Speaker 1: You know how much I love my pillow, how much
Speaker 1: it's changed my life for the better. Well, I figured
Speaker 1: it was about time that I let you know about
Speaker 1: my pillow sheets Now. Mike Lindell has a passion to
Speaker 1: help you get the best sleep of your life. That's
Speaker 1: why he has created the new Giza Dream Bedsheets. Now.
Speaker 1: These sheets are made from the world's best cotton, Giza
Speaker 1: that's only grown in a very small region where the
Speaker 1: Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River all meet
Speaker 1: to create the ideal weather conditions for growing cotton. These
Speaker 1: Giza sheets are available in a variety of colors. They
Speaker 1: come with Mike's ten year warranty sixty day money back guarantee.
Speaker 1: The first night you sleep on these sheets, it's heaven.
Speaker 1: You'll never want to sleep on anything else. Now, right now,
Speaker 1: you my listeners, You're gonna save thirty percent and get
Speaker 1: free shipping when you use the promo code Shawn seven
Speaker 1: Sea and seven when you go to my pillow dot
Speaker 1: com again. That's promo code Sewn seven Sea and seven
Speaker 1: at mipillow dot com. All right, glad you with us.
Speaker 1: Happy Friday, Happy Passover, Happy good Friday, Holy Saturday, and
Speaker 1: Happy Easter Sunday. We have so much, all of us
Speaker 1: to be thankful for the greatest, freest, best country God
Speaker 1: has ever given man, a country that has accumulated more
Speaker 1: power than in any other country in the history of mankind,
Speaker 1: and abused it less and advanced the human condition all
Speaker 1: over the world more the United States of America. There's
Speaker 1: one blessing. That's why all of this that we've been
Speaker 1: dealing with, all that is about to come, is so
Speaker 1: important when it never been a perfect country known. But
Speaker 1: in their wisdom, our framers, our founders, they created a
Speaker 1: system of governance. And remember, government in its best state
Speaker 1: is but a necessary evil, and its worst state an
Speaker 1: impolerable one. That was Thomas Paine. He also said, where
Speaker 1: the guides and dictates of conscience irresistibly obeyed, conscience defined
Speaker 1: as God telling us right and wrong in our hearts,
Speaker 1: and we all are failures in that respect, there would
Speaker 1: be no need for government. But that not being the case.
Speaker 1: We've got the best system and it keeps getting threatened
Speaker 1: by very powerful people. That's what this is all about.
Speaker 1: Forget listen. People have been writing me telling me, you
Speaker 1: know a lot of things, some favorable too. I mean,
Speaker 1: thank you for staying on this for two years. Thank
Speaker 1: you for the team that you put together that have
Speaker 1: have That is maybe twenty five thirty of us, including
Speaker 1: my TV and radio staff that you know radio more
Speaker 1: than TV, the names that we talk about every day,
Speaker 1: and the ones that jump in and interrupt me all
Speaker 1: the time here on my own show and don't even
Speaker 1: ask permission to put on the mic every once in
Speaker 1: a while. But I'm just teasing. But there's maybe twenty
Speaker 1: five or thirty of us. The rest of the corrupt media.
Speaker 1: They were in unison and what is the biggest lie
Speaker 1: ever told? Group think lie And it was a coordination
Speaker 1: with a Democratic Party apparatus if your will or apparat check,
Speaker 1: whatever you prefer, and a media that is compliant and
Speaker 1: in unison with their message and has a political agenda.
Speaker 1: And they share one common trait, a psychotic rage and
Speaker 1: hatred of all things Donald Trump. That means Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: all his family, all that he stands for, anybody that
Speaker 1: likes him. Remember, we're the smelly Walmart people, those of
Speaker 1: us that like Trump, We're the ones that are I
Speaker 1: can smell them the Walmart to get smelly Walmart Trump
Speaker 1: voters we are in their private moments where we're looked
Speaker 1: down on. You know, the people who are the people
Speaker 1: that really make this country great, it's we the people.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what you do for a living. Everybody
Speaker 1: I know gets up out of bed. They serve other people,
Speaker 1: you know, and in the process they get to make
Speaker 1: some money so that they can buy a house and
Speaker 1: a car and or get an apartment or whatever you're doing.
Speaker 1: You know, every business is either you're producing goods of
Speaker 1: services for other people. Like a mailman. A mailman. I
Speaker 1: love my mailman, I love my UPS driver. I get
Speaker 1: to I love my FedEx driver. I get to know
Speaker 1: these guys. They're great guys, and every day they got
Speaker 1: to work their ass off. They're like being monitored in
Speaker 1: GPS around their route every day, and god forbid, they
Speaker 1: stop for lunch ten seconds longer than they should. They're
Speaker 1: getting trouble. It's ridiculous. And all you know, if you
Speaker 1: go to a restaurant, think of all the people that
Speaker 1: that are behind the scenes to get that meal to
Speaker 1: you and your family or friends or whatever you happen
Speaker 1: hanging out with. I mean, first you got you know,
Speaker 1: you got the cooks, you got the waiter, you got,
Speaker 1: the bus boys, you got, the bartenders, you got you know,
Speaker 1: all these people serving you. But then you hopefully leave
Speaker 1: them a good tip and they get they get paid
Speaker 1: for what they do, and you have a great meal
Speaker 1: and you have a good time, and the good restaurants
Speaker 1: will stay in business and the bad ones will go
Speaker 1: out of business. And but that that's what life is.
Speaker 1: And it's just when you see that ninety nine point
Speaker 1: nine nine percent of the media went hook line and
Speaker 1: sink her into lying daily with anonymous sources, breathless hysteria,
Speaker 1: hyper ventilating fake news, conspiracy TV, and the noise continues.
Speaker 1: It's not like they're going out there today or yesterday
Speaker 1: and saying, wow, every time we said Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Trump, Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: Trump Trump, collusion, collusion, collusion. You know, you might think
Speaker 1: at some point they say, um, oh, we might have
Speaker 1: gotten us all wrong. We might Uh well, uh, let
Speaker 1: me's talk about the Steel dossier. You know, what they
Speaker 1: have done here is irreparable harm to the country and
Speaker 1: to themselves. Their inability to retract, to apologize, to their
Speaker 1: their inability of any self reflection or introspection. You know
Speaker 1: I was raised Catholics. I was talking about I feel
Speaker 1: guilty over everything. I have bad thoughts, I feel guilty,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's it's just one of those things.
Speaker 1: But I've never looked at that guilt as necessarily a
Speaker 1: bad thing, because often it informs me that maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: The hardest words for people to say is I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, And that's a big part of life. But
Speaker 1: we're imperfect people. That's just who we are. But you know,
Speaker 1: we have major components here because what happened puts this
Speaker 1: great democratic republic, this constitutional republic, in jeopardy. These are
Speaker 1: not words that I came up with for the sake
Speaker 1: of speaking them. When we talk about a dual justice system,
Speaker 1: an equal justice under the law, an equal application of
Speaker 1: our laws, if you really want to sum it up
Speaker 1: into different phases, you know you have one phase where
Speaker 1: you have a favored candidate that committed felonies, violated the
Speaker 1: Espionage Act. There's no debate any longer. The evidence is there, overwhelming, incontrovertible,
Speaker 1: irrefutable evidence that Hillary Clinton and top secret classified information
Speaker 1: on a private email server likely hacked by six foreign
Speaker 1: intelligence services. But that's a different story that probably one
Speaker 1: of them Russia, probably another one, North Korea, probably another one, China,
Speaker 1: probably another one Japan, and god knows how many others.
Speaker 1: That's why you don't put it there. And then you
Speaker 1: know you had a group of people that favored her.
Speaker 1: Even the person interviewing her thinks that she should win
Speaker 1: one hundred million to zero and said so, and still
Speaker 1: got the interviews and was writing her exoneration in May
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen before the interview of her and seventeen
Speaker 1: other key witnesses, and actually allowed in the interview Hillary
Speaker 1: to bring to other people in you think that would
Speaker 1: be afforded to General Flynn, who both McCabe and Coby
Speaker 1: bragged about setting up the deputy FBI director. I told
Speaker 1: him he doesn't need a lawyer and callby saying, oh sure,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't do this in the Obama administration or the
Speaker 1: Bush administrators. I took full advantage of the chaos on
Speaker 1: day four the Trump administration. Okay, that's how we treat
Speaker 1: thirty three year veterans to our country, and then and
Speaker 1: then create a perjury. And then even after they find
Speaker 1: out the FBI still didn't think he lied. But because
Speaker 1: he has no more money because he worked in the
Speaker 1: for the military, not in the private sector where we'd
Speaker 1: make a lot more money. Then they're like throwing the book. Well,
Speaker 1: either you sign this that you lied to the FBI,
Speaker 1: or and you cooperate with us so we can put
Speaker 1: the screws to you so that you'll sing or compose,
Speaker 1: or we're gonna have you were in business with your son.
Speaker 1: We're gonna begin our investigation into your family. What father
Speaker 1: and husband's not gonna say, screw it, just dive on
Speaker 1: the sword. I'll go to jail. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: let that happen to my family. And now he's millions
Speaker 1: of dollars in debt and he's still facing sentencing. But
Speaker 1: the three components are what they are. You've got a
Speaker 1: rigged investigation by biased people that abuse their power. And
Speaker 1: then you've got everybody knew bruce or testified to it.
Speaker 1: In August to twenty sixteen, including the pit bull of
Speaker 1: Robert Muller's team. They knew that, in fact, Hillary bought
Speaker 1: the irony of all ironies, bought and paid for a
Speaker 1: Russian dossier with money she funneled from a law firm
Speaker 1: to an op research firm. To hire a foreign national
Speaker 1: who's not supposed to influence our elections. That that foreign
Speaker 1: national we knew in August the twenty sixteen. According to
Speaker 1: Bruce Or hated Trump had an agenda. Hillary bought and
Speaker 1: paid for it the opposition party, and it can't be
Speaker 1: verified because even its own author under oath, in an
Speaker 1: interrogatory said, I have no idea if it's true. So
Speaker 1: you rig Hillary's investigation. She gets to remain in the race,
Speaker 1: the favored candidate over the you know, the candidate that
Speaker 1: should lose one hundred million to zero. That is a
Speaker 1: loathsome human being. According to Struck in page please tell
Speaker 1: me he's not gonna win, and then well, if he does,
Speaker 1: we have an insurance policy then to then we have
Speaker 1: the outright spying of the Trump campaign. Stefan Helper is
Speaker 1: tasked to spy on Carter Page, George Popadopoulos and also
Speaker 1: Sam Clovis. Then they lie to a fires of court.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell the fires a court. Christopher Steele hates Trump.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell the fires a court. Hillary paid for it.
Speaker 1: They just had an astro saying might have slight political team.
Speaker 1: That's not that's not being that's that's lying by omission
Speaker 1: to a court. That is an outright fraud to a court.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell the court that it was unverified. We
Speaker 1: now know it's unverifiable. Even Steele doesn't believe in his
Speaker 1: own dossier. And then they used that to spy. Once
Speaker 1: you got into Carter pages, old emails, you were in
Speaker 1: the whole state, you were in the whole you were
Speaker 1: in all of Trump world at that point. And then
Speaker 1: that information from that phony dossier was leaked. Harry Reid
Speaker 1: got some let's see Michael Izikoff, David Korne the Washington Post. Well,
Speaker 1: where did they get the dossier information from? When? Why
Speaker 1: was it disseminated? Well, they got it from the deep state.
Speaker 1: We believe probably Clapper or Brennan, maybe Brennan more than Clapper.
Speaker 1: And it needs to be investigated. And they wrote about
Speaker 1: it Hooker's Ritz, Carlton Moscow p and on Donald Trump's bed.
Speaker 1: Not true, but people heard it. It went pretty viral
Speaker 1: before the election. Why to impact the election, and then
Speaker 1: it's used to influence the election, and then lo and
Speaker 1: behold they lose anything that was nobody expected that part.
