Speaker 1: Well we have come in. I wanna way I get
Speaker 1: sing you a conscious sound, will I'll be entire and
Speaker 1: if you want a little banging and y ain't come along.
Speaker 2: When we see them trying to chill speech of jokesters,
Speaker 2: when we're seeing all of this, that is a playbook
Speaker 2: out of.
Speaker 3: Hitler, and I won't deny it.
Speaker 4: At my speech on the ellipse a tyrant, we used
Speaker 4: to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators.
Speaker 1: That's what we're dealing with right now, Donald Trump, these
Speaker 1: are the two things I got from the United Nations.
Speaker 3: A bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.
Speaker 2: Tradom is back in style. Welcome, We're coming to your.
Speaker 1: Don't way I gets and saying you a conscious son.
Speaker 3: Hannity Show more I'm the scenes, information on freaking news
Speaker 3: and more bold inspired solutions for America.
Speaker 1: All right, thanks.
Speaker 3: Scott chan An Hour two Sean Hennity Show, toll free.
Speaker 3: Our number is eight hundred and ninety four one Sean
Speaker 3: if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 3: Very interesting, how events were unfolding yesterday and MSDNC, they're
Speaker 3: the ones that broke the story about about James call
Speaker 3: me and the fact that he may be indicted. Also,
Speaker 3: we have the issue of whether or not there might
Speaker 3: be an incitement coming for Letitia James. But the whole
Speaker 3: thing is, if you if you look at the timing
Speaker 3: what's actually going on, it's pretty interesting. In my view,
Speaker 3: that probably means that call me got what's called a
Speaker 3: target letter, hence the leak. And then again this is
Speaker 3: speculation on my part, but hence I would argue an
Speaker 3: educated guess the leak to MSDNC probably told that charges
Speaker 3: would be filed, probably knows what it's about false statements
Speaker 3: to Congress. Now, yesterday the grand jury was not meeting.
Speaker 3: They have been meeting today. We're waiting to see if
Speaker 3: we hear any news later today because if there's going
Speaker 3: to be an indictment, and I don't know if there is,
Speaker 3: I'd say maybe the odds probably are sixty percent when
Speaker 3: you look at the venue in which you know, this
Speaker 3: grand jury is located in Virginia, Northern Virginia. But they're
Speaker 3: meeting today. The other day that it could happen would
Speaker 3: be next Tuesday. They do have one problem on this
Speaker 3: aspect of it, and that is the statue of limitations
Speaker 3: would run out later next week, because they're talking about
Speaker 3: lying to Congress in September of twenty twenty, and the
Speaker 3: month is coming to an end, and that means the
Speaker 3: statute of limitations would be up now. If, in fact,
Speaker 3: Cash Pattel, our FBI director, goes forward with his investigation
Speaker 3: into a grand conspiracy, and we have talked at length
Speaker 3: about this, this statute of limitations would not be applicable.
Speaker 3: That would mean you can go all the way back
Speaker 3: to Hillary Clinton and her top secret classified information on
Speaker 3: our server. You can work your way through the lies
Speaker 3: and you know, the dirty Russian disinformation dossier that was
Speaker 3: bought and paid for by Hillary becoming the base basis
Speaker 3: of PISA warrence. That would lead you through you know,
Speaker 3: the second you know, after we had career senior intel
Speaker 3: officials given assessment of the twenty sixteen election, and then
Speaker 3: Obama didn't like it. According to reports, he himself ordered
Speaker 3: his top lieutenants that would be Brennan and Clapper to
Speaker 3: come up with a new intelligence assessment. They contradicted the
Speaker 3: real intelligence assessment. Then it would lead through a grand
Speaker 3: conspiracy into twenty twenty. And that is the FBI pre
Speaker 3: bunking the very real Hunter Biden lineaptop that they verified
Speaker 3: as authentic. In March of twenty twenty. They spent the
Speaker 3: entire summer meeting weekly with big tech, big tech and
Speaker 3: social media companies telling them, oh, you're likely going to
Speaker 3: be victims of disinformation in the twenty twenty presidential campaign,
Speaker 3: leading into all of the lawfare through twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: From twenty twenty to twenty twenty four, that would be
Speaker 3: the Grand Conspiracy investigations. Under those circumstances, the Statute of
Speaker 3: limitations would not apply anyway. The person I would say
Speaker 3: has broken more stories on all of this over this
Speaker 3: ten year period and doesn't stop. He's been unrelenting is
Speaker 3: He's the founder, editor in chief and chief investigative reporter
Speaker 3: for just thenews dot com. Our friend John Solomon is
Speaker 3: with us, sir.
