal of pulling at least three points away
Speaker 1: from Trump's reelection, enough to rob him of reelection in
Speaker 1: a close election. And given the broad support the president
Speaker 1: has from the GOP candidates, their allies would have to
Speaker 1: be prepared to take tremendous heat. But if the election
Speaker 1: is as close as expected, quote, a talented, committed challenger
Speaker 1: could pull enough votes in a battleground state to make
Speaker 1: it impossible for Trump to win, especially if the Democrats
Speaker 1: manage the Green Party. And then he throws out names
Speaker 1: like Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania governor,
Speaker 1: Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin Governor David Jolly of Florida. Do
Speaker 1: you think they would do that, Jeff Lord, Oh, I
Speaker 1: think they try. I think they try. But you know,
Speaker 1: most of the people involved with these kind of things,
Speaker 1: I have never had any serious on the ground experience
Speaker 1: in politics. Some of them, yes, but not a lot
Speaker 1: of them. And so they're off there in this Trump
Speaker 1: derangement syndrome, cloud cuckoo land, sitting there and plotting in Washington,
Speaker 1: DC or wherever, and they think they can pull this off.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, when I get out there, I
Speaker 1: was out twice last week to different events Here in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: people are really ginned up. I mean they are not
Speaker 1: just enthusiastic about the presidents. They're going to do absolutely
Speaker 1: everything things they can pull out all the stops because
Speaker 1: they're aware that these kinds of people are out there
Speaker 1: and they have had enough of it. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: Democrats will pursue this in the House. I think that
Speaker 1: they are delusional enough to think that this is a
Speaker 1: good idea. I think they get to vote despite the
Speaker 1: fact that members like Congress from Peterson, who won in
Speaker 1: a district that Trump won by thirty points, will then
Speaker 1: lose his seat. So yeah, I think they impeach in
Speaker 1: the House. I think it is completely stopped in the Senate,
Speaker 1: and I think we win back the House along with
Speaker 1: President Trump winning re election on November third, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Jeff Floord, where are you going with us? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they're going to try it. Absolutely. And the
Speaker 1: fact over in the Senate that Lindsey Graham has already
Speaker 1: got fifty Republican Senators criticizing the House for this action.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is dead on arrival, as the old
Speaker 1: Leon Panetta phrase used to be about Reagan budgets. It's
Speaker 1: dead and arrival over there. It isn't going to go anywhere,
Speaker 1: and it's going to turn around. The President certainly will
Speaker 1: turn it around and make it an asset for himself.
Speaker 1: Believable times we live in. I'll tell you that this
Speaker 1: I don't know if I've ever seen such madness in
Speaker 1: my life. This is like group psychosis. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if they win, then they want to destroy the country
Speaker 1: with the New Green Deal and Medicare for All and
Speaker 1: every other dumb idea they have. Jeff Lord, Kaylee mcinanny,
Speaker 1: thank you eight hundred and nine for one. Shawn Tolfree
Speaker 1: telephone number. We have an awesome Hannity tonight at nine
Speaker 1: tell you more about that. But when we come back,
Speaker 1: your calls are coming up next. All right, twenty five
Speaker 1: till the top of the hour, eight hundred and nine,
Speaker 1: four one, Shawn, if you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. We've not spoken I don't even think.
Speaker 1: I think we just mentioned it one day in passing.
Speaker 1: We've been so busy with everything else that's been in
Speaker 1: the news. But this California Congresswoman Katie Hill, and she
Speaker 1: gives this four minute I guess resignation with a lot
Speaker 1: of ups and downs in it. From what I could
Speaker 1: see of it. She is claiming she is a victim
Speaker 1: of revenge porn in a pretty defiant video shared online.
Speaker 1: Freshman democrat kind of fiery at times, other times somewhat
Speaker 1: tearful YouTube speech in front of an American flag, saying
Speaker 1: she's resigning from office because of an abusive husband and
Speaker 1: a coordinated campaign carried out by the right wing media. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I'm too busy working to follow the right wing media, Linda.
Speaker 1: We haven't talked about it. What we might have mentioned it,
Speaker 1: I think once in passing, correct, Yeah, I mean we
Speaker 1: were just basically trying to figure out what her deal was. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I think what I said is all I know is
Speaker 1: if this was a Republican it would be everywhere, it
Speaker 1: would be never. And I'll tell you our girlfriend, Kerry Pickett,
Speaker 1: she has been trying to get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: it and find out, you know, what has been going on.