Speaker 1: And then when they lose, well that's all right, because
Speaker 1: now they've got the insurance policy. James Comey signed that
Speaker 1: first FISA application that was a fraud before the court
Speaker 1: in October of twenty sixteen, before the election, and he
Speaker 1: heads on up to Trump Tower when it's President elect
Speaker 1: Trump and pulls him aside and says, yeah, just so
Speaker 1: you know, there's a stasier out there. It's sillacious, but
Speaker 1: it's not verified. Well that's not what he was saying
Speaker 1: to the FISA court three months prior. So, either helied
Speaker 1: in October twenty sixteen, who was lying in January twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: and then the whole lead up. We have three invest
Speaker 1: foign investigations, no collusion. You know, how many more times
Speaker 1: do I need to read from the Muller report before
Speaker 1: it is etched in the brain of these fake news, lying,
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists in the media that the investigation did not
Speaker 1: establish members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with
Speaker 1: the Russian government in its election interference activities. And they
Speaker 1: every time they said it, they were lying. Every anonymous source,
Speaker 1: they were breathlessly, you know, hyperfinel on the air, breathlessly
Speaker 1: reporting fake news, lies, conspiracies, and no reflection. Today later
Speaker 1: on we have Horaldo on. Well, we also have Sidney Powell,
Speaker 1: Peter Schweitzer, John Solomon's got a lot of news of
Speaker 1: what's coming. We're gonna get into that too. Horaldo wonders
Speaker 1: if is there's any Democratic candidate that's going to apologize.
Speaker 1: The answers, No, Horaldo, we'll have you on in a
Speaker 1: little bit to talk about it. It's not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: All right, let me tell you about blinds dot com.
Speaker 1: We have a lot to get to today, Happy Friday,
Speaker 1: and all they're gonna say to you one last thing
Speaker 1: before we go to break, don't listen to the noise anymore.
Speaker 1: They're just doubling down on stupid. They have forever been
Speaker 1: exposed for who they are, and they are about to
Speaker 1: be hit with the biggest avalanche tsunami of truth that
Speaker 1: proves that they are liars and have been from the beginning,
Speaker 1: and conspiracy theorists, that nobody will ever trust them again,
Speaker 1: nor should they. There's a reason why we've been right
Speaker 1: and they've been wrong, and I'm not taking the credit.
Speaker 1: So an ensemblecast of very brave people that we've all
Speaker 1: worked really hard to get to truth, and we got
Speaker 1: there and believe me. You think a lot of these
Speaker 1: people like us. No, they want to take us all out. Hey,
Speaker 1: if you're one of thirty four million Americans that smokes,
Speaker 1: you know what a hassle it can be. For me.
Speaker 1: I'm out playing golf and I come back smelling like cigars.
Speaker 1: It's the smell on your hands and your breath, your clothes.
Speaker 1: But now, thanks to Jewel, you don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about it anymore. Jewel is a vaporizer. It does contain nicotine.
Speaker 1: For a satisfying transition. Now, when I found Jewel, it
Speaker 1: was a complete game changer in my life. I don't
Speaker 1: smoke any cigars any longer. And Jewel was designed by
Speaker 1: smokers for smokers to be an alternative to whatever it
Speaker 1: is you're smoking. So if you're one of thirty four
Speaker 1: million adults who do smoke cigars, cigarettes, pipe, whatever, well
Speaker 1: there is an alternative to all of them. Now. To
Speaker 1: discover the smoking alternative that's like nothing you've ever tried,
Speaker 1: just visit Juul dot com slash switch America. That's ju
Speaker 1: Ul dot com slash Switch America. Now warning, this product
Speaker 1: does contain nicotine, and nicotine is addictive. Tin As we continue,
Speaker 1: Happy Friday. I got so much news that we're gonna
Speaker 1: get to today. What's coming is amazing. It's amazing. Inasmuch
Speaker 1: as you talk, I've used the term boomerang. This is
Speaker 1: going to be the biggest political boomerang it probably will
Speaker 1: ever see in our lifetime. When I say the biggest
Speaker 1: abuse of power corruption scandal in history, that's not hyperbole.
Speaker 1: We've known it's all coming soon. It will be an
Speaker 1: avalanche of new information that confirms on a much deeper
Speaker 1: level than even a lot of us that have been
Speaker 1: doing this for two years. New and it's gonna come fast,
Speaker 1: and it's gonna be overwhelming, and it's going to be
Speaker 1: something that everybody will realize how dangerous this has all
Speaker 1: become as it relates to the fake news, conspiracy TV
Speaker 1: media fraud noise. It doesn't matter. They have forever destroyed
Speaker 1: themselves as they even dig deeper as we speak. We'll
Speaker 1: continue on the other side. Hey, if it's time for
Speaker 1: new job, it is time to get to know Express
Speaker 1: Employment Professionals. Now your local Express experts, Express Employment Professionals,
Speaker 1: they're ready to help. Now apply on the Express Jobs
Speaker 1: app or just go to their website. Expresspros dot Com.
Speaker 1: Now Express Pros offers good paying jobs and administrative roles
Speaker 1: as well as skilled labor jobs. If you need a
Speaker 1: full time or a summer job, Express can help. Once again,
Speaker 1: Express received the Talent Satisfaction Award from Best of Staffing.
Speaker 1: Apply now at Expresspros dot Com or your local office
Speaker 1: and you can even complete the application over the phone.
Speaker 1: And Express associate said, everyone at Express is supportive and
Speaker 1: they went out of their way to place me in
Speaker 1: a job. I greatly appreciate Express Pros. When you apply
Speaker 1: for a job, you need to call back to interview
Speaker 1: or let your local Express Employment specialists help you. Job
Speaker 1: Seekers never pay a penny and Express Pros has helped
Speaker 1: thousands of people find thousands of positions. So land your
Speaker 1: new job with Express Employment Professionals. There's an investigation at
Speaker 1: its core about Donald Trunk's daily, sometimes hourly assault on
Speaker 1: the rule of law in this country. As the country's
Speaker 1: chief executive. He sat in his pajamas watching Fox and Friends,
Speaker 1: maligning the FBI. Bill gar didn't walk into that room
Speaker 1: with this scale at zero rule of law how to deficit?
Speaker 1: Because Donald Trump had been kicking it in the teeth.
Speaker 1: Can I just talk about this issue of the president's
Speaker 1: concerns about leagues. You know who else was concerned about leagues,
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon. This report is a gift to the government
Speaker 1: of Russia. This is a very proud moment for Vladimir Putin,
Speaker 1: for the amount of information that relates to collusion and
Speaker 1: obstruction activity is really quite expensive in the spur. There's
Speaker 1: significant there's a there's significant material in here that we
Speaker 1: did not know on the question of collusions. It's here
Speaker 1: in substance, in nuance, in context, and it's there for
Speaker 1: all people of goodwill in this country, if they're not
Speaker 1: so dug in politically or ideologically, to process the information
Speaker 1: and make some sophisticated judgments. And the other thing this
Speaker 1: report did is that it really corroborated a lot of
Speaker 1: the good journalism that was done. Mulla, highly respected in
Speaker 1: the instigator and law enforcement official. Uh, he could not
Speaker 1: find sufficient evidence that there was conspiracy by any American
Speaker 1: knowingly or by any member of the Trump tank team.
Speaker 1: That's great news, But bar repeating it over and over
Speaker 1: and over again, six or seven times, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: that's a little excessive. Can anybody president keeps I could
Speaker 1: keep going on with this forever and ever and ever,
Speaker 1: this media meltdown over the Muller report. You know, it's
Speaker 1: so funny. Oh, all those times we said collusion, all
Speaker 1: those times we reported Russia collusion. Um, yeah, never mind
Speaker 1: that wasn't true. We didn't really meet it the whole time,
Speaker 1: you know. Um, and an amazing report. Three hundred and
Speaker 1: what nine times the media mentions impeachment yesterday, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a roadmap to impeachment DP road you know, they
Speaker 1: get on the same talking points NewsBusters puts out that
Speaker 1: throughout Thursday afternoon and Friday morning, liberal talking heads cable
Speaker 1: broadcast mentioned impeachment in astonishing three hundred and nine times
Speaker 1: because that's where their hope is, you know, and Muller
Speaker 1: gave them the little political you know, through the mabone
Speaker 1: of Oh you know, if you look at this, it
Speaker 1: really is you know, we don't make a decision one
Speaker 1: way or another. Yeah, that decision has been made though
Speaker 1: by people that matter more than Muller. You know. The
Speaker 1: whole Independent Council law was changed by Democrats. Democrats angry
Speaker 1: over the ken Star report. Democrats like Nadler who never
Speaker 1: wanted the Star report out, now they want transparency there,
Speaker 1: it's all political. So they took the Independent Statue Council,
Speaker 1: They created a special counsel, and that the special counsel
Speaker 1: would report directly to the Attorney General, meaning that let's
Speaker 1: say this happened in the Obama years, that dere Colder
Speaker 1: would never have released it the way Bard did to
Speaker 1: the American people. And oop, sorry, that's what the law says.
Speaker 1: You gotta stick by the law. And that would have
Speaker 1: been their narrative. That's because that's how listen how many
Speaker 1: times even on the Fast and Furious scandal which implicated
Speaker 1: the Attorney General. Remember, they didn't even mark these guns
Speaker 1: that they're handing over to, you know, kidnappers and cartels
Speaker 1: and it's killing Americans. What was that named Terry, Officer
Speaker 1: Terry that got killed with one of our own guns. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we never got to the bottom of that, just like
Speaker 1: the IRS scandal, just like everything else, because you know,
Speaker 1: I've got your back. Holder was the Attorney General at
Speaker 1: the time. Now they're trying to I'm sorry, what brand
Speaker 1: What did you say? Brian Terry his brother we've had
Speaker 1: on this program many many times. His brother's name is Kent.
Speaker 1: Great family. All right, let me go into some other
Speaker 1: stuff because I've told you what's coming fifty three closed
Speaker 1: door inner views of these deep state officials. What is
Speaker 1: now emerging as a circular firing squad. We learned, for example,
Speaker 1: struck in page we had no power. This was all
Speaker 1: the Hillary investigation was all run by Loretta Lynch. Okay,
Speaker 1: now we're going to get to the bottom of that
Speaker 1: story again. If we're gonna have equal justice under the law,
Speaker 1: equal application of our laws, if we're not going to
Speaker 1: have a dual justice system, Okay, what did the Attorney
Speaker 1: General at the time, the same person that said it's
Speaker 1: a matter, Jim, it's not an investigation, and courageous Jim Comey,
Speaker 1: the SuperPatriot that he thinks he is, went along with
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch. And then Loretta Lynch caught on the tarmac
Speaker 1: with Bill Clinton just days before, Oh, the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice is going to decide the fate of his wife,
Speaker 1: and knowing that the evidence was overwhelming because now we
Speaker 1: have Freedom of Information Act requests, and when the FBI
Speaker 1: did a simple test of Hillary Clinton's emails, the ones
Speaker 1: that weren't deleted and acid washed and beaten up with devices,
Speaker 1: the ones we got, they tested forty of them, and
Speaker 1: four of them of the forty had top secret classified
Speaker 1: information on them, and they were freaking out about how
Speaker 1: this is going to impact America's relationships with foreign entities.
Speaker 1: So that's the Lauretta Lynch there. Then we have the
Speaker 1: whole unmasking issue. Yeah, why did they increase the unmasking
Speaker 1: of American citizens three hundred and fifty times. Then we
Speaker 1: had to get into, you know, the three different parts
Speaker 1: they rigged Hillary's investigation. The favored candidate, the ones that
Speaker 1: should win one hundred million to zero against the evil,
Speaker 1: loathsome Donald Trump, who, oh, we needed an insurance policy
Speaker 1: in case he wins, you know, and his voters are
Speaker 1: smelly walmart people, the irredeemable deplorables, the clinging to God,
Speaker 1: their Bibles, their gun, their religion. So three parts of it.
Speaker 1: Then part two, after Hillary's is exonerated when she committed
Speaker 1: crimes and she obstructed justice, they all cared yesterday on
Speaker 1: TV about auction of justice, as I predicted they would.
Speaker 1: But yet here you have Hillary with a real underlying crime,
Speaker 1: the Espionage Act violated, overwhelming and controvertible evidence. Then you
Speaker 1: have the intent. Oh, let me get rid of the evidence.