Speaker 2: How are you?
Speaker 3: I'm Will Sean, Okay, So you're as well connected as
Speaker 3: anybody as I know. I'm assuming you might know more
Speaker 3: than me, but I we understand that this has gone
Speaker 3: before the grand jury today, that they didn't convene yesterday.
Speaker 3: Do you think my theory about a target letter, my
Speaker 3: theory about why it went to MSDNC in terms of news,
Speaker 3: my theory about you know, not being a venue that
Speaker 3: is a slam dunk, even though I think the case
Speaker 3: is when we can play James Comer and President Trump
Speaker 3: at a minute. But what are your thoughts?
Speaker 2: I think you set it up perfectly in just how
Speaker 2: you describe it. You're exactly right. So this grand jury
Speaker 2: is meeting in Richmond, in Virginia. Why are they bringing
Speaker 2: the charges here? Because when James Comy last testified that
Speaker 2: he never authorized a classifiedly, he was testifying remotely in
Speaker 2: Virginia during the pandemic. So the proper venue is Virginia, Richmond,
Speaker 2: the Eastern District of Virginia is the courthouse. Agents and
Speaker 2: other witnesses are bringing that testimony today mostly if the
Speaker 2: grand jury ends up a bill of indictment today or
Speaker 2: next Tuesday, before the statute of limitations. Kind Now, the
Speaker 2: evidence is very clear. It comes from a very powerful source.
Speaker 2: It isn't some outsider, it isn't some agent. Years later,
Speaker 2: looking at it, James Comy's own general counsel, James Baker,
Speaker 2: told the FBI and documents we broke on your show
Speaker 2: just a few weeks ago that he had been instructed
Speaker 2: by Komy through his chief of staff, James or Bickie
Speaker 2: to leak classified information in the fall of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: just before the election. That is a powerful witness. It
Speaker 2: isn't someone who's turned against Kmy. It's his phone inner
Speaker 2: circle saying yeah, that's what happened. James Comy knows that
Speaker 2: that allegation is out there in twenty nineteen and twenty
Speaker 2: twenty because a special prosecutor looked at it. They made
Speaker 2: the decision in nineteen and twenty that they're not going
Speaker 2: to charge Baker for the leak, as Komy asked them
Speaker 2: to do it. Then Komy goes back before Congress on
Speaker 2: September thirtieth, twenty twenty, that's hence the five year statute
Speaker 2: of limitations, and then says, I double down. I didn't
Speaker 2: instruct anyone to leak a classified intelligen So after knowing
Speaker 2: that the Evans was there, he doubled down on the denial,
Speaker 2: something that his own inner circle says he did. That's
Speaker 2: why this case is being brought. We'll see what it is.
Speaker 2: In the old days, people would say Grand Jerry would
Speaker 2: indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked. But we're
Speaker 2: not in the old days. In the era of Trump,
Speaker 2: not only have judges and fbis and institutions become partisan,
Speaker 2: but grand jury's can have partisan struggles as well. So
Speaker 2: a indictment, even on very clear evidence, isn't always a
Speaker 2: certain he's about to see what happens. I think that's
Speaker 2: sixty percent guesstimate. He gave us a really good guest
Speaker 2: of the probably what the odds are that something will
Speaker 2: come of this?
Speaker 3: Let me play two clips of Jim Comy himself. One
Speaker 3: is him claiming that he knew nothing about the Russia probe.
Speaker 3: And this is pretty spectacular to me, considering he signed
Speaker 3: three of the first four PIZA applications, the basis of
Speaker 3: which we now know, the basis of which the second
Speaker 3: intelligent assessment regarding the twenty sixteen election. They added the
Speaker 3: Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian disinformation dossier. But
Speaker 3: this is him trying to claim he knew nothing about
Speaker 3: the Russia probe.
Speaker 5: Listen in October, when the warrant was submitted, the application
Speaker 5: was submitted. What effort had been made to verify the
Speaker 5: dossier in October?
Speaker 2: I don't know specifically, So.
Speaker 5: In October is clear, mister Comy there was no effort
Speaker 5: to verify the dossier before it was given to the court.