Speaker 1: And I think the thing is is that she's got
Speaker 1: to play the victim because the people that she was
Speaker 1: having these quote unquote meetings with and paying them for
Speaker 1: their time, you know, they were paid for consulting, they
Speaker 1: got a bonus, you know, and it's all on the
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars. So it's a problem. Well, you know, one
Speaker 1: of the things I've been saying, I know a lot
Speaker 1: of these guys have had these settlements where, you know,
Speaker 1: we've had reports and we've talked about it at length,
Speaker 1: that taxpayer dollars have been used to make settlements with
Speaker 1: staff by congressmen in congresswomen. Now, I don't you know,
Speaker 1: sometimes that becomes a he said, she said, Sometimes it
Speaker 1: becomes a business decision that you you know, Okay, it's
Speaker 1: gonna cost me this amount of money if you pay somebody,
Speaker 1: it's gonna cost me this amount of money if if
Speaker 1: I litigate it, and it's gonna be horrible press. So
Speaker 1: you never know. But the thing is, if they want
Speaker 1: to make these settlements, I've been saying, due with your
Speaker 1: own money. That's that's let's see, that's the thing like
Speaker 1: she's saying, you know, oh, my husband did this to me.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, you know, what you
Speaker 1: do in the privacy of your own home or your
Speaker 1: office or whatever you're doing. Okay, fine, I don't want
Speaker 1: to know about it. Well, when you start, you know,
Speaker 1: having affairs with people that are your junior, you know,
Speaker 1: they report to you, you know, and it gets a
Speaker 1: little Harry. I mean, this is why we all have
Speaker 1: HR and you know we kind of have to go
Speaker 1: through all of these you know, these various thirty hour
Speaker 1: you know, um human resources training sessions. You know, forgive me,
Speaker 1: thank you, Jason. So you know there's let me tell
Speaker 1: you at Fox, there's like New York state law, then
Speaker 1: there's the HR Department laws, and then there's this law,
Speaker 1: and then there's that law. I mean, it's all over
Speaker 1: the place, no for sure. But the problem is that
Speaker 1: her story it just kept getting worse. First it was like, oh,
Speaker 1: I you know, I was fooling around with this girl.
Speaker 1: She was an intern. Then she came on as a staffa. Oh,
Speaker 1: then it wasn't just me, it was me Safa. Then
Speaker 1: it was me her and my husband. We were in
Speaker 1: a couple. We were a throuble. You know, I didn't
Speaker 1: even know what a throuble was to I never heard
Speaker 1: of that, or were the only two Ethan Jason, no idea,
Speaker 1: Katie never heard of thule Kylie. If you guys ever,
Speaker 1: did anyone ever hear of that before? Who did? No one? Did?
Speaker 1: No one? Did no one? I mean, I mean Katie
Speaker 1: Hill obviously knew all about it because she was in it,
Speaker 1: but other than that, nobody knew what it was. And
Speaker 1: I think, you know, so then it's like, Okay, now
Speaker 1: I got Thrupple, uh you know it was all consensual.
Speaker 1: Now I got this other guy, you know, and this
Speaker 1: guy I don't even want I don't even want to
Speaker 1: hear it. I just don't want you got to hear
Speaker 1: it because I'm telling you about it. Well, then this
Speaker 1: other guy, she swim around with this guy, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, is this a hot mess? You know? And
Speaker 1: that the problem is, what is the revenge porn part
Speaker 1: of it. What does she mean by that because her well,
Speaker 1: the affair she was having, obviously it wasn't enough just
Speaker 1: to have the affair. They needed to, you know, commemorate
Speaker 1: it with a photo or a video. You know, it's like, okay,
Speaker 1: you know, not only oh so she so. In other words,
Speaker 1: she's saying one of the people in wild saying her
Speaker 1: ex husband released these photos on various websites to get
Speaker 1: back at her, and that's why it's a revenge porn
Speaker 1: type situation. Well, it sounds like her husband's a jerk
Speaker 1: if he was participating in all of this where he
Speaker 1: was mad because his wife was having multiple fans with
Speaker 1: men and women. Yeah, well so you know, you know
Speaker 1: there might be some rational, righteous indignation. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: people do crazy things, you know when they get you know,
Speaker 1: they get hurt. Where is she coming up with a
Speaker 1: coordinated campaign carried out by the right wing media, because
Speaker 1: that's what gets everybody on her side. See, her side
Speaker 1: is the victim side. So her side is where everybody's
Speaker 1: a victim. You know, if you're not a victim, you
Speaker 1: know there's something wrong with you. So now she's got
Speaker 1: to say oh no, this was all consensual. I'm a victim.