Speaker 1: I'll delete the subpoena emails. I'll clean up the server
Speaker 1: with bleach bit, then remove any remaining emails that might
Speaker 1: be in a BlackBerry or an iPhone or whatever, and
Speaker 1: I'll beat them up, and just to make double shore,
Speaker 1: I'll take out the SIM cards all them. Then we've
Speaker 1: got the whole FISA issue. Everybody was worn by Bruce
Speaker 1: or including Andrew Weissman, Mueller's pit bull that Oh, don't
Speaker 1: trust this, it's not verified. The guy that wrote it
Speaker 1: hates Trump. Hillary paid for it with funneled money through
Speaker 1: a law firm to a not research group to hire
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele. Christopher Steele is getting paid by the FBI,
Speaker 1: by Hillary Clinton, by the DNC, and by some oligarch.
Speaker 1: Great gig if you can get paid four times for
Speaker 1: the same work. He got that done. And the Muller
Speaker 1: report interesting in lee enough, and the Washington Examiner picked
Speaker 1: up on this today. You know, we now have an
Speaker 1: official finding as it relates to the dossier being a fraud,
Speaker 1: and that comes from the Muller Report. You know now
Speaker 1: that Mueller has debunked the dossier, Well, what about his
Speaker 1: buddy Jim Comey and Sally Yates and others. Are they
Speaker 1: going to be held accountable for presenting this diabolical hoax
Speaker 1: to the Feiserkorp by not telling them Hillary paid for it,
Speaker 1: not telling them Christopher Steele hates Trump not telling them
Speaker 1: that it's unverified, And now we know unverifiable because Steel
Speaker 1: doesn't stand by it. But you know, he found Robert
Speaker 1: Muller that the two most dramatic claims of Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: and the dossier likely lack substance, one being that former
Speaker 1: Trump attorney Michael Koone met with Putin operatives in Prague
Speaker 1: in the summer of twenty sixteen. By the way, I
Speaker 1: knew Michael Kohone because his son is an extraordinarily talented athlete.
Speaker 1: He was out on the West Coast with his son
Speaker 1: who was playing his particular sport and being scouted. So
Speaker 1: I knew that it was never true and from the beginning,
Speaker 1: and then he even put out on Twitter his passport
Speaker 1: for crying out loud. And Steel's dossier was used in
Speaker 1: applications under the surveillance that was a fraud before the
Speaker 1: surveillance court. So they tried to First they rigged an
Speaker 1: investigation to keep their favorite candidate. Then then they disseminate
Speaker 1: false information of the public with these leagues so that
Speaker 1: that would influence the vote in support of Hillary because
Speaker 1: Donald Trump had hookers in a room at the Ritz
Speaker 1: in the in Moscow that were urinating on his bed.
Speaker 1: Oh and by the way, not that this matters to
Speaker 1: anyone in the you know, rage and hate Trump media mob,
Speaker 1: but hate to break it to them, but unemployment claims
Speaker 1: have now hit another record low. Epic Times reporting that
Speaker 1: the initial claims for jobless benefits dropped two one hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety two thousand weekending April thirteenth, down from five
Speaker 1: down five thousand from the week before. That means less
Speaker 1: than fifty nine out of every one hundred thousand Americans
Speaker 1: applied for benefits, a record low. Economists at forecasts a
Speaker 1: claims would rise. They didn't. Everyone keeps predicting the economy's demise.
Speaker 1: It's not happening. It's interesting to watch Stanny Hoyer, the
Speaker 1: House majority leader, you know, even eat him. Even Adam Schiff.
Speaker 1: Where don't I see this? I saw this on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Somebody said sent this to me last night, and I'm
Speaker 1: looking to pull it up here because I thought this
Speaker 1: was pretty damning somebody had tweeted out that Schiff says,
Speaker 1: barring a bipartisan consensus, impeachment would be fruitless. He says
Speaker 1: he learned as a prosecutor that you don't bring a
Speaker 1: case if you don't think you're going to be successful,
Speaker 1: just to try the case. Yeah, that's so anyway, Stanny Hoyer,
Speaker 1: you know, he's still openly opposing plans to impeach the president.
Speaker 1: Pelosi to drop her opposition to impeachment in the wake
Speaker 1: of the Mueller report. You know, there's more focused now.
Speaker 1: They're just that they said they're just gonna move on
Speaker 1: to the next thing, and the next thing seems to
Speaker 1: be let's get let's go after his finances. That's what
Speaker 1: we're gonna do. We'll go after his finances. Stenny Horrier
Speaker 1: backtracked on his position that impeaching the president would be
Speaker 1: it would not be worthwhile. And he's basically said the
Speaker 1: American people will make a better judgment about whether to
Speaker 1: remove Trump than Congress in the twenty twenty election. Interesting, now,
Speaker 1: if the report wasn't what it was, that wouldn't have happened.
Speaker 1: Then you got, you know, I want to find out
Speaker 1: what Clapper and Brennan knew him when they knew it,
Speaker 1: and Susan Rice and the Attorney General. I hate to
Speaker 1: tell you this, this is going to go right to
Speaker 1: the office of them President Obama. He had to know.
Speaker 1: When we get to that point, it's going to get
Speaker 1: very interesting, you know. So Clapper is like saying he
Speaker 1: still believes that Trump was colluding. Why why admit you're wrong?
Speaker 1: And anyway, An he goes on to say, if there
Speaker 1: was an active collusion proven, then I think what we
Speaker 1: have here is a case of passive collusion where in
Speaker 1: some cases unwinningly to include candidate Trump himself who retweeted
Speaker 1: messages that have been planted by the Russians and social media.
Speaker 1: Nobody knows who anybody is in social media. That's why
Speaker 1: I gave up on it a long time ago. Now
Speaker 1: there is pressure on Nancy Pelosi as it relates to
Speaker 1: the impeachment. Oh, by the way, do we have the
Speaker 1: tape of Congresswoman a Cassio Cortez when she says, oh,
Speaker 1: there's so many reasons to appeach Trump. If you have that,
Speaker 1: get that ready, because just a month after Pelosi stated
Speaker 1: her opposition new impeachment. Well, now Cossio Cortez thinks that
Speaker 1: she has the reasons that she was asked in an interview.
Speaker 1: Here's the interview. It would be your top three if
Speaker 1: you were writing Lee, if you were drafting the articles
Speaker 1: of Article one, two and three. Well, I think number
Speaker 1: one is emoluments. I think it's always been emoluments. I
Speaker 1: think it's always been about that for me. Two, two
Speaker 1: and three, I think two would be tax fruno. And
Speaker 1: number three, Um, I mean, there's just so much, so many.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you which one do I choose? For three?
Speaker 1: The President, vice President, all of the civil officers of
Speaker 1: the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment
Speaker 1: for and conviction of treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. Constitution,
Speaker 1: Article one, Section three. The Senate shall have the sole
Speaker 1: power to try all impeachments. It's not happening much as
Speaker 1: they wanted, much as the media wants. Watch the media
Speaker 1: slowly transition into let's cover the twenty twenty candidates, so
Speaker 1: let's not admit where we're wrong. By the way, what
Speaker 1: about Nadler? Should he be forced to get off the
Speaker 1: committee after demanding that Bill Barr breaked the law because
Speaker 1: you know, he was out there demanding that they keep
Speaker 1: in grand jury material. Excuse me, or he said on
Speaker 1: Friday that he subpoened the Justice Department for the full,
Speaker 1: unredacted version of the Special Counsel Robert Muller's report and
Speaker 1: said the Justice Department must comply by May first. Well,
Speaker 1: the only problem with that is that would include grand
Speaker 1: jury material, and that would mean you'd have to break
Speaker 1: the law. Okay, that's not gonna happen. You know who's
Speaker 1: got a big problem with all this Joe Biden. All
Speaker 1: of this deep state nonsense happened under him. On top
Speaker 1: of he's going to have to defend the horrible record
Speaker 1: of Obama economically, the Iran deal, and the fact that
Speaker 1: he's creepy, and the fact that he says stupid things
Speaker 1: clean articulate. Wow, it's storybook man, and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: But he has to defend because by the time he's running,
Speaker 1: all of this is out and all of it happened
Speaker 1: on his watch. You're gonna get fifty three more closed
Speaker 1: door testimonies revealed. You're gonna get the new Nez criminal referrals.
Speaker 1: The ag bar has announced there was spying, and there
Speaker 1: was that's coming. Then he's also going to investigate the
Speaker 1: investigators that is coming. By May, we should get the
Speaker 1: Horowitz report on abuse. How did the phony Clinton paid
Speaker 1: for Russian dossier? How is it used to bludgeon a
Speaker 1: opposition party campaign? And fraud committed on the courts and
Speaker 1: then used after the election as an insurance policy. Then
Speaker 1: Hoover's report on leaking. Then the FISA applications will come out,
Speaker 1: the Gang of eight information, the three O two's, the
Speaker 1: conversations between the varying players here that were recorded and
Speaker 1: maybe some were altered. All of it's coming out, and
Speaker 1: we have more evidence. I'll just say that John Solomon's
Speaker 1: going to join us in the next hour. I'll let
Speaker 1: him give you a little bit of a scoopee has
Speaker 1: Now we have Ukrainian election interference on Hillary's behalf. With
Speaker 1: the evidence, I guess the media won't care about that.
Speaker 1: And more importantly, the date. We all think that this
Speaker 1: investigation into Trump Russia started July thirty first, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: after they just exonerated Hillary. No, there is emerging evidence
Speaker 1: that could have started as early as in February of
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. Stay tuned. Do you think is a story
Speaker 1: that's been uncovered in the past two years, that the
Speaker 1: entire Russia collusion narrative was made up, that the FBI
Speaker 1: and the intelligence community and the Department of Justice began
Speaker 1: an investigation against four American citizens simply because they worked
Speaker 1: for the opposition political candidate, that being Donald Trump. She
Speaker 1: is taking the FBI to task for having given unlimited,
Speaker 1: unsupervised access to raw intelligence. What do you look at
Speaker 1: in Google? Telephone, information, calls, texts, you name it. Everything
Speaker 1: every nightmare everybody has of information being collected by Big Brother.
Speaker 1: The FBI gave three private contractors unlimited, unsupervised access to that.
Speaker 1: All right. That was Sydney Powell on a radio show
Speaker 1: in New York and also on Cheryl Atkinson's She has
Speaker 1: her Sunday show called Full Measure. Sidney Powell is the
Speaker 1: author of the number one runaway bestseller Licensed to Lie,
Speaker 1: as you just heard, and it exposes corruption in the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, and also senior policy advisor for America First.
Speaker 1: Peter Schweitzer joins us. Remember when he wrote his book Compromised,
Speaker 1: and he talked about James Comy. We're gonna get into
Speaker 1: how did Comey's net worths guy rockets so much. What
Speaker 1: is his connection to Muller? What do they have with
Speaker 1: uranium one? And we welcome you both our two Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Show. Thank you both for being with us. You know, Sydney,
Speaker 1: I'm listening very closely to what you're saying. I'm going
Speaker 1: to ask you a two part question. Where are the
Speaker 1: FISA judges? When do we ever get to hear from them?
Speaker 1: Because one thing I've learned in my life about judges,
Speaker 1: they don't like being lied to, and obviously a fraud
Speaker 1: on a spectacular level was perpetrated on them when the
Speaker 1: bulk of the information presented to them was the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier that they swear
Speaker 1: when they presented to the judges has been verified. They
Speaker 1: purposely didn't expose Hillary as having paid for the document,
Speaker 1: just a slight asterisk it might have a political taint.
Speaker 1: What do you think those FISA judges are thinking today?
Speaker 1: They should be absolutely outraged, Sean. I mean, if our one,
Speaker 1: I would have already had everyone who signed the applications
Speaker 1: in front of me and under an order to show cause.