Speaker 2: Do you agree with that? I don't know the yes.
Speaker 2: I don't remember learning anything additional about Steel's sources, not
Speaker 2: that I recall now. I don't remember or.
Speaker 5: Ever were you aware that in December twenty sixteen, the
Speaker 5: CIA tells the FBI they characterized the dossier as Internet rumor.
Speaker 1: They don't recall any informed of that question.
Speaker 3: And John Solomon did, in fact James Calemy sign the
Speaker 3: first pize application in October twenty sixteen despy on one
Speaker 3: carter page, but also give them a backdoor into all
Speaker 3: things Trump world? And did they use Hillary Clinton's bought
Speaker 3: and paid for Russian disinformation dossier as the basis for
Speaker 3: that warrant?
Speaker 1: A big part of the basis for that warrant?
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely, yes, he did sign the first one and
Speaker 2: the second one in December. Why is that important? In
Speaker 2: December we now have these new explosive documents from the
Speaker 2: CIA director John Radcliffe, the Odie and I Tulci Gabbert,
Speaker 2: and documents from Caspertel. What did they show? They show
Speaker 2: that it was James Comy himself that was trying to
Speaker 2: force the Steele dossi into the intelligence community. Assessment so
Speaker 2: that they can make some claim that Donald Trump was
Speaker 2: in bed with Russell, even though all the evidence proved otherwise.
Speaker 2: He was still trying to go He not only knew
Speaker 2: what was in the Steel dassay, he was one of
Speaker 2: its largest proponents, trying to impose it on the rest
Speaker 2: of the intelligence community. And that's not that's people like
Speaker 2: Jay John Brennan saying that in documents and emails, Comy's
Speaker 2: entire description his hands off. I don't know much about this.
Speaker 2: It's just not true when you look at the actual document.
Speaker 1: Didn't he sign three of the four or fives of Warrens.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he signs the third one in April, and then
Speaker 2: he fired in May. And then the last one, I
Speaker 2: think it gets signed by Indy McCabe.
Speaker 3: And wasn't Christopher Steele, you know, wasn't he pushed out
Speaker 3: of being a source for the FBI prior to the
Speaker 3: signing of the second one.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. There are three major warning signs in
Speaker 2: the time that this happens. In September of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: the CIA first warned the FBI that the Steel's circle
Speaker 2: of sources, if you can call him that, which were
Speaker 2: mostly cutting people that they had been compromised potentially by
Speaker 2: Russian oligarchs, and he needed to be revalidated. They then
Speaker 2: submit the first warrant, the search warrant. They get it
Speaker 2: approved on November first of twenty sixteen, Christopher Steel's terminated
Speaker 2: for the legally leaking information from the investigation. In December,
Speaker 2: there is a whole new trant of intelligence that comes
Speaker 2: in that shows that the things that Christopher Steel was
Speaker 2: saying isn't true. And on top of that, the FBI's
Speaker 2: analytical team has gone through the doss a line by
Speaker 2: line and they created a spreadsheet. You and I talked
Speaker 2: about this on your show four or five six years
Speaker 2: ago when we first broke to the spreadsheet and they
Speaker 2: went through and they couldn't find a single line that
Speaker 2: was accurate, and they found many lines that simply could
Speaker 2: be disproven. So by the time December rolls around and
Speaker 2: they're authorizing the seconde warrant, the visa warrant, there is
Speaker 2: overwhelming evidence inside the FBI that Christopher Steel's document is
Speaker 2: a bad document, a bad intelligence product, something the fis
Speaker 2: of court should not be relying on. Instead of telling
Speaker 2: that to the court, they try to sustain the notion
Speaker 2: that this is the credible document. And I think a
Speaker 2: lot of people now, people who are investigating this now Sean,
Speaker 2: they believe that Comi's motive, possibly in December of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: to try to squeeze the Steele do'sse into the Intelligence
Speaker 2: Committe assessment, to get the CIA and the NSA to
Speaker 2: kind of put their name into it or to improter
Speaker 2: to it. They have been an effort to try to
Speaker 2: protect himself with the Viser Court, which is he knew
Speaker 2: it was a bad document, or his bureau knew it
Speaker 2: was a bad document. He wanted some other validation to
Speaker 2: have a defense with the court. Now that's what some
Speaker 2: people are looking at. We'll see what the ultimate evidence
Speaker 2: shows out. But that period of December that you just
Speaker 2: zered in is a very important period.