Speaker 1: You know. It's because I'm a lesbian. No, no, it's
Speaker 1: because I'm bisexual. No, it's because my husband abused me. No.
Speaker 1: I never had an afair with anybody else. Oh no, wait,
Speaker 1: I wasn't a throuble with my husband. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: I was having an afair with this other guy. Oh no,
Speaker 1: I did pay him a bout. I mean, it's a high,
Speaker 1: it's a disaster. Just go away, be quiet. You're making
Speaker 1: it worse. You're you're giving me a headache. I have
Speaker 1: a headache. You're welcome, you know. Anyway. MSNBC the you
Speaker 1: know area of fifty one Robswell Rachel Madau channel is
Speaker 1: mourning the tragedy of all of this. U there's a
Speaker 1: Fordam professor Christina Greer is her name, saying about the resignation.
Speaker 1: It's a form of technological domestic abuse. You know, I
Speaker 1: will say this, and in her defense, and people might
Speaker 1: be surprised. I'm saying this if she and her husband
Speaker 1: or the thruble, if they make an agreement between themselves
Speaker 1: to tape something like this and then it's weaponized by
Speaker 1: one of the three, or I mean at that point,
Speaker 1: doesn't it now border or you begin to have to
Speaker 1: investigate the issue me something Storeship just going to cut
Speaker 1: you off at the past now because you don't know
Speaker 1: nothing about this, because you're just older and you don't
Speaker 1: get it. This is the way it works, all right.
Speaker 1: Once you do something like this, what is wrong with you?
Speaker 1: Why are you so hostile today? I just need to see.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that if you participated in this and then
Speaker 1: you turn around and you use it against the people
Speaker 1: involved in this, it's a pretty crappy thing to do,
Speaker 1: especially if you know it's gonna hurt one of the
Speaker 1: people that you were involved in and you all decided
Speaker 1: to do this, and on the other side of it,
Speaker 1: you can make an argument. And I would go to
Speaker 1: the Gawker case with Whole Cogan as an example where
Speaker 1: hang on a second. This he got one hundred and
Speaker 1: forty million dollars in a jury verdict and Gawker went
Speaker 1: under as a result. That was that was a landmark case.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, So in the age of twenty nineteen, almost
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, for anybody to take a picture, for anybody
Speaker 1: to have a video, and you're gonna say to the
Speaker 1: other person. Now listen, just keep it for yourself, never
Speaker 1: show it to anybody. First of all, you are a
Speaker 1: mo run. Okay, because there is no way run. No
Speaker 1: run is an extended, amplified version of a morun. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's a mo run. You're still done. It has reverb
Speaker 1: behind it. Get about it. It's a hot mess. So
Speaker 1: now you're gonna take a picture butt naked having an affair,
Speaker 1: three or four people involved. You're paying people off, and
Speaker 1: you say, now now that we have all of none
Speaker 1: of us are honest. We're all doing something wrong. But hey,
Speaker 1: you have my word. I'm never gonna show anybody this picture.
Speaker 1: But even though I'm cheating on my wife, my husband,
Speaker 1: they've been money from the taxpag They may not think
Speaker 1: it's wrong. They have a different value system than you do.
Speaker 1: All right, so they got a different value system. But
Speaker 1: they're never going to show the naked pictures. Give me
Speaker 1: a break. Why don't you take a picture on an iPhone?
Speaker 1: Forget about it. It's for the world to see. That's
Speaker 1: why they have a thing called the cloud that keeps
Speaker 1: getting hacked. How many actors and actresses have we seen
Speaker 1: button naked? Because they can't stop taking pictures of themselves
Speaker 1: naked and then it makes careers. I mean didn't depends
Speaker 1: Baris Hilton, they all have I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: ever watch that crap, so it's not up for me.