Speaker 1: While they shouldn't be held in contempt, but I imagine
Speaker 1: they are awaiting the report of the Inspector General on
Speaker 1: the FISA abuses. That's the only reason I can think
Speaker 1: of that they have been completely silent. Now, these judges
Speaker 1: are picked in secret by the Chief Justice in this
Speaker 1: case it would be John Roberts, and they serve varying
Speaker 1: amounts of time in terms of their term, and there
Speaker 1: are a number of them. Correct, that's correct, and so
Speaker 1: would it be something that they would be able to
Speaker 1: follow up on if it's discovered, and which it will
Speaker 1: be that they were that a fraud was perpetrated on them.
Speaker 1: In other words, we now know that the bulk of
Speaker 1: information used in the applications for FISA were based on
Speaker 1: Hillary's bought and paid for Russian dassier. And the reason
Speaker 1: it's unverifiable is its author, Christopher Steele, under oath and
Speaker 1: that interrogatory in Great Britain, says he doesn't even believe
Speaker 1: his own dossier, has no idea if it's true at all,
Speaker 1: maybe fifty fifty and that it was just raw intelligence
Speaker 1: and that's what they signed off one. I also think
Speaker 1: Nelly Or and Glenn Simpson wrote about as much of
Speaker 1: it as Christopher Steele did. If Christopher Steele actually wrote
Speaker 1: any of it. Yeah, well, that's pretty unbelievable. All right,
Speaker 1: Peter Schweitzer, great to have you back, and your book
Speaker 1: Compromised has done extraordinarily well, and you give a lot
Speaker 1: of detail about James Comey that we never knew before,
Speaker 1: Like his net worths skyrocketed over four thousand percent when
Speaker 1: he left the DOJ in two thousand and five, returned
Speaker 1: to the FBI in twenty thirteen. He made six point
Speaker 1: one million dollars after Mueller's FBI. After Muller's FBI granted
Speaker 1: his employer, Lockheed Martin, the largest contract in history. Quote,
Speaker 1: you call it a billion dollar boondoggle. I'm not against
Speaker 1: former law enforcement starting businesses and making money, but the
Speaker 1: connection to Mueller goes even deeper than that. Why don't
Speaker 1: you explain? Yeah, I mean, I think that's what a
Speaker 1: lot of people have to realize, is that we have
Speaker 1: to look at institutions like the intelligence community the way
Speaker 1: that we look at other government agencies. There's revolving doors.
Speaker 1: They have incentives to help their friends. In the case
Speaker 1: of Komey and Muller, they have a relationship that goes
Speaker 1: back twenty five years, and they've always sort of functioned
Speaker 1: as a tag team. And so when you have a
Speaker 1: circumstance where Bob Muller is put in charge of an
Speaker 1: investigation that James Komey, his good friend, certainly has a
Speaker 1: personal interest in stake in, it creates an enormous problem.
Speaker 1: But add on top of that layer Sean the fact
Speaker 1: that you know, when you look at the Mueller rapport,
Speaker 1: the interesting thing that stands out to me their number
Speaker 1: of things, but part of it is when we look
Speaker 1: at the subject of foreign interference, the foreign interference that
Speaker 1: stands out to me is how much of m I
Speaker 1: six has fingerprints on this, whether it's Christopher Steele, whether
Speaker 1: it's some of the stuff that was done to some
Speaker 1: of a lower level Trump campaign of volunteers. It speaks
Speaker 1: to the problem that when you have an intelligence community,
Speaker 1: it's a community, and Bob Muller and James Comey have long, deep,
Speaker 1: established relationships with people in intelligence, which is fine, but
Speaker 1: when that spills over into interfering in a presidency and
Speaker 1: a presidential election, you have a huge problem. And that's
Speaker 1: where I think is a big overlooked story. In addition
Speaker 1: to all the other headlines that we can glean from
Speaker 1: the Muller Report. What you're really saying is and this
Speaker 1: now is coming up more and more and more, especially
Speaker 1: and we'll have John Solomon coming up at the bottom
Speaker 1: of the hour. But there is more and more evidence
Speaker 1: that I'm hearing a lot more chatter from my sources
Speaker 1: that the official start date of this Russia witch hunt
Speaker 1: was not July thirty. First, it was not based on
Speaker 1: Papadopoulos who was being spied upon and tasked to spy
Speaker 1: on pop Pidopolis and Carter Page and Sam Clovis, that
Speaker 1: it started well before that, probably in February the same
Speaker 1: year of twenty sixteen, and that some of this might
Speaker 1: be related to some of our allies and outsourcing of
Speaker 1: intelligence methods, in other words, using methods that would be
Speaker 1: illegal for our intelligence officials to use. Again, I want
Speaker 1: to put this caveat in though you know, we have
Speaker 1: the premier law enforcement agency known as the FBI in
Speaker 1: the entire world, ninety nine point nine percent the same
Speaker 1: with our intelligence agents. Ninety nine point nine percent would
Speaker 1: never abuse the powerful tools that we give them. We're
Speaker 1: talking about that tiny one tenth of one percent, the
Speaker 1: upper echelon that abused their power here. But did they
Speaker 1: outsource to foreign countries or task our allies with doing
Speaker 1: things for them that they knew they couldn't do because
Speaker 1: it's illegal here, in other words, spy on Americans. No,
Speaker 1: I think the answer to that yes, But I think
Speaker 1: your percentage is a little bit hishaw on. I think
Speaker 1: we've got probably a twenty percent problem, and a lot
Speaker 1: of the agencies, Well, that scares me because if you're
Speaker 1: talking about the tools of intelligence, as Chuck Schumer who
Speaker 1: probably infamously famously said that you know, you screw with
Speaker 1: the Intelligence Committee, They're going to get you ten ways
Speaker 1: in Sunday, right. Well, I mean, what do you think
Speaker 1: the percentage is, Peter Schweitzer. I think it's fifth. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's probably fifteen to twenty percent. I think it's highly
Speaker 1: concentrated among those that work out of FBI headquarters in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. I mean, you hear this time and time again,
Speaker 1: people that work at the Bureau, they've done great work
Speaker 1: in the field, they moved to headquarters and it becomes
Speaker 1: much more political. But I think to your larger point, Sean,
Speaker 1: you're absolutely right. I mean, this is a story of
Speaker 1: outsourcing and trying to gin up an investigation without having
Speaker 1: your fingerprints on it. I mean, you know, look, if
Speaker 1: you and I lie to the FBI, we all know
Speaker 1: that that's a crime. If we finally false police reports,
Speaker 1: we claim our neighbor did something nefarious that they didn't do,
Speaker 1: that's a criminal offense. Well what a special Jesse Spilett, Right,
Speaker 1: But you know, if you look at if you look
Speaker 1: at what happened in the case of the dossier, the
Speaker 1: Clintons essentially paid a guy to do that and try
Speaker 1: to avoid having their fingerprints on it. And I think
Speaker 1: that's why what the Attorney General has said it is
Speaker 1: so important is we need to investigate the investigation. We
Speaker 1: need to look at the headwaters of all of this
Speaker 1: and see how did this happen because it's had a dramatically,
Speaker 1: you know, troubling effect on our politics, on this administration.
Speaker 1: And if you don't deal with this, this is going
Speaker 1: to become standard operating procedure in American politics. And I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody wants that. So then let me go
Speaker 1: and even know who the private contractors are that Coney
Speaker 1: gave that illegal access to the raw fis the raw
Speaker 1: NSA database that's crucial. One of them's got to be
Speaker 1: fusion GPS. There are a lot of indicators for that.
Speaker 1: One of them may very well be CrowdStrike, the group
Speaker 1: that also gave the reviewed the DNC server and as
Speaker 1: heavily Clinton connected. Sidney. Let me go back to the
Speaker 1: Muller report from yesterday. Usually, if a prosecutor or in
Speaker 1: this case, a special counsel, if they can't indict, the
Speaker 1: details of what they may have found, etc. Etc. Never
Speaker 1: come out. But that I think Robert Mueller, because look
Speaker 1: at the team around him. I think you're the world's
Speaker 1: biggest critic, and I'm probably number two of Andrew Weissman,
Speaker 1: Jeanie Ray in this merry band of Democratic donors and
Speaker 1: only Democratic donors that Muller surrounded himself with, which was
Speaker 1: fundamentally unfair in the in the first place. So we
Speaker 1: have a definitive statement no collusion, got it, But he
Speaker 1: leaves open We're not saying we're not clearing him, we're
Speaker 1: not making a determination of any kind. But he really
Speaker 1: should have and by not doing it, he has sort
Speaker 1: of left the door open. That to me was a
Speaker 1: political because when Rod Rosenstein and the Office Illegal Counsel
Speaker 1: and the Attorney General all at once in about thirty
Speaker 1: seconds after reading the report say does not rise to
Speaker 1: the level of any type of indictment. Then Muller did
Speaker 1: all of that, and by the way, all the things
Speaker 1: he listed were stupid. You agree totally. This is yeah,
Speaker 1: this is textbook Andrew Weissman smear tactic and throwing red
Speaker 1: meat to the Democrats to fuel their resistance and impeachment
Speaker 1: efforts or whatever trouble they want to cause for the
Speaker 1: next eighteen months. That's absolutely all it is. Let me
Speaker 1: pick it up right there. Yeah, I want to pick
Speaker 1: it up there. I mean, if it doesn't rise to
Speaker 1: the level of an indictable offense, and this information is meaningles.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that more with Sidney Powell, Peter Schweitzer
Speaker 1: on the other side, John Solomon at the bottom of
Speaker 1: the hour. Oh, and then Haraldos. He's wondering if any
Speaker 1: Democratic Kennedy so they're going to apologize to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: That'll be fund him and Dan Bongino all coming up
Speaker 1: Friday edition Sean Hannity Show, straight ahead right as we continue.
Speaker 1: Sid Powell, author of License to Lie, Peter Schweitzer, author
Speaker 1: of the book Compromised, Thank you both for being with us.
Speaker 1: I want to go back Sydney to the second part
Speaker 1: of the Mueller report. He doesn't make a determination, just
Speaker 1: lays out the facts. Basically, all he's saying is Donald
Speaker 1: Trump publicly talked about firing Mueller, Rosenstein, Jeff Sessions, and
Speaker 1: he hoped and was praying that General Flynn didn't getting
Speaker 1: a lot of trouble. Okay, that's called freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: He didn't do or act anyway on any of these issues,
Speaker 1: just like the deep state officials that were talking about
Speaker 1: secretly taping the president or invoking in the twenty fifth Amendment.
Speaker 1: They only talked about it. They didn't do it. So
Speaker 1: it's not a crime. It's not obstruction. Hillary Clinton's case
Speaker 1: was obstruction with real intent, with an underlying real crime.
Speaker 1: So Mueller put it in there. Why to throw red
Speaker 1: meat to the Democrats. It's mister Weisman's report. I call
Speaker 1: it the Weisman report, not the Muller report. I guarantee,
Speaker 1: and mister Muller didn't write this. I'd be surprised if
Speaker 1: he even read the whole thing. Maybe he edited a
Speaker 1: word here and there, but this is textbook Andrew Weissman.
Speaker 1: It's a smear campaign. It's throwing red meat to the
Speaker 1: Democrats to fuel the resistance in whatever impeachment and other
Speaker 1: havocs they want to wreck for the next eighteen months,
Speaker 1: to continue the harassment of the president. That's absolutely all
Speaker 1: it is. There isn't a single case or statute in
Speaker 1: the obstruction section would warrant an obstruction prosecution. In fact,
Speaker 1: on page nine I think it is, they even flag
Speaker 1: it as potentially relevant obstruction statute. That is a huge
Speaker 1: red flag right there that they have. Absolutely, it's a
Speaker 1: great that's a great catch. I actually picked up on
Speaker 1: that as I was reading it. I actually read through
Speaker 1: the whole thing. Believe it or not, there has to
Speaker 1: be an underlying crime, and there has to be intent.