Speaker 3: So what we just hearned from James Comy is either
Speaker 3: a lie or he signed a PIZA warrant and he
Speaker 3: didn't know what was in it. I don't know which
Speaker 3: would be worse. But he then was made aware of
Speaker 3: it that it was part of the PISA application bulk
Speaker 3: of information as a matter of fact, and he claimed
Speaker 3: he knew nothing about the Russia probe. We know we
Speaker 3: have evidence that that's a lie. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, we know from the Inspector General's report that
Speaker 2: the FBI knew that the visa was bad failed to
Speaker 2: tell the court. We know that James Comy signed the
Speaker 2: warrant saying he had read it all and could verify
Speaker 2: and attest to its accuracy. From that testimony you just played,
Speaker 2: he seems to have a lot of equivocation about whether
Speaker 2: he knew what he was signing. And then we now
Speaker 2: know that the key testimony that the grand jury's reviewing
Speaker 2: right now at Richmond, Virginia, that he didn't authorize a
Speaker 2: leak of classified information in that same timeframe October twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: That is already amazing.
Speaker 2: Oh people, yeah, they all.
Speaker 3: And as a matter of law, we get onto this
Speaker 3: with Greg Jarrett last night. He once he knew that
Speaker 3: the Steele dossier was unverifiable, had an obligation legally to
Speaker 3: go back to the fires at court and say we
Speaker 3: found out that the information was false. Let me play
Speaker 3: another clip for you. This is him admitting to Lindsey
Speaker 3: Graham that he wouldn't have signed the advisa warrant knowing
Speaker 3: what he knows now.
Speaker 1: Listen, knowing then.
Speaker 5: What you know now about all the things that we've
Speaker 5: come to find, would you have still signed the warrant
Speaker 5: application against Carter Page in October, January, and April.
Speaker 2: No. I would want a much more complete understanding of
Speaker 2: who we were, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: But he knew. That's the point.
Speaker 2: I certainly knew a lot, and the fact that he
Speaker 2: would claim he didn't know it means that he didn't
Speaker 2: take to his responsibilities at the time seriously before the fight.
Speaker 2: Warn't because when you fixed your name, you're telling the
Speaker 2: court I have checked this out personally. So he's had
Speaker 2: in many different ways. Right, He's either an ignorant FBI
Speaker 2: director who has signed his name falsely to a document
Speaker 2: that he's really checked us out, or he knew all
Speaker 2: along what was going on and he's trying to create
Speaker 2: the cover story afterwards. Neither one of those are going
Speaker 2: to be flattering to the legacy of James Comy, nor
Speaker 2: is today's potential results from the grand jury. This is
Speaker 2: a moment of extraordinary consequence for a guy who used
Speaker 2: to brag that he reported to a higher authority to
Speaker 2: hire loyalty. We'll see if that loyalty involved the right truthfulness.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a higher honor, mister, higher honor himself. Meanwhile, you
Speaker 3: know when he said to Lindsey Graham, knowing what you
Speaker 3: know now, By the way, so did every other person
Speaker 3: that signed those SPISA warrants. John Solomon, justinnews dot com Founder,
Speaker 3: editor in chief, chief investigative reporter. This is a pretty blockbuster.
Speaker 3: We're watching this news very closely. We'll watch today. If
Speaker 3: it doesn't happen today, we'll see what happens Tuesday. It's
Speaker 3: a very tough venue, so I'm managing people's expectations here.
Speaker 1: I know there's going to be a lot of fury.
Speaker 3: However, the Grand Conspiracy investigation by Cash Bettel has to
Speaker 3: be watched as well.
Speaker 1: John Solomon, thank you, sir.
Speaker 2: Yeah, great to be with you, Sean, great work.
Speaker 3: Eight hundred nine four one shaw in our number. All right,
Speaker 3: So we're now the Democrats are angry, Democrats are curious.
Speaker 3: Democrats are mad and unloading on the White House because
Speaker 3: in a memo from the Office of Management and Budget
Speaker 3: that political published, the administration signaled that they're prepared to
Speaker 3: go further than usual in terms of furloughs if there's
Speaker 3: a government shutdown caused by the Democrats. Now anyway, there's
Speaker 3: notices will be in addition to any furlough notices. In
Speaker 3: other words, essential services. For example, Grandma and grandpa will
Speaker 3: get their Social Security check, Medicaid, medicare.