Speaker 1: All right, let me get to the phones. Uh Moses
Speaker 1: knew joy Zy? What's up? Moses? How are you welcome
Speaker 1: to the program? I'm doing outstanding? Sean, Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for taking my call. And I actually saw you
Speaker 1: a Politicon this weekend. I was actually down there and
Speaker 1: I thought the debate was awesome and have fun, yes, sir,
Speaker 1: you know. And the one takeaway that I have, Sean,
Speaker 1: and this is one thing that really really like resonated
Speaker 1: with me, is that, you know, like some of the
Speaker 1: some of the debates that I saw with some of
Speaker 1: the Democrats and some people on the left, the way
Speaker 1: that they debate what they're saying, it's just they are
Speaker 1: living in a completely different world. And my takeaway is this,
Speaker 1: and this is how I think the Begins and Conservatives
Speaker 1: can actually win the messaging war that they're losing right now,
Speaker 1: because it's easy to say, to assent to a Republican
Speaker 1: senator or maybe a conservative talk show host that you're
Speaker 1: a racist, you're a Nazi that walls don't work, you know,
Speaker 1: pick their poison. But it's not so easy to have
Speaker 1: that same argument, and for example, Poonacy Pelosi on camera
Speaker 1: and say that walls don't work to the Border Patrol
Speaker 1: sector chief of the San Diego sector. You can't do
Speaker 1: that because she will wreck her. With the stats, with
Speaker 1: the data, how assaults on agents go down eighty percent.
Speaker 1: We have to turn that White House press briefing room
Speaker 1: into a debate stage. Have the best spokespeople alongside with
Speaker 1: the President make the case to the American people and
Speaker 1: give us a security briefing, one that the press will
Speaker 1: not be able to deny and also the Democrats will
Speaker 1: not be able to oppose. We need to elevate the
Speaker 1: people that are around the president, the lifelong officials that
Speaker 1: are that he supports, and have them make the case
Speaker 1: a live televised presidential town hall. Imagine you as the
Speaker 1: moderator with the Angel moms, with the Ice officials, with
Speaker 1: the Border Patrol agents jumping into that river, saving the families,
Speaker 1: with the charts, the data, everything showing the American people
Speaker 1: what's happening and disproving every single Democratic talking point and
Speaker 1: every single mainstream media lie, that will be very, very
Speaker 1: it'll be awesome for the American people. Look, I am
Speaker 1: as a conservative and thank you for the call. Confident
Speaker 1: that when you put the president's record. Look, Reagan ran on,
Speaker 1: are you better off than you are four years ago?
Speaker 1: The answers obviously yes, Obama and Biden ran on, Oh,
Speaker 1: Osama's dead and GM's alive. Okay, bag Daddy's dead. And
Speaker 1: we have the lowest unemployment numbers since nineteen sixty nine,
Speaker 1: record low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans,
Speaker 1: women in the workplace. All right, Next question, do you
Speaker 1: think that Donald Trump has lost any of the support
Speaker 1: of people that went out and passionately voted for him
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. I don't think he's lost day. Can
Speaker 1: he get maybe of the seven million Americans off of
Speaker 1: food stamps and the seven million new jobs who created,
Speaker 1: Can he get some of those voters to say this
Speaker 1: is working for me and vote for him? I think yeah.
Speaker 1: I like his chances, and I don't think Impeachman is
Speaker 1: going to have any impact at all. Back to our phones,
Speaker 1: Terry is in California. This fire is so out of
Speaker 1: control it's so scary. What is happening out in California?
Speaker 1: Now we got now new wins of coming in as
Speaker 1: I understand it. Terry, you're a firefighter, God bless you.
Speaker 1: That is a very difficult, dangerous job. Sir, Yes, sure,
Speaker 1: glad to be with you. So the reason I called
Speaker 1: is I just want to give you an update. It's
Speaker 1: really not the news is not really doing it. Just
Speaker 1: as to what had happened up here, the initial fires
Speaker 1: started to believe on Wednesday, burned down and threatened the
Speaker 1: town of Geyserville, which is about twenty miles north of
Speaker 1: Santa Rosa, which had about ten percent of the homes
Speaker 1: burned down on the Tubs fire in twenty seventeen. My
Speaker 1: wife is a sergeant in Santa rose A Police department,
Speaker 1: and brothers the time chief with the Santa Rosa So
Speaker 1: the information I've got from them, myself being retired now
Speaker 1: after twenty six years in a student of the wildfire history,
Speaker 1: this thing had set up between Wednesday when the winds
Speaker 1: kind of turned off, burned Thursday and Friday and burned down,
Speaker 1: So it was kind of pointing directly at the town
Speaker 1: of Windsor Larkfield in Santa Rosa, So we got very lucky.