Speaker 1: Hillary did violate the Espionage Act. It is irrefutable. The
Speaker 1: evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. And we know that that
Speaker 1: investigation was rigged. We know the intent when she deleted
Speaker 1: the subpoena emails and cleaned up the hard drive a
Speaker 1: bleach bit and busted up the devices was to destroy
Speaker 1: evidence in that case. That is your former prosecutors not
Speaker 1: that a slam dunk dunk obstruction case. Yes, one of
Speaker 1: the stunning things about the report is the obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice legal analysis. If only anything like that had been
Speaker 1: applied to Hillary Clinton's concrete actions in destroying her blackberries,
Speaker 1: having her hard drive bleach fitted and yeah, completely wiped out,
Speaker 1: and destroying all the emails after they've been subpoena All
Speaker 1: of that, all of that conduct was actual obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice and destruction of evidence. Nothing they talk about in
Speaker 1: the report as a respect the president was obstruction in
Speaker 1: any way, shape or form. Last word, Peter Switzer, Well,
Speaker 1: look all that they're left with, after all the claims
Speaker 1: at the beginning of twenty seventeen that there was massive
Speaker 1: collusion and cooperation were left now with the essentially saying
Speaker 1: that there were some meetings and there was some contact
Speaker 1: between Trump campaign officials and Russians. If that is where
Speaker 1: it's left, the Clinton team has far deeper ties, far
Speaker 1: closer relationships with those same Russian entities. And I think
Speaker 1: Sydney talked about it earlier. It's really the double standard
Speaker 1: that everybody is set up with. If you want to
Speaker 1: have a consistent standard, a hard standard, apply to Trump,
Speaker 1: apply to Clinton. That's great, that's fine. I think that's
Speaker 1: a good thing. But that's not what's happening. And that's
Speaker 1: why people look at this and believe the process has
Speaker 1: a lot of exit question yes or no answer? Will
Speaker 1: people be indicted? Sydney yes, Peter yes, three yeses. All right,
Speaker 1: Thank you both, Peter Schweitzer, Sidney Powell. We appreciate your
Speaker 1: insight as always. When we come back, John Solomon, well,
Speaker 1: he's breaking big news next week. He'll give us a preview.
Speaker 1: Then Haraldo is asking for Democratic candidates. Which one is
Speaker 1: gonna apologize? Donald Trump? Don't hold your breath. He and
Speaker 1: Dan Bongina will join us. We'll get to your calls
Speaker 1: as well. Eight hundred ninety four one sewn on this Friday.
Speaker 1: Do you feel like this public facing document by Robert
Speaker 1: Muller in his office today correctly and aptly explains why
Speaker 1: those investigations were started and whether the predicate was samp
Speaker 1: I think it does. I think it validates the decisions
Speaker 1: that we made, certainly in July of twenty sixteen to
Speaker 1: start the initial Russia focused investigation, and then, of course
Speaker 1: the decisions that we made in May of twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: to include the president in that investigation personally. As you know, Rachel,
Speaker 1: the FBI the standard for predication to open an investigation
Speaker 1: in the FBI is an articable factual basis to believe
Speaker 1: that a threat to national security might exist or that
Speaker 1: a federal crime might have been committed. We have been
Speaker 1: saying as much as we can publicly in the last
Speaker 1: few months that those are the reasons, looking at the
Speaker 1: facts that we had before us, that we opened the
Speaker 1: case on President Trump in May of twenty seventeen. The
Speaker 1: Mule report today, this redactive versional report that we got
Speaker 1: essentially tries to address the controversy a little bit over
Speaker 1: what it would take to get a FI as a
Speaker 1: warrant on somebody for which you have to prove to
Speaker 1: the court that somebody may be acting as a foreign
Speaker 1: agent that's right, versus no prosecutorial decision to charge that
Speaker 1: person as a foreign agent right. Tell us about that distinction? Sure,
Speaker 1: So the standard you have to prove to the fies
Speaker 1: a court that to eight not a proponents of evidence.
Speaker 1: I see this essentially as a roadmap for prosecutors after
Speaker 1: the president has left office, or for the Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: while the president is still in office, to essentially pursue
Speaker 1: those charges in a trial after he's no longer president,
Speaker 1: or an impeachment proceedings while he's in Congress. I think
Speaker 1: otherwise you wouldn't go to the lengths that they go
Speaker 1: to in order to explain the president's state of mind.
Speaker 1: It's that how you read it. It's absolutely how I
Speaker 1: read it. You know, the Bob Muller that I know,
Speaker 1: the Bob Muller that I worked for for many years,
Speaker 1: is not a guy who's going to write a report
Speaker 1: that contradicts existing DJ policy. So he's not going to
Speaker 1: write a report that says the president should be indicted,
Speaker 1: knowing that that's not a possibility under the current policy.
Speaker 1: But what Director Muller has done here is he's provided
Speaker 1: an avalanche of facts that clearly indicate obstructive activity on
Speaker 1: the part of the president. He calls it out plainly
Speaker 1: in ten different sections in that volume two of the report,
Speaker 1: and he lays out why he believes in many of
Speaker 1: those cases the intent is present, why he believes that
Speaker 1: the nexus to the contemplated or ongoing matter as president.
Speaker 1: So the analysis is extraordinary. The scope is incredibly damning
Speaker 1: for the president. Nothing you just heard from former FBI
Speaker 1: Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is accurate. It's not accurate on
Speaker 1: the law it's not the interpretation of what the Special
Speaker 1: Council said and did, yet it was a political document award.
Speaker 1: Did he point out, Well, Congress, you can take this
Speaker 1: and run with it if you want. And by the way,
Speaker 1: good luck to anybody that thinks that missing the fundamental issues,
Speaker 1: no Russia collusion at all. And for a guy that
Speaker 1: is under his own criminal investigation here and likely up
Speaker 1: to his eyeballs in more legal trouble to make those comments,
Speaker 1: and for him to make those suggestions, all it does
Speaker 1: is reaffirm everything that we have known and know about
Speaker 1: the deep state. Remember he was there when all the
Speaker 1: talk about, oh, let's secretly spy on the president, let's
Speaker 1: invoke the twenty fifth Amendment. It was the deputy director
Speaker 1: at the time, Andrew McCabe, that allowed the fies of
Speaker 1: warrant to be based on unverified, uncorroborated Hillary bought and
Speaker 1: paid for Russian lies because of his and others disdain
Speaker 1: for all things Trump. And remember when Page and Struck
Speaker 1: were texting back and forth and they're talking about Andy
Speaker 1: and they're talking about the insurance policy. That's the same
Speaker 1: Andy on the media side of it. I mean, as
Speaker 1: I mentioned earlier, this hope we might be able to
Speaker 1: resitate resuscitate this. It's not going to work, and the
Speaker 1: avalanche we've been talking about is coming. John Solomon next
Speaker 1: week is going to break huge news, as he has
Speaker 1: since March of twenty seventeen when this all began for us,
Speaker 1: He joins us. Now he's the executive director of The
Speaker 1: Hill Investigative Reporter. And John, is there anything I just
Speaker 1: said about my analysis about McCabe that's wrong? Now? You
Speaker 1: know it's It's fascinating to me as you've watched the
Speaker 1: last few months, as Democrats have tried to sustain the
Speaker 1: now disproven collision narrative, they've had to turn to less
Speaker 1: and less credible people. Who did the Democrats call as
Speaker 1: their first witness when they have their first erring on Trump?
Speaker 1: They called a convicted liar Michael Cohen? And what did
Speaker 1: he do? He gave more an accurate testimony last night.
Speaker 1: What did the networks that have tried to sustain a
Speaker 1: false narrative? Do? They turn to Andrew McCabe, a now
Speaker 1: confirmed lawyer who's facing prosecution for that line. And the
Speaker 1: reason they have to turn to people like that is
Speaker 1: that credible people who now know the facts can't say
Speaker 1: what they want to have on their network, And I
Speaker 1: think it's a shame for journalism that what we're getting
Speaker 1: on these television networks is less factual and more propaganda
Speaker 1: at a time when this country deserves the facts. The
Speaker 1: facts are Director Mueller, Special Prosecutor Mueller said no American
Speaker 1: read that, no American colluded with Russia on their campaign
Speaker 1: to disrupt the election. That is a fact. It is
Speaker 1: now not in dispute, and anything Andrew McCabe says can't
Speaker 1: undercut that finding. So I think we're in a period
Speaker 1: now where we're actually in fantasyland. Responsible networks should acknowledge
Speaker 1: where the factual case of stands and start embracing it
Speaker 1: and explaining it to the American people. There are lots
Speaker 1: of important issues to be resolved, but pretending there's still
Speaker 1: a collusion fantasy is not doing anyone any good. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think they can let it go. I think
Speaker 1: it is that ingrained and it's really now a psychosis
Speaker 1: that exists, and it's so fascinating because they just want
Speaker 1: to double down. But what they're going to end up
Speaker 1: doing is just slowly gradually moving on to oh maybe
Speaker 1: the memorandum of understanding between Cummings and Maxie Waters and
Speaker 1: the cowardly shift Adam Shift, because one way or another,
Speaker 1: they're not going to govern the country. They're just going
Speaker 1: to try and destroy this man, as they have from
Speaker 1: day one. The fact that it's so clear that there
Speaker 1: was no collusion from the beginning, even the items that
Speaker 1: are mentioned in the second part of Muller's report. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's said publicly maybe I should fire Mueller and Rosenstein
Speaker 1: and Sessions. And he didn't hide any of his comments.
Speaker 1: He had every right to fire Comey, why though it
Speaker 1: was even brought up is absurd to me. Comy, in
Speaker 1: his own words, said he could be fired for any
Speaker 1: reason and no reason at all, or the idea, well
Speaker 1: don again, he wants to be the hero in all this,
Speaker 1: and he saved the president from firing Mueller, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: I'm like, uh, no, you didn't, because if the president
Speaker 1: wanted to do it, he would have done it. And
Speaker 1: knowing Donald Trumpe as well as I do, he was venting.
Speaker 1: He was sick of it because he was an innocent
Speaker 1: man for two and a half years being persecuted unjustly
Speaker 1: and was pissed off rightly so, and screaming it at
Speaker 1: the top of his lungs, which I can't blame him for.
Speaker 1: When I wrote my column yesterday, what I said is
Speaker 1: the Democrats are trying to take the actions of an
Speaker 1: innocent man trying to defend himself against false allegations and
Speaker 1: make it look like obstructive behavior. You have a right
Speaker 1: to defend yourself if you see people that are conspiring
Speaker 1: to make a false allegation against you. We do this.
Speaker 1: We're allowed when we face a criminal child, to knock
Speaker 1: jurors out of Vordier because we don't think they're going
Speaker 1: to be fair to us. What you see in Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is that when he's thinking about mother, he's like,
Speaker 1: I don't think he could be fair to me. Just
Speaker 1: hired seventeen Democrats at the same time. Were some of
Speaker 1: his comments in temperate Sure will he learned from some
Speaker 1: of these things, perhaps, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: to build an obstruction case on what when there is
Speaker 1: no crime. He wasn't obstructing a legitimate criminal investigation. There
Speaker 1: was no crime, and what he was really doing was
Speaker 1: trying to defend his presidency and himself from what he
Speaker 1: ultimately turned out to be truthfully saying, which was there
Speaker 1: was no collusion. It's really remarkable. I wrote a whole
Speaker 1: column on it yesterday, and lots of people of commenting
Speaker 1: on it because when you look at it from the
Speaker 1: different perspective, would a man obstructing an investigation open up
Speaker 1: all of his files, all of his files, his attorney
Speaker 1: client privilege files, his executive privilege covered files, and cooperate
Speaker 1: if he was trying to direct why didn't he just
Speaker 1: shut the investigation down? He could have just done that.
Speaker 1: It was in this power. There's just a lot of
Speaker 1: things about the obstruction narrative that are absurd when you
Speaker 1: step back and you take a look at the big picture.
Speaker 1: I have given mind list of things that are coming
Speaker 1: because this story is hardly over. While the collusion delusion
Speaker 1: media will remain focused on their phony narrative and never retract, apologize, correct,
Speaker 1: nor will they pay attention to what is the biggest
Speaker 1: abuse of power in our country's history. And next week
Speaker 1: it is going to get dramatically worse for them, to
Speaker 1: the extent that it's possible. Can you give a preview? Sure, Listen.