Speaker 1: That's all.
Speaker 3: That'll all be up and running. Our defense or Department
Speaker 3: of War. They will be open, they will be protecting US.
Speaker 3: ICE agents will be on the border. Essential workers will
Speaker 3: be there now. Historically, government shutdowns work this way. Government
Speaker 3: employees get a free two three, four week vagation, they
Speaker 3: come back and get back pay.
Speaker 1: I hope they stop that process.
Speaker 3: By the way, if in fact the Democrats shut it down,
Speaker 3: Democrats are demanding a trillion dollars in news spending and
Speaker 3: Trump said no, not doing it.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: Democrats are saying that shutdowns are bad, but they're the
Speaker 3: ones that are threatening to cause it. Let's just take
Speaker 3: a trip down memory lane, shall we and listen to
Speaker 3: Democrats talk about the bad, bad government's big bad government
Speaker 3: shut down in the past.
Speaker 1: We believe in governance. We want to keep governments open.
Speaker 1: A shutdown is very serious.
Speaker 6: There are real consequences when the government shuts down. It
Speaker 6: harms our national security, It harms our economy, and it
Speaker 6: harms service members, veterans, retirees, and vulnerable communities.
Speaker 3: We all know a shutdown is unnecessary and completely avoidable.
Speaker 1: The tragedy here is all the civilian employees. It is
Speaker 1: the American people who are going to suffer. Border patrol
Speaker 1: agents will not be paid.
Speaker 2: TSA agents will not be paid. Small businesses will be hurt.
Speaker 4: Not only is it irresponsible and purposely misleading, it is
Speaker 4: dangerous precedent to be threatening a shutdown.
Speaker 1: I'm worried about our air controllers, those in the military.
Speaker 7: We have over almost forty thousand in the military, as
Speaker 7: well as personnel who work in the military, and they
Speaker 7: won't have checks.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is this is real, the real people's
Speaker 3: lives at stake.
Speaker 4: It is not normal to hold eight hundred thousand workers
Speaker 4: paychecks hostage.
Speaker 1: It is not normal to shut down the government when
Speaker 1: we don't get what we want.
Speaker 3: Our troops deserve better, our children deserve better, and the
Speaker 3: American people deserve better.
Speaker 2: These chaos agents, they don't have a plan bet they
Speaker 2: just want to see everything burning. Shutdown is really is
Speaker 2: an extremist policy designed to appeal to an extremist base
Speaker 2: and hold the whole country hospital. Keep this shutdown. You
Speaker 2: know who's not to feel to pay?
Speaker 1: You know who?
Speaker 3: It hurts you out now all of a sudden they
Speaker 3: push for a government shutdown.
Speaker 1: You just can't make it up. It's such hypocrisy, uh Sean.
Speaker 3: If you want to be a part of the program,
Speaker 3: let's say, Hi, did NICKI is in Louisiana, Nikki High?
Speaker 1: How are you glad you called?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 4: Yes, I'm a leado of an ICE agent. And the
Speaker 4: way that the media and outlets of then portraying ICE
Speaker 4: agents has has been so irresponsible, and it's really scaring
Speaker 4: me because I mean, I raised a family, you know,
Speaker 4: with a dad ICE agent, and the things that we
Speaker 4: had to go through, and as as you know, people
Speaker 4: moving from New York to the border and my kids
Speaker 4: growing up in that area. It's it's we went through
Speaker 4: a lot, and we're not enemies to illegals. All their
Speaker 4: friends were were illegal who came in and we love them.
Speaker 4: And the agents are so caring and they're such eight
Speaker 4: people and they're so kind, and it's just really it's
Speaker 4: so irresponsible to portray them in a light where they're
Speaker 4: just not human when when they better than anybody understand
Speaker 4: what they average illegal goes through, and they want absolutely
Speaker 4: no part in discriminating against them or hurting them in
Speaker 4: any way. I mean, they're only there to really catch
Speaker 4: the child pornographers. I mean I talk to my husband.
Speaker 4: We had the closest of marriages, and he told me
Speaker 4: everything that he did in it was scary to hear
Speaker 4: that these people are coming and you know, and they're hurting.
Speaker 4: They're hurting their own community, and we are in that community.