Speaker 1: And I have to say the strategy and tactics of
Speaker 1: this instandent management team and Colt Fire and the cooperating
Speaker 1: agencies have put together was absolutely amazing, some of the
Speaker 1: best firefighting in recorded history. So they had enough time
Speaker 1: to get about five hundred and fifty engines up, which
Speaker 1: is one hundred and ten strike teams, dozers, water tenders, aircraft,
Speaker 1: had everything in place, and then the major wind event hit.
Speaker 1: We had one hundred and three o'clock mile per hour
Speaker 1: winds at the ridge top and fifty to eighty down
Speaker 1: in the flats. So they took probably about I'm guessing
Speaker 1: about one hundred and fifty to two hundred engines and
Speaker 1: staggered them at least two miles deep from where the
Speaker 1: firefront was to where it was potentially going to jump
Speaker 1: the highway, which is six lanes. So they were literally
Speaker 1: my brother said that they were literally bumper to bumper
Speaker 1: engines on every street, every firefighter putting out every ember
Speaker 1: that they could possibly find, and managed to keep it
Speaker 1: from jumping the freeway, which was absolutely one of the
Speaker 1: biggest success stories in wildfire modern wildfire history. I've never
Speaker 1: we've never had a chance to get everything right. They
Speaker 1: evacuated out one hundred and ninety thousand people hours eight
Speaker 1: hours in advance, so everybody was out of the way,
Speaker 1: which allowed the firefighters to really get in there and
Speaker 1: do their jobs. I mean, from what I saw, these
Speaker 1: guys took a hell of beating the police department, law
Speaker 1: enforcement or military or up there keeping everything safe locked down.
Speaker 1: But if this fire had jumped the one on one,
Speaker 1: in my estimation, it was going to burn all the
Speaker 1: way to the Pacific Ocean, which is about thirty five
Speaker 1: miles and that was the entire evacuation area in that area,
Speaker 1: looking about two hundred and fifty thousand acres that would
Speaker 1: have burned. So right now, the winds are picking up
Speaker 1: again to about thirty five miles per hour affecting GUS
Speaker 1: to sixty this afternoon in this evening. So currently the
Speaker 1: big threats are to Middletown in Calistoga, which is on
Speaker 1: the eastern flank of the fire, in the south end
Speaker 1: of the fire. So keeping fingers crossed that they can
Speaker 1: keep doing some great work. And again I just I
Speaker 1: want to say that the fire in law enforcement is
Speaker 1: this has to be the absolute biggest fire success story
Speaker 1: I've ever heard of. Wow, you just stunned all of us.
Speaker 1: We're all looking at each other like, Wow, you really
Speaker 1: are a student of these wildfires. I don't have a
Speaker 1: lot of time to go into detail. I just want
Speaker 1: to say this, Thank goodness, thank God there are people
Speaker 1: like you and all these firefighters. It scares me watching
Speaker 1: all of this happen out there, the destruction, the devastation,
Speaker 1: the people's homes. It's horrible when people lose homes' But
Speaker 1: you know, more importantly, you're saving lives and you are
Speaker 1: saving property, and it is a great personal risk. And
Speaker 1: I just want you to know we're thinking about all
Speaker 1: of you guys out there fighting every day. You're in
Speaker 1: our thoughts and prayers, and thank you for what you
Speaker 1: do and the heroism your show every day. And our
Speaker 1: prayers are with you and everybody out there. All right,
Speaker 1: quick break, we'll continue now. Listen, we're wrapping things up
Speaker 1: for today, but I will tell you I have Hanniday tonight,
Speaker 1: nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel. Loaded up. We
Speaker 1: got Devin Newness, we got Steve Scalise, we got Senator
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham, Dan Bongino, Uraldo on the political side. How
Speaker 1: will all this democratic madness play out? Carl Rove Ranks
Speaker 1: previous That's Hannaday tonight sat you DVR nine Eastern on
Speaker 1: the Fox News Channel. And we will be back here
Speaker 1: tomorrow as always, thank you for being with us, See
Speaker 1: you tonight, Back here tomorrow