Speaker 1: I got to talk about a couple of things that
Speaker 1: I think are going to become new points of discussion, investigation,
Speaker 1: and concern. One of those is when you read the
Speaker 1: entire Muller report. There is a theory that I think
Speaker 1: I saw Devin Junius first mentioned on your show a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago, and that I've been hearing from intelligence
Speaker 1: professionals career intelligence professionals for several weeks, and that is
Speaker 1: it is highly likely that these contacts like the Trump
Speaker 1: Tower and the former Russian intelligence agent that just happens
Speaker 1: to feed steal all of his bogus information that we
Speaker 1: now know has been disproven in the Steel dossier. They
Speaker 1: may have been known, or they may have been What
Speaker 1: is known in the spy tradecraft is discoverable operations. So
Speaker 1: instead of a secret effort by Russia to influence the election,
Speaker 1: they used overt people. What do I mean by that?
Speaker 1: When you interview a former intelligence officer of Russian side
Speaker 1: of the the United States, everybody in the United States knows
Speaker 1: he's tied to Russian intelligence. That's not good spy tradecraft
Speaker 1: if you're trying to keep it secret. When you want
Speaker 1: to keep it secret, you do what you did with
Speaker 1: Robert Hanson for twenty years, where Moscow us cloak and
Speaker 1: dather dagger tactics to keep his work secret as a spy.
Speaker 1: It was overt the same thing. If you're going to
Speaker 1: set up a secret meeting to coordinate with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: at the Trump Tower, would you really send a Russian
Speaker 1: lawyer who's in on the country only because she got
Speaker 1: a special parole visa declaring she's a Russian government asset
Speaker 1: to come into the United States. That would be the
Speaker 1: last person you would use for a secret campaign. So
Speaker 1: some of these intelligence people are beginning to reassess the
Speaker 1: original idea that maybe this is all about helping Hillary
Speaker 1: lose and Donald Trump win too. Maybe they were trying
Speaker 1: to destroy both candidates, and the effort on Trump is
Speaker 1: a very different type of intelligence effort. It's known as
Speaker 1: discoverable intelligence operations designed to create doubt in the mind
Speaker 1: of Americans. And if that's the case, Robert Muller's report
Speaker 1: just helped Vladimir Putin extend the doubt outward for months more.
Speaker 1: We'll be debating this just like Vladimir Putin want it.
Speaker 1: Probably when he sent that woman to the Trump Tower
Speaker 1: and sent that person to Christopher Steel to dump all
Speaker 1: that bogus dost. I've got to take a break when
Speaker 1: we come back. There is a likelihood this all started
Speaker 1: way before the official start date, based on Papadoppola is
Speaker 1: having a drink with Stefan Helper. Correct, that's correct, right,
Speaker 1: all right, I want to talk about that more. John Solomon,
Speaker 1: one of our you know, looked as an ensemble cast
Speaker 1: here there works so hard these two years, and John
Speaker 1: at the top of the list along with so many others.
Speaker 1: And as we continue, John Solomon, executive director at The
Speaker 1: Hill Investigative Reporter. He's been in the forefront of our
Speaker 1: ensemble cast exposing the deep state, which ninety nine point
Speaker 1: nine percent of the media in this country they just
Speaker 1: were selling you lies and conspiracy theories for over two years.
Speaker 1: All right. So there's two things that you're working on.
Speaker 1: One is Ukraine officials are now admitting that they interfered
Speaker 1: in our twenty sixteen election, and they want to give
Speaker 1: us the evidence they're willing, okay, and it's real evidence.
Speaker 1: And then we have on the other side of this,
Speaker 1: we are all beginning to believe that all of this
Speaker 1: Trump Rusher collusion stuff didn't start July thirty first of
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, as we've been told way before. That maybe
Speaker 1: as far back as February or March of that year.
Speaker 1: I think that's right, Sean. And next week I think
Speaker 1: I'll be able to get some new information out that
Speaker 1: will really enlighten the timeline. And I think there's another
Speaker 1: element of it too. The Obama White House has been
Speaker 1: remarkably missing from the entire timeline, in quite frankly, the
Speaker 1: entire discussion for the last two and a half years.
Speaker 1: But there's one text message over and over again that
Speaker 1: plays in my head, and that is Pete stro coming
Speaker 1: out of a meeting in August of twenty sixteen. It
Speaker 1: was a multi agency coordination meeting on the Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: saying and the text message, quoting someone else for the meeting, says,
Speaker 1: the White House is running this. We've not figured out
Speaker 1: what did that mean, and when did that start and
Speaker 1: who knew what. I believe we'll be able to show that.
Speaker 1: In December twenty fifteen, a Justice Department official and an
Speaker 1: undercover operative began conversations with an eye towards Ukraine. In January,
Speaker 1: February sixteen, Ukraine and US authorities had a very sensitive
Speaker 1: discussion about something that ultimately became the Paul Man Russia
Speaker 1: collusion investigation, and by March and April the efforts had
Speaker 1: expand end it beyond White House, Justice Department, informant to
Speaker 1: the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and all of these
Speaker 1: people have the same objective. We are going to try
Speaker 1: to show Paul Manafort and Donald Trump are agents of Russia.
Speaker 1: Well we found out yesterday donald Trump was never an
Speaker 1: agent of Russia. But who and why and how many
Speaker 1: people participated? And definitely next week we're going to get
Speaker 1: a lot more on this, right, Yeah, that's right, right,
Speaker 1: and for weeks to come. I think it's a long
Speaker 1: process and we're going to hold them all accountable. We
Speaker 1: only just beginning, and I keep telling people that there's
Speaker 1: so much that is coming. It is going to blow
Speaker 1: the country away, I think. But at the end of this,
Speaker 1: and if we don't fix it, we lose the country.
Speaker 1: It's that serious. Great work. John Solomon once again eight
Speaker 1: hundred nine four one. Sean Dan Bongino Horaldo News Round Up,
Speaker 1: Information Overload, Raldo tweeting out, I wonder if any of
Speaker 1: the Democratic candidates will be man or woman enough to
Speaker 1: apologize for his or her party slandering at real Donald
Speaker 1: Trump as a Trader since July at twenty sixteen. Don't
Speaker 1: hold your breath, We'll ask Coraldo next. Coming up next,
Speaker 1: our final news round up and information overload our Luckily,
Speaker 1: this president has a client attorney general clearly and a
Speaker 1: very amped up, jacked up message operation. Sean Hannity said
Speaker 1: two years ago that Richard Nixon wouldn't have had to
Speaker 1: resign if he'd had Fox News. Actually, I think Corraldo
Speaker 1: said it to Sean Hannity and they chuckled. That might
Speaker 1: be true, because this conduct is as sort of impeachable
Speaker 1: looking if you put it in a time capsule, as
Speaker 1: Nixon's conduct. But when Nixon didn't have was an overdrive
Speaker 1: sort of social media we now know, aided it embedded
Speaker 1: by RUSS controls and a news network dedicated to amplifying
Speaker 1: what is a very subjective read of a report that,
Speaker 1: in the end, if it exonerates them, why are they
Speaker 1: so upset by all the details? They not? It was
Speaker 1: a total, complete vindication victory for President Trump. What else
Speaker 1: do you need to know? That? It's like watching these
Speaker 1: people melt down, doubled down on stupid, the fact that
Speaker 1: all of their collusion narrative there is actually a Newsbuster
Speaker 1: piece out today, although the Muller report no collusion, none whatso,
Speaker 1: this is the fourth report. Now we had the FBI investigation,
Speaker 1: we had the House Intelligence Committee investigation, we had the
Speaker 1: bipartisan Senate Committee investigation. No collusion, no conspiracy whatsoever. I
Speaker 1: don't know how many more times people are gonna want
Speaker 1: me to actually read exactly what it says. But the
Speaker 1: report of Muller, the investigation did not establish members of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign conspira or coordinated with the Russian government
Speaker 1: in its election interference activities. Okay, but as Newsbuster points out,
Speaker 1: you know, with all of this liberal talking points went
Speaker 1: on and on and on, they actually pointed out a
Speaker 1: report that they have that the news networks broadcast cable
Speaker 1: mentioned impeachment an astonishing three hundred and nine times during
Speaker 1: the coverage of the newly released Mueller report. It is insane.
Speaker 1: They can't help themselves. This rage, this psychosis, this mob
Speaker 1: mentality that they have. Nobody has yet to retract, apologize,
Speaker 1: reevaluate in any way Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, coclusion, collusion, collusion.
Speaker 1: They don't have the ability to be self reflective introspective
Speaker 1: admit that they're wrong. They're destroying themselves in the process.
Speaker 1: Our friend Haraldo did tweet out wonder if any of
Speaker 1: the Democratic candidates will be man or woman enough to
Speaker 1: apologize for his or her party slandering of at real
Speaker 1: Donald Trump as a traitor since July twenty sixteen. Horaldo
Speaker 1: joins us now as well as Dan Bongino. Thank you both, Haraldo.
Speaker 1: I know the answer. Nobody is going to apologize. Nobody's
Speaker 1: going to retract, Nobody is going to try and repair
Speaker 1: the damage of lying in conspiracy theories. They're not going
Speaker 1: to do it. That's why the pressure has to stay
Speaker 1: on to find the roots of the counterintelligence probe, find
Speaker 1: out how the fiser warrants will obtain. Who initiates this,
Speaker 1: who kept this thing simmering during the last month of
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. A good offense is the best defense.
Speaker 1: That's the way to do it. Well, we're not stopping.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so much coming to them, Mangino, You
Speaker 1: and I We've discussed it. I've discussed it on this
Speaker 1: program on television over and over. There is about to
Speaker 1: be an avalanche of evidence and information that is going
Speaker 1: to overwhelm the entire country those that have open minds anyway,
Speaker 1: and prove how great a conspiracy theory and how great
Speaker 1: a lie that narrative they have fed us, and how
Speaker 1: people will be held accountable. And on that media front,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, they won't apologize because you know, I know,
Speaker 1: you know this is well a lot of these media
Speaker 1: figures were actual co conspirators in this thing. Of course,
Speaker 1: they're gonna go down with this ship. But on that front, yes,
Speaker 1: there are still big unanswered questions out there. Who which
Speaker 1: miss Stood working for? Was he working for the Russians
Speaker 1: or he's working for Western Intel? Who exactly with the
Speaker 1: private contractors? Those are big questions. What happens with Ukraine?
Speaker 1: How much information was passed from Ukraine to Democrats and
Speaker 1: trying to attack Donald Trump? These are all open questions.
Speaker 1: And now that the tides of turn and the spine
Speaker 1: scandal is back in, is back in the headlights here,
Speaker 1: you're going to see I think Democrats starting to scatter
Speaker 1: a little bit as the truth comes out. Well, this
Speaker 1: is what we got Heraldo, we got fifty three more
Speaker 1: transcripts of closed door testimony. We've got Attorney General bar
Speaker 1: now opening an investigation, openly saying spying occurred on the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign and he's going to investigate the investigators. That
Speaker 1: is going to be huge. He seems pretty determined to me.
Speaker 1: That's why the media is going after him so hard.
Speaker 1: Then we got Horowitz report, which we're now told today
Speaker 1: in fact, if people would just pay attention, even the
Speaker 1: Politico has acknowledged it the first preview of this, and
Speaker 1: he's looking very closely at the veracity of the information
Speaker 1: that Steele provided the Clinton campaign and who knew what,
Speaker 1: when and how did they use an unverifiable document full
Speaker 1: of Russian lies that Hillary paid for? How did they
Speaker 1: commit fraud after fraud after fraud on the FISA court
Speaker 1: to spy on the Trump campaign and deny Carter Paige's
Speaker 1: constitutional rights? How did they pay Christopher Steele eleven times?
Speaker 1: Who authorized those payments by the FBI to Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: at what did they lose faith where Christopher Steele was reporting?