Speaker 4: You know, ten miles from our house, it would be beheadings,
Speaker 4: and you know, my kids would go to school and
Speaker 4: I'd wonder, oh my gosh, what's you know, what's going
Speaker 4: to happen there. There's a lot of danger on the
Speaker 4: border and it's just to think that, I say, a
Speaker 4: thing could be killed because of all of that, because
Speaker 4: these people are not understanding that that you know, we
Speaker 4: have friends that are illegals, that we love them.
Speaker 1: And if ather's I have no problem with immigration. I'm
Speaker 1: the product of immigration.
Speaker 3: All four of my grandparents came to America at the
Speaker 3: turn of the last century from Ireland. Is it really
Speaker 3: too much to ask people to do it legally? Is
Speaker 3: it really too much to ask that we vet you
Speaker 3: and make sure you don't have radical associations. Is it
Speaker 3: really too much to ask post COVID that we have
Speaker 3: a health check? Is it really too much to ask
Speaker 3: that you not be a financial burden on the American people?
Speaker 3: The reckless, irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric of the left, and I
Speaker 3: would argue newsome part of it, you know, calling it authoritarianism, etc.
Speaker 3: You know, meanwhile, the sanctuary state of California is aiding
Speaker 3: in a bedding and providing benefits for people that did
Speaker 3: not respect our laws, borders, and sovereignty. And then Gavin
Speaker 3: of course signs this reckless, dangerous, irresponsible bill where ICE
Speaker 3: agents can't wear masks, which essentially puts them in a
Speaker 3: position to be docks. But he exempts California Highway Patrol
Speaker 3: which guard him, just like he exempted himself by going
Speaker 3: to the French laundry, just like he exempted his kids
Speaker 3: by sending them to private school so they could have
Speaker 3: in person learning while the rest of California, you know,
Speaker 3: everyone else's kids were learning remote. Or Jasmine Crockett. When
Speaker 3: I see ICE, I sye slave patrols or Tim Walls,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's modern day gestapo, or mayor Karen Bass accusing
Speaker 3: ICE and Trump at Homeland Security Apparatus of conducting a
Speaker 3: reign of terrorism or terror or Brandon Johnson comparing federal
Speaker 3: immigration enforcement to terrorism, or Michelle Woo in Massachusetts, the
Speaker 3: Boston mayor, you know, comparing them to Nazis and ICE
Speaker 3: agents enforcing federal lawness sanctuary city, you know, comparing it
Speaker 3: to a neo Nazi organization, or or representative John Larson,
Speaker 3: after ICE operations in his district, he called federal immigration
Speaker 3: forces Trump's personal secret police, the secret the SS, the Gestapo.
Speaker 3: You know, it's it's unbelievable, it's dangerous, it's reckless. And
Speaker 3: if you look at this shooter in Dallas with you know,
Speaker 3: the shellcasings and the anti ICE message, Kee, I wonder
Speaker 3: where some of these ideas may have come from. I
Speaker 3: just wonder out loud. Anyway, people like your husband were
Speaker 3: a hero, Nikki, God bless you eight hundred nine four
Speaker 3: one Sean, if you want to be a part of
Speaker 3: the program. Fletcher is in Texas. God bless Texas. Fletcher.
Speaker 2: How are you good?
Speaker 7: How are you doing?
Speaker 1: I'm good? What's on your mind?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 7: I wanted to talk about Charlie Kirk. And the reason
Speaker 7: I wanted to bring this up is because of the
Speaker 7: violence yesterday in Dallas. I live in Houston. But the
Speaker 7: thing I don't think people are really getting or don't
Speaker 7: really want to discuss about it is the is the
Speaker 7: reason why Charlie Kirk was assassinated. People will keep blowing
Speaker 7: it off like it's it was something he said, and
Speaker 7: it's not. I mean a lot of people said the
Speaker 7: same things you did. Bill O'Reilly said the same things.
Speaker 7: Michael Knowles, then Shapiro, the list goes on and on.
Speaker 7: It wasn't what he said, it was who he was
Speaker 7: talking to. He was talking to young people, and that's
Speaker 7: what scares the Democrats because that's their demographic. That's who
Speaker 7: they keep going after. That's who they want to indoctrinate.