Speaker 1: Did they even believe the fake dossier? You know, I
Speaker 1: think that these are key questions. Was this a spite
Speaker 1: operation directed by the political side of the Obama A
Speaker 1: Haraldo if you put if you put evidence in a
Speaker 1: FISA application I'm Rod Rosenstein explaining the whole process. You are,
Speaker 1: you are a career law enforcement guy, and you're swearing
Speaker 1: to the best of your ability. It's true. That would
Speaker 1: mean that they have to have some verification corroboration before
Speaker 1: it could be used. They also put an asterisk instead
Speaker 1: of saying Clinton paid for it, which they knew, according
Speaker 1: to Bruce Or he told them in August the twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell the court that that's a fraud on
Speaker 1: the court. Now, if I commit a fraud on the court,
Speaker 1: what you can't get me out of jail. You have
Speaker 1: to keep the pressure on. Every one of these emilies
Speaker 1: has to be stressed. Now, we have to make sure
Speaker 1: that the focus remains on the headline. The headline is
Speaker 1: prosecutors concluded that no one colluded with the Russians to
Speaker 1: violate US law. So what the hell was this about?
Speaker 1: Why was the country? Why was the president subjected to
Speaker 1: this torture for two years? They found no collusion, That
Speaker 1: should be the biggest headline. Instead, they get beat up.
Speaker 1: They are revealed to be absolutely false in their responses,
Speaker 1: in their allegations and so forth, and they are allowed
Speaker 1: to go on to the minution, now of obstruction. Now okay,
Speaker 1: no collusion, forget about collusion now I'm only interesting. There
Speaker 1: are three main areas of investigation here. Number one, it's
Speaker 1: absolutely proof positive that Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act
Speaker 1: many times. The evidence is overwhelming and controvertible, irrefutable. And
Speaker 1: we do know that they rigged her investigation, even struck
Speaker 1: in page we're laughing about it. The funny part is
Speaker 1: now that we know, because of their closed door testimony,
Speaker 1: that it started right in Lauretta Lynch's office. So if
Speaker 1: we're going to have equal justice under the law and
Speaker 1: an equal application of our laws, that and of course
Speaker 1: a real obstruction case was that had real intent where
Speaker 1: real crime was committed the Espionage Act, the intent to
Speaker 1: destroy the evidence with the hard line server and deletions
Speaker 1: and bleach, but etc. So we have that, then we
Speaker 1: have how they used the phony dossier to spy on
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, along with three spies that were recruited
Speaker 1: by Stefan or Stefan Howper recruited to go after Papadoppolo's
Speaker 1: Carter Page and Sam Clovis, but getting in the back
Speaker 1: door of the Trump campaign through the FISA warrant lie
Speaker 1: and fraud. Well, that's another big issue. And then the
Speaker 1: third thing is how Dan Bongiano, how they tried the
Speaker 1: bludgeon the president with the phony Russian Clinton paid for
Speaker 1: Nassier and they that was their insurance policy just in
Speaker 1: Casey won, that they would unseat a duly elected president. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let me add another one onto that, Sean, How did
Speaker 1: Andrew Weissman get appointed to the Special counsel of all
Speaker 1: the lawyers in America? Why did Bob Muller choose Andrew Weissman, who,
Speaker 1: as your audience probably has already heard, was briefed in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, a year before Muller's hired, about the dossier
Speaker 1: and its political origins. So, in other words, you have
Speaker 1: a guy investigating Trump charge you would investigating Trump with
Speaker 1: a terrible legal reputation. Andrew Weisman, who's appointed by Mulloch
Speaker 1: all the lawyers, he picks him, and this is the
Speaker 1: one guy who's already been briefed. If the dossier is
Speaker 1: a pile of horse garbage, you know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 1: Why did that happen? Those are interesting questions there. And
Speaker 1: one more thing, the Woods procedure, where they actually they
Speaker 1: have to actually sign off on the verification of the dossier.
Speaker 1: People sign their names for that Woods file, the file
Speaker 1: that indicates it was verified. Who were the people who
Speaker 1: signed it? Because, Sean, it wasn't verified. It was garbage
Speaker 1: the whole time. It's obvious. Well it is garbage all time,
Speaker 1: you know, Heraldo, I mean all of this. Then you
Speaker 1: watch the media try and they How is it that
Speaker 1: they can't acknowledge even the smallest, the big mistakes here?
Speaker 1: How do they justify who they are, what they do?
Speaker 1: How do they call it news? How are they they
Speaker 1: are crusaders, Sean. They aren't there to be fact based
Speaker 1: and be fair and balanced, if I can use that expression.
Speaker 1: They are there with the had a goal once the
Speaker 1: president was elected. The goal was to disenfranchise all the
Speaker 1: people who voted for The goal was to make him
Speaker 1: an illegitimate president. The goal was And listen what Barr
Speaker 1: said so emotionally, and I was so impressed with him yesterday.
Speaker 1: That really struck me was when he said, look at
Speaker 1: the president. He's in his first two years in office,
Speaker 1: and he knows that the place is rotten with the
Speaker 1: spies and backstamers. He knows that people are turning on him.
Speaker 1: He knows that someone that he has no control over
Speaker 1: and who has really become a force, a self affirming
Speaker 1: force in the Special Council that they are ramaging. Nineteen lawyers,
Speaker 1: forty FBI agents, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of subpoenas.
Speaker 1: He knows what's going on. But the miracles shown. And
Speaker 1: this is where I credit you, and I know you
Speaker 1: played that fight earlier about my saying if you existed
Speaker 1: during the Knick's administration, he the thirty seventh president, would
Speaker 1: never have been forced to resign. I believe that you
Speaker 1: are the shield. You and your listeners are the power
Speaker 1: that did not exist. It was not organized enough back
Speaker 1: in the early seventies. Now we have a situation where
Speaker 1: it's a fair fight, where the president has allies with
Speaker 1: the president's story despite the mainstream media, we'll get out
Speaker 1: and I think that that let me let me just
Speaker 1: say one thing. I don't believe in that credit. We
Speaker 1: did stay on the story. But there's an ensemble cast
Speaker 1: that was a part of this, including behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: my radio team, my television team. Haraldo, you're included in this.
Speaker 1: You don't notice in mine. You know, people need to
Speaker 1: go back, you know, I love you, and we're all
Speaker 1: We're all spokes in a wheel and we need every
Speaker 1: spoke for the wheel to go around. And I'm going
Speaker 1: to tell you there was maybe thirty of us in
Speaker 1: the country maybe, and that included like Jordan and meadows
Speaker 1: and Newness. It wasn't a lot there. And this is
Speaker 1: the scar Marry Park that we only wanted the truth
Speaker 1: and it was out there. Because I believe this is
Speaker 1: the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in history. This
Speaker 1: was an attempted coup, This is an attempt to rig
Speaker 1: an election, This was an attempt to in so many ways.
Speaker 1: This is so dangerous if we want to survive as
Speaker 1: a country. Well, I think it was an attempted coup.
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, to have a coup, you
Speaker 1: don't have to uh you know have I believe that
Speaker 1: there were moments. That's why to correct myself. I believe
Speaker 1: that there were moments in this process with Rob Rosenstein
Speaker 1: and some of the others where they actively discuss the
Speaker 1: twenty fifth Amendment overthrowing the president by having him declared
Speaker 1: incompetent and spying on him and secretly six ways and
Speaker 1: an Ivanka putting pressure on the don junior, on the
Speaker 1: entire family, on the whole Trumpet organization going after everybody. Imagine,
Speaker 1: I mean, Shoan, if you weren't the rock of stability there.
Speaker 1: I mean, the president watched Michael Cohen's dissolved into his
Speaker 1: and an arch enemy, a guy that was his counciliary,
Speaker 1: was his attorney, was his You know, there were maybe
Speaker 1: if you include the members of Congress, you know, talk
Speaker 1: radio are ensemble team, both of you are part of it,
Speaker 1: a big part of it. And you know, thirty people
Speaker 1: and the rest were like sheep. But you think about it.
Speaker 1: They got Richard Jewel wrong, they got Trey von George
Speaker 1: Zimmerman wrong, they got Uva wrong, they got Ducal Cross wrong,
Speaker 1: they got Ferguson wrong, they got Cambridge Police wrong. They
Speaker 1: got Ferguson and Freddie Gray and the cops there, they
Speaker 1: were all guilty. They rushed. Look at what they did
Speaker 1: to his sixteen year old kid, Nicholas Sam and they
Speaker 1: got that wrong, Smolette. They rushed to judgment because they
Speaker 1: hate Trump. They're willing to kill us a slander a
Speaker 1: sixteen year old kid. That's how sick they are. And
Speaker 1: in every one of those cases, we've been right, and
Speaker 1: they've been wrong. But Sean, that's only half the story.
Speaker 1: It's not just that you were right, it's that you
Speaker 1: were slanders. So was Levin. Remember when Mark broke so
Speaker 1: were you and so is Coraldo gets it the worst
Speaker 1: because they they think Coraldo is whatever. You know, he's
Speaker 1: supposed to be on their side straighter at their cause
Speaker 1: is something because Doraldo has an open mind on stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, he doesn't necessarily follow the company on. But
Speaker 1: Levin exposed the fight the warrant back what is it
Speaker 1: two years ago? And I remember listening to your show.
Speaker 1: I think you're playing cuts of Brian Stelter or something
Speaker 1: calling him a conspiracy he apology at all. By the way,
Speaker 1: that's not a fair fight Levin and hump not at all. No, No,
Speaker 1: I mean listen on Gray Matter alone. Stelter should tap
Speaker 1: out early. But you have people like Chuck Ross. It's
Speaker 1: a Delhi caller who broke the name of Stefan Helper,
Speaker 1: you know, Kim Strassel at the Wall Street right, you're right,
Speaker 1: it's a small group of pizza, small groups splanded the
Speaker 1: whole time all of us were and Raldo, you didn't
Speaker 1: get the brunt just from being friends with me, and
Speaker 1: then you get the brunt of the jeez. I love that.
Speaker 1: I love to debate my wife. Listen. I love the
Speaker 1: fact that if you're ever in a fight, you want
Speaker 1: Horaldo in your corner because he's going all in. And
Speaker 1: I got back. I'm on, I got you back. I listen.
Speaker 1: Happy Easter, Happy pass over, guys, love you both happy? Okay?
Speaker 1: All right, eight hundred nine for one Seawan our Friday
Speaker 1: concert series. Your calls much more coming up straight ahead. No,
Speaker 1: I mean I love Big and Rich. I mean once
Speaker 1: I saw them in concert. You know, I've never seen
Speaker 1: Charlie Danzels in concert except for the one time you
Speaker 1: played on the Freedom Concert. But I mean, I you know,
Speaker 1: being at with you know John, that was the day
Speaker 1: I literally walked over. So we're at Big and Rich's bar,
Speaker 1: the Redneck Riviera in Yeah, okay, And then I look
Speaker 1: at Linda. She's out on the dance floor and she's dancing.
Speaker 1: This is such things your dance. I'm not dancing. Walked
Speaker 1: over to you and I said, this looks really weird.
Speaker 1: Can you stop? Oh you look really weird? Because I
Speaker 1: do not look more than weird. I would I didn't
Speaker 1: try to embarrass you in front of everybody, but you're
Speaker 1: you know, oh no, of course not, You're it and
Speaker 1: shaking it. And then it's like, okay, who's this crazy
Speaker 1: easy lady out there that's dancing by yourself. First of all,
Speaker 1: I was not by myself. I was with hundreds of
Speaker 1: other people that were attending the bar and watching them play,
Speaker 1: and they were amazing. And as I recall, when John
Speaker 1: was here, John took my side and said that I
Speaker 1: wasn't alone and I was perfectly normal to dance a
Speaker 1: bunch of other people. We had another dancing incident and
Speaker 1: this was I believe was it Helsinki incident. It's an incident.
Speaker 1: It's an incident. Well, look, we had our whole team.
Speaker 1: I had both my brother in law's there. You were there,
Speaker 1: Kristen was there. I don't remember. I can't name everybody
Speaker 1: any It was a team effort. We all went effort.
Speaker 1: So I'm standing next to Blair and James and because
Speaker 1: I had mostly when I go out, go out, take
Speaker 1: my team out. I'm the one that goes to get
Speaker 1: the drinks. I like to do everything, you know, when
Speaker 1: we I just like to be like um, a flight attendant.
Speaker 1: When we're out of place. I want to make sure
Speaker 1: everyone has a good time. I used to do it.
Speaker 1: I like it, and sometimes I even get behind the
Speaker 1: bar and I'll make the drinks for everybody if I
Speaker 1: can talk the owner into it. So long story short.
Speaker 1: So me and Blair are looking at each other. There's
Speaker 1: some creepy guy that goes up to you and James.
Speaker 1: Me and James. James were like, what is this? And
Speaker 1: he's like getting in and starts starts touching you guys
Speaker 1: to try to dance with you all. And I'm like
Speaker 1: getting freaked out, angry, mad. So finally I just said
Speaker 1: I'm gonna handle this. I walked over. I did a
Speaker 1: little jiu jitsu on his shoulder. Very It was a
Speaker 1: move that put him in a lot of pain very quickly,
Speaker 1: and he and by the way he flew away, he
Speaker 1: was gone, like if you were in the center. He
Speaker 1: was in a corner somewhere dancing. He followed me to
Speaker 1: the bathroom and we talked about it, and he said
Speaker 1: to me, he goes, why is that man so man
Speaker 1: at me for trying to dance at you? And I said, well,
Speaker 1: that's my dad, and he's wow, did you you didn't.
Speaker 1: I never heard that part of the story. And by
Speaker 1: the way, Tim agreed, James agreed, Blair agreed, because we
Speaker 1: all agreed, brothers and uncles. Okay, first of all, we
Speaker 1: think is weird. It's a circle of girls. Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: was there, You're all dancing together, and we're like, looking
Speaker 1: at this is so weird. But you know, go, you
Speaker 1: guys have a good time. I would never go out
Speaker 1: on any dance flour of my life depended on it.
Speaker 1: And but then this guy like throws himself in the
Speaker 1: middle and tries to like grind up against you people.
Speaker 1: I'm like, whoa, it's not happening with me watching did
Speaker 1: it or did it not happen as I described it did?
Speaker 1: But why does a stranger feel he has the right
Speaker 1: to step in the middle of a group of girls
Speaker 1: and get that familiar that fast? I don't know. I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: you haven't been out enough clearly because this is I
Speaker 1: don't go. I'd never go to a place like that.
Speaker 1: It just so happened. It was a restaurant that had
Speaker 1: this dance bar area, and you guys wanted to go
Speaker 1: to the dance bar area. After we ate, Ethan makes
Speaker 1: a very good point. I mean, I've gotten just as
Speaker 1: much up close grinding on the New York subway, so
Speaker 1: I think I'm just better prepared for these moments. Okay,
Speaker 1: Well I did my job and I whispered a blair.
Speaker 1: Now I think I sold, sweet baby. I said, I'll
Speaker 1: handle this well. You know, the better way to handle
Speaker 1: it and to avoid these moments would have been to
Speaker 1: get on the dance floor and shake, which your mama
Speaker 1: gave you. But okay, that is never gonna happen. And
Speaker 1: I'm supposed to outdance. Then he'll be intimidated by my
Speaker 1: dancing skills and he'll walk away the much more say,
Speaker 1: I put my hand on his shoulder in a way
Speaker 1: that got his attention, and I got his attention, and
Speaker 1: I pulled him back and I said, you better stop now.
Speaker 1: He was a very sweet guy before I left that,
Speaker 1: I said, he took a picture with me. Poor kid.
Speaker 1: He was an older man. What do you mean, kid?
Speaker 1: You know people in this place. He wasn't that old, okay,
Speaker 1: like forty five fifty, No, he was yet. Yeah, he
Speaker 1: was that old. It was creepy. He was like just
Speaker 1: Joe forty five three, baby James. It was cool. It
Speaker 1: felt like I had to do something right. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, see babies said to James, I said, listen,
Speaker 1: just watch my back, and meaning I'm gonna go over
Speaker 1: and do something. And he James does what he always
Speaker 1: He started to creep in and if anything happened, I
Speaker 1: knew he had my back. Blair was there and he
Speaker 1: had my back all the Laire couldn't fight his way
Speaker 1: out of a web paper bag. No, that's not true.
Speaker 1: It's so true. He's a triathlete. You know, what does
Speaker 1: he do those super marathons? What do you call those things?
Speaker 1: Iron man? Iron man? Okay, he couldn't find himself out
Speaker 1: of a web paper bag. Strong, you know, he's fit
Speaker 1: as can be. We love him. But you know, if
Speaker 1: it's a street fight, I want James. That's all there
Speaker 1: is to it, right, James, Right? And you know, by
Speaker 1: the way, how effective was I I was so very
Speaker 1: effective dancing partner? How far did he move away from
Speaker 1: you guys from that moment forward? It was, I mean
Speaker 1: far until he followed me to the bathroom. Yeah, well
Speaker 1: he's lucky at didn't know all that part. It was
Speaker 1: very nice. I stop, that's not nice. It's creepy. You
Speaker 1: don't have the right. It's just like the creepy kisses
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden. Crazy, creepy Uncle Joe. I'm sorry. You
Speaker 1: don't invade a stranger's space and start grinding with them. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean after he announced this next week, he's gonna
Speaker 1: invade all our space. Oh you mean uncle Joe. Uncle
Speaker 1: Joe's announcing next week. Did you hear? We know that. Yes,
Speaker 1: we're very excited. All right, well, you know what, let
Speaker 1: me check out on our line here. Let me do
Speaker 1: a quick survey. All right, Rob in Cleveland, do you
Speaker 1: agree with me that that's creepy on the dance floor? Well?
Speaker 1: I do think it is to a certain extent, But
Speaker 1: who are we to judge. I mean, most guys are
Speaker 1: pretty creepy. Um, okay. What if it was one of
Speaker 1: your employees or a group of your employees dancing and
Speaker 1: this guy gets up close and starts grinding with these people?
Speaker 1: I would I would have done something very similar. And
Speaker 1: I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum with you
Speaker 1: when it comes to political All right, stay right there,
Speaker 1: you're a liberal. We'll get back to you. Tom in Chicago,
Speaker 1: what would you do? I'd stay off to dance floor.
Speaker 1: She wants to dance. Let her dance, so I should
Speaker 1: just ignore the creepy guy. That's right. Thank you. Tom
Speaker 1: Matt in New York. What do you think? Yes, Sean,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna agree with you, but I do sympathize with
Speaker 1: one d given the fact that I do. I do
Speaker 1: live in the city, and I have been on the
Speaker 1: six train at eight am. Thank you much. A different story.
Speaker 1: You can't dance your way to any other place there.
Speaker 1: It's like you pack like a sardine. Hang on there,
Speaker 1: Steve in San Diego, what do you say? Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: standing back until Lindy gives me the look and then
Speaker 1: I'm coming that great. Oh that's funny. Scott and Milwaukee,
Speaker 1: what do you say. My guess is I'm gonna wait
Speaker 1: till I get the wrong look and then I'm out
Speaker 1: of there. Oh, then you're out there. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I was nice about it, you know, I just said
Speaker 1: he he just squeezed his shoulder until he couldn't move
Speaker 1: his arm. No what I and he felt it, and
Speaker 1: I'm like, okay, knock it off. That's it, stand down,
Speaker 1: and then he went away. All right. Rob the liberal
Speaker 1: what's up, rob, How are you? I'm well, listen. I
Speaker 1: just want to let you know I'm um, I definitely
Speaker 1: am a liberal, and UM, I like to listen to
Speaker 1: a lot of different conservative radio hosts and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: So UM, I don't want you to think I'm you know,
Speaker 1: bashing you anything in particular, but listen, I can. I've
Speaker 1: been at this thirty years. You're not the first go ahead. UM.
Speaker 1: My question is everything that's going on you were talking
Speaker 1: about earlier with you know the Hillary Hillary Clinton, you
Speaker 1: know UM situation, and you know everything Barack Obama has done.
Speaker 1: I want to know, do you have any insight on
Speaker 1: things that the conservatives or Republicans have done that has Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you listen to my program more regularly, you know,
Speaker 1: I have nothing but contempt for how weak the majority
Speaker 1: of Republicans are. I mean, I'm angry that they made
Speaker 1: a promise for seven years and had sixty five show
Speaker 1: votes about repealing and replacing Obamacare, and about a hundred
Speaker 1: of them bailed when they had a real opportunity to
Speaker 1: do it. I'm angry at this. You know, Republican senators
Speaker 1: that said they voted in twenty fifteen and repeal when
Speaker 1: it wouldn't count Obamacare, and then the same bill in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen. You know, seven of them change their votes,
Speaker 1: you know, and I you know, I can't stand that
Speaker 1: they care more about their power or perceived power and
Speaker 1: getting reelected than they do serving the American people and
Speaker 1: fighting for the promises they make. That's why I love
Speaker 1: the Freedom Caucus so much. You know, you ask me
Speaker 1: who I like in Congress. I like Meadows Jordan and
Speaker 1: his team. There's a few senators I like. I do
Speaker 1: like Ted Cruz. I like Senator Rampaul, although we disagree
Speaker 1: on some issues. It's a great civil libertarian. There are
Speaker 1: a few people I like. The only thing McConnell does well,
Speaker 1: it seems, are justices. That's it. He pisses me off.
Speaker 1: More than that I can praise him. I mean, I
Speaker 1: like I'm a conservative. I like the tax cuts of
Speaker 1: the president, the judicial choices that he promised. I like
Speaker 1: him fighting to secure the borders. I like the economic
Speaker 1: growth by ending burden some regulation and giving us the
Speaker 1: biggest tax cut in history. I like that he takes
Speaker 1: on a little rocket man and everybody freaks out. I
Speaker 1: like that he got out of the Raining deal. You know,
Speaker 1: all this talk about Russia. There's been no president in
Speaker 1: twenty years as tough as Donald Trump on Russia. It's
Speaker 1: such a joke. So I'm a conservative, I'm not a Republican,
Speaker 1: and I can't stand that they don't fight for what
Speaker 1: they promise. I hate it. Tom Shica, what's up, Tom?
Speaker 1: How are you? Hey? Thank you? I guess you keep
Speaker 1: mentioning the game of eight and the three O twos
Speaker 1: and who I wish you could explain that a little
Speaker 1: bit further. So I have more information regarding what those
Speaker 1: issues are. I'll tell you what. I can put it
Speaker 1: up on our site Monday, but I'll give you the
Speaker 1: short version of a three O two. Let's say, in
Speaker 1: the case of Bruce Orr and Christopher Steel, their conversations,
Speaker 1: all of those are recorded, and so there are real
Speaker 1: conversations in real time. And what my sources have been
Speaker 1: saying for a long time is when we get the
Speaker 1: FBI three O twos, which is just a form number,
Speaker 1: in other words, the descriptions of contacts and phone calls
Speaker 1: between the very key individual people that we've been following,
Speaker 1: they will be extraordinarily revealing. There's also a question as
Speaker 1: to you know, when you know, as it relates to
Speaker 1: certain items, why certain three O twos were filled out
Speaker 1: months later and was there or an original copy that
Speaker 1: was then changed out for a newer copy so it
Speaker 1: would make them look good. Gang of Eight is a
Speaker 1: certain group of Republicans and it was information very damning
Speaker 1: to the upper echelon FBI people that we said that
Speaker 1: would expose that they even knew about their own corruption.
Speaker 1: And they have been desperately fighting DJ people, desperately fighting
Speaker 1: to prevent that from becoming public. Does that help? That's
Speaker 1: a short version. Does that help? Now? That's that's great.
Speaker 1: I will get to the website and getting further and
Speaker 1: the FISA applications will come to There's a lot and
Speaker 1: they're going to be very revealing and revealing in the
Speaker 1: sense that everything we've been telling you for two plus
Speaker 1: years is true. All right, that's gonna wrap things up.
Speaker 1: On this Passover, on this Good Friday, and on this
Speaker 1: Passover weekend, this Easter weekend. I just want to take
Speaker 1: a moment, and you know what, we are all blessed.
Speaker 1: We live in the greatest, freest, best country God has
Speaker 1: ever given man. And I know times, holidays, family, whatever
Speaker 1: you become more reflective, and I just want to thank
Speaker 1: all of you because you make this show possible. Have
Speaker 1: a great passover, great Easter weekend. We'll be back here
Speaker 1: on Monday. Thanks for being with us.