Speaker 7: And so you know, if you think that, you know,
Speaker 7: the rhetoric that comes out of these Democrat mouths is reckless,
Speaker 7: and that you know, they just don't seem to get
Speaker 7: it what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 7: They knew that somebody was going to take a shot
Speaker 7: at him.
Speaker 2: I mean, you look at when.
Speaker 7: The rhetoric started ramping up. And this has to do
Speaker 7: with education. It was right about the time that the
Speaker 7: Department of Education was getting defunded, and it really ramped
Speaker 7: up even more in July and August when Donald Trump
Speaker 7: started cutting off funding to some of these Ivy League
Speaker 7: university We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars with
Speaker 7: the money here that gets eventually funneled back into Democrat hands.
Speaker 7: So do you think they were just being reckless. That
Speaker 7: ain't the case at all. They knew what they were doing.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no doubt.
Speaker 3: I think what made Charlie's mission particularly special is the
Speaker 3: fact that he go into these hostile environments and we
Speaker 3: got to remember the we've become so accustomed to the
Speaker 3: indoctrination and that these have become in doctrination centers.
Speaker 1: You know, think about this.
Speaker 3: How many kids on college campuses here a message from
Speaker 3: a peer that, you know, it's a good idea to
Speaker 3: get involved in a church. How many of them hear
Speaker 3: a message that hookup culture is not good for you.
Speaker 3: How many of them here a message you know, not
Speaker 3: to do drugs. How many of them hear a message
Speaker 3: on how to respect women and how to women and
Speaker 3: men should get along and treat each other. You know,
Speaker 3: how many hear a message, don't be the kid throwing
Speaker 3: up in the bushes at a frat party. It's it's
Speaker 3: not usual. And that is a threat institutionally to these
Speaker 3: these indoctrination centers. And that's what made Charlie so effective.
Speaker 3: You know, if there's a silver lining, and how do
Speaker 3: you ever tell Erica Kirk there's a silver lining?
Speaker 1: But she knows it. It's true. It's that it is.
Speaker 3: They now have applications for what one hundred and twenty
Speaker 3: some one thousand new chapters of Turning Point USA.
Speaker 1: Is you know that they have no idea.
Speaker 3: What they did to Charlie is you know, I'll quote
Speaker 3: Chuck Schumer on the steps of the Supreme Court, They've
Speaker 3: unleashed a whirlwind of new activists and people on college
Speaker 3: campuses that will hear a very different message when they
Speaker 3: should be hearing in the classroom. But they're now going
Speaker 3: to hear regularly. And that's that is an incredible legacy
Speaker 3: of a great man. Charlie Kirk, appreciate the call, my friend,
Speaker 3: eight hundred nine four one, Sean. If you want to
Speaker 3: be a part of the program, it's our busy phones
Speaker 3: eight hundred nine four one Sean our number. If you
Speaker 3: want to be a part of the program. Let's say
Speaker 3: hi to Jay. He's in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hanging
Speaker 3: out with Linda. What's up, Jay? How are you hi?
Speaker 2: How you doing? It's great, honor, what's going on? I
Speaker 2: was just wondering with the California law and everything, that's
Speaker 2: just pretty much a shureboot, right, because they really can't
Speaker 2: do anything because ICE is a federal agency.
Speaker 3: Correct, Well, how stupid is that they made such a
Speaker 3: fanfare out of it on Saturday Gavin Newsom did. And
Speaker 3: not only does it not take effect till January A,
Speaker 3: but b it is unconstitutional. There is a supremacy clause.
Speaker 3: The jurisdiction to enforce federal law is with the federal government,
Speaker 3: not with state governments. And every ICE official from Tom
Speaker 3: Homer and Christy Nome and all these people, I've interviewed
Speaker 3: them all and they all say the same thing.
Speaker 1: They're not changing the thing. It's it's it's and nor
Speaker 1: should they.
Speaker 3: But I will tell you this, we need to thorough
Speaker 3: debate investigation into states and cities that have sanctuary state
Speaker 3: and city policies, and we've got to ask how is
Speaker 3: that not aiding and abetting those people and actually using
Speaker 3: taxpayer money to benefit people that didn't respect our laws, borders,
Speaker 3: and sovereignty, because you know what that to me, that
Speaker 3: makes them complicit. Anyway, I'm just up on the clock.
Speaker 3: I do appreciate your call. God bless you. Eight hundred
Speaker 3: and nine four one Sean. If you want to be
Speaker 3: a part of the program,